Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources
Native American Resources Committee
Highlights
Department of Energy Seeks Information on Renewable Energy in Indian Country
The Department of Energy (DOE) Tribal Energy Program has issued a request for information (RFI). In the RFI, DOE seeks information from Tribes and other parties interested in the deployment of renewable energy in Indian Country in the contiguous 48 states. The purpose of the RFI is to determine barriers to renewable energy deployment in Indian Country and the most beneficial and efficient ways for DOE to help accelerate the deployment of renewable energy in Indian Country. Information will be used by DOE for internal planning and decision making related to future activities of the Tribal Energy Program.
Responses should be submitted via email and will not be considered confidential. DOE is seeking responses by February 28, 2009. However, if Tribes request an extension, then DOE will extend the deadline for responses to the end of March.
For additional information and a copy of the RFI, please visit http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy/rfi_0901.cfm
Funding Opportunity for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Deployment in Indian Country
Department of Energy (DOE) Tribal Energy Program is seeking applications for funding from federally recognized tribes, tribal consortia, Alaska Native villages or regional or village corporations, and Tribal Energy Resource Development Organizations. Eligible projects include: (1) installation of efficiency improvements to existing tribally owned buildings; (2) preconstruction activities for renewable energy projects; and (3) construction of renewable energy systems for power production.
The submittal deadline is April 1, 2009. For additional information and a copy of the funding application, please visit: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy/government_grants.cfm#Tribal
US Supreme Court to Hear Argument in State of Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs
On February 25, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for State of Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, No. 07-1372. In this case the Court will review a decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court which prohibits the State from selling any state-owned land until it reaches a political settlement with Native Hawaiians.
At issue are competing claims to 1.2 million acres of state land – twenty-nine percent of the State’s total land area – and the duty owed to Native Hawaiians by the State. This case arose when the State sought to develop and sell as a residential property a 500-acre parcel of land in West Maui, called the “Leiali’i parcel.” Negotiations between the State and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) regarding OHA’s compensation for the sale broke down and
OHA (along with several individual plaintiffs) filed suits in Hawaii state court, seeking: (1) an injunction prohibiting the State from selling any ceded land; and (2) an injunction barring the sale of the Leiali’i parcel specifically. In the alternative, they requested a declaration that any sale of the lands would violate the state constitution and the federal Admission Act, or at a minimum would not release or limit the claims of Native Hawaiians.
The trial court denied relief on multiple grounds: waiver, collateral estoppel, sovereign immunity, ripeness, and the political question doctrine. The court also held that the State had express authority to alienate ceded land from the public trust. On appeal, the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed, and ordered that an injunction be issued to require the State, as trustee, to preserve the ceded lands until the claims to them are resolved. The State filed for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. Seven amicus briefs were filed in support of the State, including a brief by the United States. Ten amicus briefs were filed in support of OHA.
For additional information on the case, please visit: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/argument-preview-hawaii-v-office-of-hawaiian-affairs/.
Update on the Federal Stimulus Bill and Indian Country
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (aka the Stimulus Bill) contains several provisions which may benefit Tribes and those working in Indian Country. Listed below are some of the programs and the funding amounts that are specifically set-aside for tribal funding on environmental and energy issues.
$60 million for Tribal Clean Water Grants. The legislation appropriates $4 Billion for State Revolving Funds under the Water Pollution Control Act, of which 1.5% is set aside for tribal grants.
$30 million for Tribal Drinking Water Grants. The legislation appropriates $2 Billion for State Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, of which 1.5% is set aside for tribal grants. Up to 4% may be transferred to the Indian Health Service to support management and oversight of tribal projects.
$1.12 million for Tribal Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants. The legislation appropriates $56 million for Grants, of which 2% is set aside for tribal grants.
$10 million for the Indian Loan Guarantee Program for Indian-owned businesses.
$10 million to Community Development Financial Institutions for financial assistance, technical assistance, training, and outreach programs that benefit tribal communities. $2 million of the allocated amount may be used for administrative expenses.
