Navajo Nation v. United States Department of the Interior
Docket: No. CV-03-00507-PCT-GMS
Court: District Court, D. Arizona; July 22, 2014; Federal District Court
Multiple motions are pending before the Court, including motions to dismiss from various defendants, specifically the Federal Defendants (U.S. Department of the Interior and associated agencies), the State of Arizona, and several water districts, with the Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss being granted while the others are deemed moot.
The plaintiff, the Navajo Nation, is a federally recognized tribe with the largest reservation in the U.S., spanning over 13 million acres across Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. Established by a treaty in 1868 and expanded by subsequent legal instruments, the reservation is adjacent to the Colorado River, with this case focusing on its Lower Basin lands in Arizona.
The Navajo Nation argues that the establishment of the reservation implicitly reserved sufficient water rights to ensure the land remains a viable homeland for its people. This creates a trust relationship with the U.S. government, obligating it to protect the Nation's land and necessary water resources. The Nation alleges that the U.S. has failed to uphold this trust by not clarifying or asserting its water rights concerning the Colorado River, despite requests for action from the Department of the Interior.
The Nation claims its rights are supported by the legal precedent set in Winters v. United States, which established that when the federal government reserves land for a purpose, it implicitly reserves the water necessary for that purpose.
The United States holds a reserved right to unappropriated water, effective from the date of reservation, which takes precedence over future appropriators' rights and is unaffected by non-use. This principle extends to Indian reservations. In a 1952 lawsuit, Arizona claimed water rights from the lower Colorado River, prompting the United States to intervene and assert federally reserved Winters water rights for various entities, including the Nation, specifically regarding the Little Colorado River. However, the Supreme Court's 1963 Opinion affirmed that conflicting claims to the Little Colorado River would not be adjudicated in the Arizona v. California litigation, leaving the Nation's claim unaddressed. Subsequently, the 1964 Decree assigned the Secretary responsibility for allocating Colorado River water among the Lower Basin States (California, Arizona, Nevada) and determining user deliveries under the Boulder Canyon Project Act. The Nation contests several actions taken by the Secretary, including the Surplus Guidelines Record of Decision and the Final Environmental Impact Statement, which established criteria for assessing surplus water availability for use in those states.
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Colorado River Interim Guidelines establishes management protocols for Lake Powell and Lake Mead during low reservoir and drought conditions. It was informed by the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), which evaluated five alternatives for these guidelines. The Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, also developed an Implementation Agreement FEIS to ensure California's water delivery from the Colorado River aligns with specific agreements and includes a payback policy for excess usage under the Boulder Canyon Project Act. Regulations allowing offstream storage of Colorado River water entitlements were adopted, facilitating interstate water banking agreements between Nevada and Arizona.
The Navajo Nation contends that the U.S. has failed to ascertain the extent of its water rights under the Winters doctrine, leading to a management approach that jeopardizes the availability of Colorado River water necessary for the Nation's rights and needs. The Nation argues that the reliance established by these actions benefits other entities at the expense of its water claims, complicating future allocations to satisfy its rights. The U.S. acknowledges the Nation's reserved water rights but asserts its efforts to aid the Nation in acquiring water through the San Juan Settlement and ongoing adjudication of the Little Colorado River System, suggesting that more mainstream water may be accessible if parties reach a settlement under the Arizona Water Settlements Act.
Claims One, Two, Three, and Five assert that the Federal Defendants violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in managing Lower Basin water flows. Claim One contends that the Surplus Guidelines' implementation fails NEPA and APA standards by not adequately considering the Nation's rights and needs for mainstream water, rendering the process arbitrary and not legally compliant. Claim Two similarly criticizes the Shortage Guidelines for falsely claiming consideration of Indian water rights without accounting for the Nation's needs. Claim Three targets the Implementation Agreement FEIS for its inadequate review of the Nation's water rights. Claim Five charges that the Storage and Release Agreement neglected to consider the Nation's unquantified water rights, undermining legal compliance.
Claim Four alleges that the Interstate Banking Regulations violate the APA by failing to safeguard the Nation's water rights, allowing non-Nation entitlement holders to store water, which could detrimentally affect the Nation's interests. Claim Seven claims that the U.S. breached its fiduciary duty by not determining the extent of the Nation's water rights necessary for its permanent homeland.
The Federal Defendants have moved to dismiss all claims, arguing that the Nation lacks standing for Claims One through Five and has not identified a specific enforceable trust obligation for Claim Seven. Various Defendant-Intervenors have also filed motions to dismiss, alongside motions from the Hopi Tribe to intervene and dismiss.
Jurisdiction in federal court is contingent upon subject matter authorized by the Constitution or statute, as established in Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t and Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. A defendant can challenge jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) at any time, employing either a facial attack, which claims the complaint fails to invoke federal jurisdiction, or a factual attack, which disputes the truth of the allegations that would support jurisdiction.
