Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 12 of 12
Full-Text Articles in Law
Sackett V. Environmental Protection Agency, Meridian Wappett
Sackett V. Environmental Protection Agency, Meridian Wappett
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In 2007, the Sacketts began developing a property a few hundred feet from Priest Lake in Northern Idaho by filling their lot with gravel. The EPA determined the lot constituted a federally protected wetland under the WOTUS definition because the lot was near a ditch that fed into a creek flowing into Priest Lake, a navigable intrastate lake. The EPA halted the construction. The Sacketts sued the EPA, arguing the CWA did not apply to their property. The Supreme Court held that the CWA did not apply to the Sacketts property because the CWA only covers wetlands and streams that …
Kloker V. Fort Peck Tribes, Hallee Kansman
Kloker V. Fort Peck Tribes, Hallee Kansman
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Kloker v. Fort Peck Tribes investigates and deciphers the application of the Indian canons of construction to the congressional formation and establishment of the Fort Peck reservation in Montana. In general, courts interpret congressional acts creating reservations through the lens of the tribal-federal government trust relationship. Although this case examines different substantive models of legal interpretation and theories of water law, the ultimate dispute is textual in nature—questioning the plain language of the establishment legislation itself.
Navajo Nation V. Department Of The Interior, Jaclyn R. Van Natta
Navajo Nation V. Department Of The Interior, Jaclyn R. Van Natta
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Navajo Nation v. Department of the Interior, the Navajo Nation challenged the Department of the Interior’s 2001 and 2008 water allocation guidelines and asserted that under NEPA and the APA the guidelines violated the Navajo Nation’s water rights. The Navajo Nation also asserted a breach of trust claim against the United States. After nearly a decade of attempted settlement negotiations, the Navajo Nation reasserted its complaints. The District Court for the District of Arizona denied the Navajo Nation’s motions, and the Navajo Nation appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which determined the Navajo Nation lacked standing, …
Whatcom County V. Hirst, Et Al, Stephanie A. George
Whatcom County V. Hirst, Et Al, Stephanie A. George
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Upending decades of common practice in water management and building in the state of Washington, the Washington Supreme Court found Whatcom County violated the state’s Growth Management Act. Whatcom County used the Department of Ecology’s Nooksack Rule in evaluating permits for buildings and subdivisions that rely on permit-exempt wells. This decision affects families across the state of Washington.
United States V. Barthelmess Ranch Corp., Jonah P. Brown
United States V. Barthelmess Ranch Corp., Jonah P. Brown
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Application of water to a beneficial use is the decisive element of a perfected water right in Montana. The BLM claimed rights to five reservoirs and one natural pothole under Montana law. The agency did not own livestock, but instead made the water available to grazing permittees. In United States v. Barthelmess Ranch Corp., the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the Montana Water Court’s holding that the BLM’s practice of making water available to others constituted a beneficial use and a perfected water right.
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe V. U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers, Jody D. Lowenstein
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe V. U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers, Jody D. Lowenstein
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Standing Rock Sioux’s effort to enjoin the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ permitting of an oil pipeline was stifled by the United States District Court of the District of Columbia. In denying the preliminary injunction, the court held that the Tribe failed to show that the Corps violated the National Historic Preservation Act, and that the Tribe’s belated effort to litigate was futile after failing to participate in the consultation process.
The Clark Fork Coalition V. Tubbs, Jonah P. Brown
The Clark Fork Coalition V. Tubbs, Jonah P. Brown
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Before landowners may appropriate groundwater in Montana, they must first apply for a DNRC permit pursuant to the Montana Water Use Act. Landowners may qualify for an exemption from the arduous permitting process if their appropriation meets certain criteria. However, the Act provides an exception to the exemption when a “combined appropriation” from the same source is in excess of ten acre-feet per year. The Clark Fork Coalition v. Tubbs affirmed the district court’s invalidation of the DNRC rule defining “combined appropriation” to only include physically connected groundwater wells.
United States Army Corps Of Engineers V. Hawkes Co., Jonah Brown
United States Army Corps Of Engineers V. Hawkes Co., Jonah Brown
Public Land & Resources Law Review
When landowners seek to determine if a permit is required from the Army Corps of Engineers to discharge dredged or fill material into waters within their property boundaries, they may first obtain a jurisdictional determination specifying whether “waters of the United States” are present. In an 8-0 judgment, Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes was a victory for landowners, concluding that an approved jurisdictional determination is a final agency action reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act.
In Re Crow Water Compact, Ariel E. Overstreet-Adkins
In Re Crow Water Compact, Ariel E. Overstreet-Adkins
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In re Crow Water Compact is the second appeal from the Crow Water Compact, agreed upon by the Settling Parties to distribute and manage water rights amongst themselves. The decision upholds the negotiated Compact for the second time, affirming the Montana Water Court’s decision granting summary judgment to the Settling Parties over objections by the Objectors and approving the Compact by a final order. This decision represents the last step in a process, started in 1979, to define and quantify the reserved water rights for current and future uses of the Crow Nation in Montana.
Natural Resources Defense Council V. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Erick A. Valencia
Natural Resources Defense Council V. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Erick A. Valencia
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, the court was asked to review the EPA’s Vessel General Permit that set limits on the discharge of pollutants in a ship’s ballast water. Ballast water discharge has become one of the major contributors to the spread of invasive species, especially in the Great Lakes where short voyages allow organisms to easily survive in ballast water. The EPA’s lack of information was a problem of its own making because it prohibited the Science Advisory Board and National Academy of Sciences from adequately exploring available technology before setting the effluent …
Crow Tribe Of Indians – Montana Compact, Ariel E. Overstreet-Adkins
Crow Tribe Of Indians – Montana Compact, Ariel E. Overstreet-Adkins
Public Land & Resources Law Review
This order from the Montana Water Court approved the Crow Water Compact over objections by non-tribal water users in Montana. Although the Objectors have appealed the decision to the Montana Supreme Court, this order represents the next-to-last step in a process, started in 1979, to define and quantify the reserved water rights for current and future uses of the Crow Nation in Montana. The order provides a clear roadmap for other Montana tribes still seeking to achieve approval of a water compact by the Montana Water Court, and for objectors who would attempt to invalidate a compact in future proceedings.
Public Lands Access Association V. Board Of County Commissioners Of Madison County, Graham Coppes
Public Lands Access Association V. Board Of County Commissioners Of Madison County, Graham Coppes
Public Land & Resources Law Review
On January 16, 2014, the Supreme Court of Montana reversed and remanded a district court decision that had foreclosed the public’s right to access the Ruby River. The Court held that the right of way was a public prescriptive easement, which extended beyond the road surface itself to include such area as necessary for the county to maintain the road in the interest of the public. Furthermore, the Court concluded that once a public right-of-way is established by prescriptive use, the scope of current and future use of such an easement is not limited to those historic adversarial practices which …