For additional information on the Stimulus Bill and other programs that may benefit Tribes and those working in Indian Country, please visit the National Congress of American Indians’ Tribal Stimulus site at http://www.indiancountryworks.org/.
Stimulus Bill Provides Energy and Economic Development Bond Opportunities
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (aka the Stimulus Bill) authorized $1.6 billion for clean renewable energy bonds to finance facilities that generate electricity from wind, closed-loop biomass, open-loop biomass, geothermal, small irrigation, hydropower, landfill gas, marine renewable, and trash combustion facilities. One-third of the $1.6 billion is available to state, local and tribal governments for qualifying projects.
The Stimulus Bill also authorizes $2.4 billion in qualified energy conservation bonds to finance state, municipal and tribal government programs designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The bonds may be used to reduce energy consumption, research, education campaigns that promote energy efficiency and certain demonstration projects. Indian tribal governments will be treated as large local governments, without regard to population, and thus will receive a specific allocation.
Tribal governments are authorized under the Stimulus Bill to issue tax-exempt tribal economic development bonds. This is defined as a bond issued by a tribe: (1) the interest on which would be tax-exempt if issued by a state or local government; and (2) is designated by the tribe as a tribal economic development bond. The Stimulus Bill removes the current law restriction that tribes may issue tax-exempt bonds only if most of the proceeds are used for an “essential governmental function”. There is a national bond limitation of $2 billion that will be allocated by the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior.
Natural Resource Damage Assessment Regulations Amended
By Tim Seward and Dean Suagee, Hobbs, Straus, Dean & Walker
The Department of the Interior (DOI) recently issued a final rule amending the federal regulations describing how to conduct a natural resource damage assessment for hazardous substance releases under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act). 73 Fed. Reg. 192, p. 57259 (to be codified as amendments to 43 C.F.R. part 11). The targeted amendments to the Natural Resource Damage regulations should assist Indian tribes engaged in making such an assessment.
Natural resource damage assessments are conducted by government officials designated to act as "trustee" to bring claims on behalf of the public for the restoration of injured natural resources. If trustees determine, through an assessment, that hazardous substance releases have injured natural resources, they may pursue claims for damages against potentially responsible parties. Federal natural resources management agencies and designated state agencies, and Indian tribes may serve as a trustee and may bring natural resource damage claims. 43 C.F.R. § 11.14 (emphasis added). An Indian tribe may bring a claim and act as the trustee for natural resources located on lands "belonging to, managed by, controlled by, appertaining to, or held in trust for the benefit of such tribe, or belonging to a member of such tribe if such resources are subject to a trust restriction on alienation." CERCLA § 107(f)(1).
The primary change in this rule is to explicitly authorize trustees to use the cost of restoration activities (i.e. the cost of implementing a project or projects that restore, replace, or acquire the equivalent of natural resource services lost pending the restoration to baseline) to calculate the compensable interim losses. This revision clarifies that trustees have the option of using either the economic value of services lost pending restoration or the cost of projects that compensate for services lost pending restoration.
This revision may be important for tribes. When resources used by tribal members are involved, it may be harder to assess an economic value because the value to tribal members of lost natural resource may far exceed the commercial value of the resource. With this revision, rather than trying to assign a dollar value to a culturally important resource use, tribes and other trustees may propose a project(s) to benefit similar resources used by tribal members or provide tribal members with access to similar resources pending restoration. For example, to assess the compensable value of injured stream resources, a tribe may propose acquisition of another stream or projects to improve the stream resources on another stream that provides tribal members with natural resources services similar to those lost on the injured stream.