To establish Article III standing for injunctive relief, a plaintiff must demonstrate a concrete and particularized "injury in fact" that is actual and imminent, traceable to the defendant's actions, and likely to be redressed by a favorable ruling. The Nation claims injury due to contested administrative actions, asserting it has reserved water rights from the establishment of the Navajo Reservation. Despite asserting these rights, the Nation notes that the United States has not adjudicated or quantified them regarding the Colorado River in the Lower Basin. The Nation does not dispute the Federal Defendants' claim that the priority of these rights remains unaffected by the challenged actions, as these rights were established between 1868 and 1964, predating the contested actions. Moreover, under the Winters doctrine, priority is maintained despite non-use. The Nation contends that the challenged actions regulate third-party activities without accommodating the Nation’s water rights, potentially causing injury by fostering reliance on water resources that are claimed by the Nation.
Reliance on Colorado River water allocations complicates the Navajo Nation's efforts to assert its water rights. In Claims One, Two, Three, and Five, the Nation alleges procedural violations under NEPA, requiring proof of three elements for Article III standing: (1) Defendants violated procedural rules, (2) these rules protect the Nation's concrete interests, and (3) there is a reasonable probability that the challenged actions threaten those interests. The Court assumes, for argument's sake, that some NEPA procedural rules were violated and that the Nation has an interest in Lower Basin water. However, the Nation fails to demonstrate a reasonable probability of injury, as it only claims that the actions create a reliance system that complicates satisfying its water rights, without explaining how this reliance would actually harm its interests. Consequently, the Nation does not establish the necessary standing for these claims.
In Claim Four, alleging that Interstate Banking Regulations violate the APA, the Nation must still prove injury for Article III standing. Similar to the previous claims, it argues that the regulations could lead to a reliance system for other entitlement holders on the Nation's water. However, the Nation does not provide sufficient facts to show that this potential injury is actual or imminent rather than hypothetical. As such, standing is not established for Claim Four either.
The Nation's Claim Seven alleges a breach of fiduciary trust by the Federal Defendants, asserting that the Department has not adequately assessed the Navajo Nation's water rights to the Colorado River or determined its water needs from the Lower Basin. The Nation seeks an injunction against further breaches of the trust responsibility. It contends that its claim is not based on the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), citing a general trust responsibility owed by the United States to Indian tribes. The Ninth Circuit holds that such trust obligations are met by the government’s compliance with general regulations unless a specific duty exists regarding Indian rights.
The Nation references the Colorado River Compact of 1922, claiming it establishes a specific trust obligation, but the document merely recognizes pre-existing rights without imposing new duties. The Nation fails to identify any specific duty owed to it before or after the Compact that would substantiate its breach of trust claim. Although it is acknowledged that the United States has a trust responsibility to the Nation consistent with the Winters doctrine, the Nation was not allocated any water rights in the Lower Basin as a result of Arizona v. California, and it does not demonstrate any duty requiring the inclusion of potential future interests in water regulation.
Additionally, the claim must overcome the barrier of sovereign immunity. To pursue Claim Seven or any similar claims against the Federal Defendants, the Nation must establish a clear waiver of sovereign immunity, which must be explicitly stated in statutory text. The burden is on the Nation to prove such a waiver exists, as defined in relevant case law.
A waiver of the Government’s sovereign immunity is interpreted narrowly, favoring the sovereign. The Nation seeks relief under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 701-06, but claims Claim Seven falls outside the APA's scope. The APA waives sovereign immunity for certain actions against the Federal Government, allowing for relief other than monetary damages if a claim involves an agency's official actions. Section 704 allows judicial review of final agency actions lacking adequate court remedies. The Ninth Circuit has ruled that the 704 limitation does not affect 702's waiver for some constitutional claims, though no constitutional claims are present in this case. The APA also permits challenges to agency inaction under 5 U.S.C. 706(1), but the Nation does not assert such claims. Claim Seven seeks relief against the United States but does not contest any final agency action or involve constitutional issues, hence it does not fall within the APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity and is barred. The Nation's request for a broader interpretation of the APA to include general breach of trust claims is denied. Additionally, the Nation fails to identify any other waiver of sovereign immunity for Claim Seven, leading to its dismissal. The Court finds that the Plaintiff lacks standing for Claims One through Five and has withdrawn Claim Six, resulting in a lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the Second Amended Complaint, which is dismissed without prejudice. Other pending motions are deemed moot.
The court granted the Motion to Dismiss filed by the defendants, which include the United States Department of the Interior and various bureaus. Motions to dismiss by the State of Arizona and other defendant-intervenors were denied as moot. The plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk of Court was instructed to terminate the action and enter judgment. The Nation voluntarily withdrew its Sixth Claim for Relief. To establish standing for a suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a plaintiff must demonstrate final agency action adversely affecting them and that they suffer legal wrong or fall within the zone of interests of the violated statutory provision. The court found that the Nation failed to establish Article III standing for its APA/NEPA claims, thus not requiring further examination of statutory standing criteria. The court refrained from commenting on the possibility of a breach of trust claim against the United States under different factual circumstances.