Posted 03/06/09Oral Argument Held at the US Supreme Court for Carcieri v. Kempthorne
The US Supreme Court’s decision in Carcieri v. Kempthorne could determine how tribes recognized after the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act are allowed to buy, govern and use land. In this case, the Narragansett Indian Tribe bought a 31-acre lot in 1991, saying it would be used for “economic development” and housing for the elderly and poor. However, the state of Rhode Island, fearing the Tribe really wants to create a tax-free zone or build a casino, sued to block the Narragansetts from putting the land into federal trust, which would essentially free it from state and local law. The Bush administration sides with the Tribe, arguing that the 1934 act allows it to take land into trust to benefit American Indians regardless of when the Tribe was recognized. Rhode Island and 21 other states want the Supreme Court to limit the Tribe’s authority because states lose control over tribal trust land within their own borders. They say trust lands can alter the character of surrounding communities, especially when casino income allows tribes to embark on major projects.
The issue debated before the US Supreme Court is: whether the Narrangansett Tribe may receive benefits under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 if the Tribe was not federally recognized on the date of enactment, and whether the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act foreclosed the Tribe’s right to exercise sovereignty over land in the state.
Documents, background and analysis available at: http://scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Carcieri_v._Kempthorne
Analysis of the oral argument available at: http://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2008/11/04/commentary-on-the-carcieri-oral-argument/#more-3622
Defendants Assert Rights of Cherokee Nation as Defense to Environmental Lawsuit
Tyson Foods Inc. and others claim the state of Oklahoma’s lawsuit regarding pollution of the Illinois River should be dismissed because the river is owned not by the state, but by the Cherokee Nation (which is not party to the case). Defendants claim the court cannot adjudicate the state’s claims without first determining who owns the Illinois River and its resources. The state has raised claims in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma based on nuisance, trespass, environmental and agricultural laws related to 13 poultry companies handling and disposal of poultry waste that has damaged portions of the Illinois River watershed. The Cherokee Nation has stated it has not filed the motion to dismiss and does not support the unconditional dismissal of the lawsuit. The Cherokee Nation is considering its options.
Additional information available at: http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1987664/
Posted 03/06/09Supreme Court to Review Indian Law Cases in Next Term
The US Supreme Court has granted certiorari to two Indian law cases. The cases are Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs and United States v. Navajo Nation. Additional information including links to the case briefs available at: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/todays-orders-10108/#more-7978.
Docket: 07-1372
Title: Hawaii, et al. v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, et al.
Issue: Whether a 1993 congressional resolution requires Hawaii to reach a political settlement with native Hawaiians before transferring some 1.2 million acres of state land.
Docket: 07-1410
Title: United States v. Navajo Nation
Issue: Whether the Court’s prior decision in United States v. Navajo Nation (2003) foreclosed a finding that the government breached fiduciary duties in connection with Indian coal lease amendments.
Posted 11/18/08
EPA Regional Offices Moving Forward on GHG Plans
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for greenhouse gases (GHGs), with comments due by November 28, 2008 (73 Fed. Reg. 44353 (July 30, 2008)). Some of the EPA regional offices are moving forward in developing internal GHG plans to be implemented during the next Presidential administration. For at least three such plans, Indian tribes are accounted for in future regional office actions concerning GHGs.
Five EPA regional offices (Regions 1, 5, 6, 8 and 9) are currently drafting plans focused on making GHG reductions, with such reductions under a future regulatory scheme either implemented legislatively or under the Clean Air Act. Some of those plans will involve outreach to Indian tribes. For example, the EPA Region 6 draft GHG plan specifically mentions Indian tribes in plan areas such as: implement internal changes in the Agency (e.g., lead by example); enhance programs and policies, and expand partnerships; conduct aggressive outreach and education to stakeholders; and assess new technologies and more effective ways of employing them with partners. The ability to comment on the draft plans varies by Region. For additional information see article at: http://www.ntec.org/.
Posted 11/18/08
Report Released on Federal Agency Implementation of NAGPRA
A report, “Federal Agency Implementation of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act” was recently released by the Makah Indian Tribe and the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers whose aim was to prepare a substantive foundation for assessing the implementation of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and identifying where improvements might be made. The report includes: historic information that describes one systemic effort that led to Native American ancestors and objects becoming separated from their local communities (Background section); original research, analysis of existing public information, and two national surveys conducted to determine how the Act is being implemented and how Federal agencies and Native Americans are working together to achieve the goals of the Act (Research Findings section); and Findings and Recommendations which reflect the current state of Federal agency compliance with the Act, as of May 2008.
A copy of the report may be obtained online at: http://www.nathpo.org/nagpra.html
Posted 10/14/08
Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Service (the Snowbowl Case) Reversed by En Banc Ruling of the Ninth Circuit
The majority of the Ninth Circuit Court, in an en banc ruling, found that using treated wastewater on the San Francisco Peaks in Arizona to make artificial snow does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and overturned a previous ruling that would have stopped use of wastewater on a mountain that is sacred to at least 13 formally recognized Indian tribes.
In February 2005, the US Forest Service issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision approving a proposal to make artificial snow using treated sewage effluent at the Snowbowl Resort located on Humphrey’s Peak, the highest of the San Francisco Peaks. The decision was appealed by the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the Havasupai Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation and the White Mountain Apache Nation. The Circuit Court issued a ruling for the Forest Service. In February 2007, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court unanimously overturned the lower court’s decision. On Friday, August 8, 2008, the en banc majority of the Ninth Circuit Court issued its ruling reversing the previous Ninth Circuit Court decision and finding that using treated sewage effluent to make artificial snow does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and that a supposed pleading mistake prevents the tribes from arguing under the National Environmental Act that the Forest Service failed to consider the likelihood that children and others would ingest snow made from the effluent.
A copy of the decision may be found at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DFEB53892B27DCEF8825749E007B1851/$file/0615371.pdf?openelement
An interview with the Navajo Nation's lead attorney in the case, Howard Shanker, is available at: http://www.truthout.org/article/do-native-americans-have-first-amendment-rights
Posted 10/14/08
U.S. Supreme Court Limits Tribal Jurisdiction Over Non-Indians
On June 25, 2008, a sharply divided United States Supreme Court (5-4) held in Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Company that the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court does not have jurisdiction over a claim by tribal members Ronnie and Lila Long that Plains Commerce Bank tortiously discriminated against them by selling fee lands within the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation to non-Indians on terms more favorable than the Bank offered to the Longs.
Throughout the suit, the bank asserted that the Tribal Court did not have jurisdiction over the claim. However, the Tribal Court, and later the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court of Appeals, U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, held that the Tribal Court had jurisdiction because of the consensual relationship between the Bank and the Long Company.
In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito, the Court characterized the dispute as concerning the regulation and sale of a fee land on a reservation, rather than one that affects a tribe's authority to regulate the activities of non-Indians on the reservation. Thus, the Court ruled that the Montana test exceptions were not satisfied.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent joined by Justices Souter, Breyer and Stevens. She said tribal courts are the proper place to resolve a dispute involving a non-Indian bank that voluntarily entered into a business agreement with tribal members.
A copy of the Supreme Court decision may be found at: www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-411.pdf
Posted 08/26/08
Five Federal Agencies to Work on Cleanup of Uranium Mines Across the Navajo Nation
In June 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent a multifaceted report to the House Committee of Oversight and Government Reform, titled ''Health and Environmental Impacts of Uranium Contamination in the Navajo Nation.'' The report details a coordination strategy among the EPA, the Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Indian Health Services (IHS) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) over the next five years to prevent the spread of radioactive contamination on sites across the Navajo Nation. A combined $161 million from the agency's budgets will be used in the short term, although the total cost is likely to be much more. The plan focuses on cleanup of the Northeast Church Rock Mine near Gallup, N.M., as well as a survey of structures and wells for contamination in other parts of the Navajo Nation. The agencies will work on assessing which of the more than 500 mines and structures are most contaminated and likely to cause the most harm to humans and the environment. The report was requested by Chairman Waxman and Ranking Member Davis, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, as a result of the October 2007 Hearing on the Health and Environmental Impacts of Uranium Contamination in the Navajo Nation.
A copy of the report may be found at: www.epa.gov/region09/waste/sfund/navajo-nation/pdf/NN-5-Year-Plan-June-12.pdf
Information on the Congressional Hearing is available at: http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1560
Posted 08/26/08
Navajo Nation Council Approved Act to Cleanup Hazardous Substances
The Navajo Nation Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (NNCERCLA) became law in March 2008. The legislation, serves the same purposes as the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), known as the Superfund law. The Act allows Navajo officials to monitor and remove all hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants on the reservation that could endanger the health and safety of residents. It also allows the Tribe to enter into agreements with private companies and federal or state agencies to clean up hazardous substances. The next step is development of regulations that would detail implementation of NNCERCLA and set the rate of a tariff that would fund the program. Officials expect to accomplish that within a year.
Posted 08/26/08
Upcoming National Tribal Conference on Environmental Management
The Eighth National Tribal Conference on Environmental Management (NTCEM) will be held in Billings, MT, June 24th through June 26th, 2008. This major event includes a wide variety of session topics and provides training opportunities that benefit human health and protect the environment in Indian country. The 8th NTCEM is being co-sponsored by EPA and the Montana/Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council. Additional information available at: http://www.ntcem8.org/.
Posted 06/03/08
BIA Requests Nominations for the Tribal Energy Policy Advisory Committee
The Department of the Interior’s Assistant Secretary–Indian Affairs is forming a Tribal Energy Policy Advisory Committee. The Committee, which will consist of tribal officials and Federal representatives, will provide advice on implementing regulations promulgated under the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act of 2005 and other Indian energy resource development matters. Nominations are requested by June 27, 2008, for tribal representatives from federally recognized Indian Tribes from all BIA regions except Alaska. Up to 11 tribal representatives will be selected. Additional information is available at 73 Fed. Reg. 27552 (May 13, 2008).
Posted 06/03/08
National Park Service’s Programmatic Agreement for Section 106 Compliance Open for Public Comment
The National Park Service (NPS) has been developing a new Nationwide Programmatic Agreement (PA) to address compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and implementing regulations. The PA will address activities within the national parks that may affect properties of historic or cultural significance. Comments on the new PA are due by June 20, 2008. Additional information is available at: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkId=461&projectId=13356&documentID=22916.
Posted 06/03/08
Polar Bear Declared a Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act
On May 15, 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published in the Federal Register notice that the polar bear would be listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The listing is based on the best available science, which shows that loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat. This loss of habitat puts polar bears at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future, the standard established by the ESA for designating a threatened species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is also proposing a 4(d) rule that states that if an activity is permissible under the stricter standards of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, it is also permissible under the ESA with respect to the polar bear. The Interim Final Rule for the polar bear under Section 4(d) of the ESA was also published in the Federal Register on May 15, 2008. Comments from interested parties will be accepted until July 14, 2008. Additional information is available at http://www.doi.gov/issues/polar_bears.html
Posted 06/03/08
EPA Launches New Tribal Portal Web site
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched the first-of-its-kind portal website to help the tribal community and the public find tribal environmental information and data through a single web-based access point. The new tribal portal site allows EPA to consolidate and share environmental information through a central, easy-to-navigate structure. Various EPA programs, such as enforcement, waste, underground storage tanks and water, are also consolidating their tribal information through this website. Visit the tribal portal: http://www.epa.gov/tribalportal/.
Posted 08/08/07
Federal Agencies Sign Agreements on Tribal Access to Water Infrastructure
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and four other federal agencies signed two important tribal infrastructure agreements to improve water infrastructure on tribal lands and focus efforts to increase access to safe drinking water and basic wastewater facilities to tribes. The first agreement promotes coordination between federal tribal infrastructure programs and financial services. The second agreement was created to improve access to safe drinking water and wastewater facilities on tribal lands. The agreements were signed by EPA, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Additional information at: http://www.epa.gov/tribalportal/mous.htm.
Posted 08/08/07
Comments on the EPAct Section 1813 Report Available Online
Comments received by the Department of Interior and Department of Energy on the revised Draft Report to Congress: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 1813 Indian Land Rights-of-Way Study and accompanying appendix, Historic Rates of Compensation for Rights-of-Way Crossing Indian Lands, 1948-2006 are available online:
http://1813.anl.gov/documents/docs/draftcomments/index.cfm
Posted 04/09/07
The California Indian Energy Symposium; January 30 & 31
San Francisco State University, San Francisco
Program summary from the San Francisco State University website: http://www.sfsu.edu/~cies/
Rotating black-outs and questionable financial practices have made the energy crisis in California well-known. It has impacted virtually every aspect of California's legislative debates, economy, and development requirements and it continues to effect all aspects of debates over the immediacy of energy development needs and the long-term challenges for responsible use and conservation.
What is not well-understood is how these issues impact California Indian tribes. What challenges do the tribes confront in meeting their current energy needs and in planning responsibly for the future? What kinds of partnerships with state agencies and among tribes are currently available and possible? What specific conservation plans have been working for tribes in California and neighboring states? What kinds of renewable energy options and rebates are available from the state of California and federal agencies? How can tribes become better self-sufficient in their energy use, development, and conservation plans?
The California Indian Energy Symposium will address both the legal and economic issues confronting California Indians in light of not only state policy and programs but the national energy crisis. It will offer a forum for discussion about and practical assistance in tribal energy development, including attention to what is already working for tribes and what specific programs can be more fully taken advantage of by tribes.
The symposium will include an overview of pertinent national and state energy law to provide tribes with the legal and regulatory framework that they need to understand the energy arena in both the US and California. The symposium will also include a review of specific California state programs and opportunities that are available to tribes for renewable energy, conservation, and upgrades. Several representatives from state agencies will be present to discuss these programs and share their expertise on the practical options and funding available to tribes to generate electricity, secure funding and rebates for responsible energy use, and develop alternative energy sources. The overall goal of the symposium is to provide a forum for open discussion of energy issues and concrete assistance to tribes on responsible energy and economic energy related development.
Posted 01/16/04
Supreme Court Rules in Inyo County Case
Posted 05/22/03
Supreme Court Breach of Trust Cases
Press Release: New Mexico Files Brief In Inyo County Case
Attorney General Madrid and Governor Richardson Join U.S. Supreme Court Legal Battle
(Santa Fe, NM) New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid and Governor Bill Richardson are filing a friend of the court brief before the U. S. Supreme Court in a case brought by a California Indian tribe against a California Sheriff's department. Joining New Mexico in this brief are Washington State Attorney General Christine Gregoire, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard and Montana Attorney General Michael McGrath.
"In New Mexico, the experience is one of Tribes and State and local authorities working together for the mutual benefit of all New Mexicans. The California law enforcement agency in this case raised a specter of Indian reservations becoming havens for criminals. Our legal brief informs the United States Supreme Court about the level of cooperation between Indian Tribes and the States of New Mexico, Washington, Arizona, and Montana with respect to law enforcement matters that cross state tribal borders. The experience of our states is in sharp contrast to the portrayal in the sheriff's brief. We must object to the sheriff's generalization from its experience with the Paiute-Shoshone Indians to other states. New Mexico's experience has been one of mutual respect between the State and Tribes," Attorney General Madrid said.
"It is important that the U.S. Supreme Court be told the whole story about tribal-state relations. In New Mexico, we do not use bolt cutters and search warrants against Indian tribes to conduct our criminal investigations," Governor Bill Richardson said. "We have had great success using intergovernmental agreements with Indian tribes to ensure that there is adequate law enforcement for all New Mexicans. We felt compelled to bring to the Supreme Court's attention the reality that states and tribes do work together cooperatively and share the same interest of protecting their citizens and bringing criminals to justice. The filing of this amicus curiae brief is unprecedented and long overdue. I am proud that New Mexico is at the forefront of this issue and that our sister states of Montana, Washington and Arizona have joined us."
Governor Denny Gutierrez, who is in his fourth term as Governor of the Pueblo of Santa Clara, said today that he had "nothing but praise and gratitude for the courageous action" by New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid and Governor Bill Richardson in filing a brief on behalf of the State in the Inyo County case in the United States Supreme Court.
"The Supreme Court needs to hear from those states like New Mexico, that have established many constructive, positive relationships with the tribes within their borders by means of intergovernmental agreements, in the areas of law enforcement, assessment and collection of taxes, and others," said Santa Clara Pueblo Governor Denny Gutierrez. "I am very gratified that New Mexico has taken the lead among the states in undertaking this unprecedented filing, and I congratulate Attorney General Madrid and Governor Richardson. And I am confident that this gesture will not only be highly persuasive to the Court, but also will greatly improve state-tribal relations in New Mexico for some time to come, as it demonstrates that New Mexico really takes its relationships with the tribes seriously."
Santa Ana Pueblo Governor Myron Armijo said "We are amazed and very pleased at the truly historic action of Attorney General Patricia Madrid and Gov. Bill Richardson, in taking the lead in filing this brief," Gov. Armijo said. "Although we have certainly had our differences with the State from time to time, it is true that New Mexico has been a leader in dealing with the Tribes within its borders on a government-to-government basis, and that attitude of mutual respect has ultimately been to the benefit of all New Mexicans."
"The Pueblo of Laguna applauds this historic gesture by the State of New Mexico in support of tribal sovereignty and constructive tribal-state relations. The State's brief strongly demonstrates that the State of New Mexico understands that is better for all of us when we work together on issues of mutual concern," said Governor Roland Johnson of the Pueblo of Laguna.
The case before the U.S. Supreme Court is Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians.
Posted 03/05/03
Distinguishing the Supreme Court decision in Dept. of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users Assn., 532 U.S. 1 (2001), a U.S. Magistrate Judge in New Mexico ruled on December 2nd that documents prepared by a BIA consultant in connection with an adjudication of Indian reserved rights were exempt from disclosure under Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act. Ruling for the court in Citizens Progressive Alliance v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Civ. No. 01-1044, the judge found that the documents qualified as inter-agency or intra-agency documents within the meaning of FOIA Exemption 5, and that the sharing of these documents by a Justice Dept. attorney with an attorney for the Southern Ute Tribe did not waive any privileges, including the attorney-cleint privilege. To View the full version of this case via pdf
Indian law experts panel discuss breach of trust cases
Posted 01/13/03
U.S. v. Navajo Nation and U.S. v. White Mountain Apache Tribe in the U.S. Supreme Court: When is the Government Liable for Breach of Trust in the Management of Indian-Owned Natural Resources?
On December 3, 2002, the ABA Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources, Native American Resources Committee partnered with the Georgetown University Law Center and the D.C. Chapter of the Native American Bar Association to present a web cast Program. This webcast can be viewed from the Georgetown University Law Center web site at http://www.law.georgetown.edu/sci/events/2002/1203/.
President Bush Proclaims November National American Indian Heritage Month
Posted 11/15/02
Skull Valley - Environ Justice Decision
On October 1, 2002, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ruled that the 1994 Executive Order on Environmental Justice may not be raised by tribal dissidents to oppose a license application on the ground that the tribal leadership is not fairly distributing the revenues from the project to be licensed. The NRC held: "Our agency's environmental decision-making under NEPA does not require us to intervene in what is, at bottom, a political dispute inside the Skull Valley Band." The Commission also held that the fact that the Skull Valley Band intervened in the licensing proceeding did not waive its tribal sovereign immunity.
Posted 10/31/02
Norton Summit on Tribal Economies
Posted 9-25-02
