Nation v. DOI - Case Summary
Nation v. DOI - Case Summary
2017)
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Navajo Nation v. Dep’t. of the Interior, 876 F.3d 1144, 1152 (9th
Cir. 2017).
2. Id.
3. Id. (The Surplus Guidelines were promulgated in 2001 and the
Shortage Guidelines in 2008).
4. Id.
5. Id. at 1157.
6. Id.
7. Id.
8. Id. at 1156.
2 PUBLIC LAND & RESOURCES LAW REVIEW Vol. 0
The seven states in the Colorado River basin formed the 1922
Compact (“Compact”) to ensure that the Colorado River was a regular,
dependable source of water.12 The Compact divided the seven affected
states of the Colorado River into the upper and lower basin.13 Lower basin
states included Arizona, California, and Nevada.14 The terms of the
Compact entitled the lower basin states to 7.5 million acre-feet of water
per year (“mafy”). It also ensured that the rights within the states would
not change, and the United States’ fiduciary duty to the tribes would not
be altered.15
The introduction of the Boulder Canyon Project Act (“BCPA”) in
1928 set into motion the construction of the Hoover Dam to improve water
allocation in shortage years.16 In 1929, BCPA became effective after the
upper and lower basin states, with the exception of Arizona, ratified the
Compact.17 Because Arizona failed to ratify the Compact, the mafy
numbers previously negotiated under the Compact did not become
immediately effective.18 However, the Compact authorized the Secretary
to enter into water contracts with California, Arizona, and Nevada, which
held them to their 4.4, 2.8, and 0.3 mafy allotments, respectively.19 Water
allotment disputes continued between California and Arizona, until
Arizona sued California in 1952.20 Out of this dispute came the 1964
Decree, which reaffirmed the BCPA mafy numbers for California,
Arizona, and Nevada, and reserved to the Secretary the power to apportion
the Colorado River waters. The Guidelines were a result of this power.21
9. Id. at 1152.
10. Id.
11. Id. at 1153.
12. Id. at 1153
13. Id.
14. Id.
15. Id.
16. Id.
17. Id. at 1154.
18. Id.
19. Id.
20. Id.
21. Id.
2018 NAVAJO NATION V. DEP’T. OF THE INTERIOR 3
B. Procedural History
22. Id. at 1155; See Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546, 83 S.Ct. 1468,
10 L.Ed.2d 542 (1963); See Arizona v. California, 376 U.S. 340, 84 S.Ct. 755, 11
L.Ed.2d 757 (1964).
23. Id.
24. Id. at 1156.
25. Id. (citing Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546, 600 (1963); See
Arizona v. Winters, 207 U.S. 564, 577 (1908); See also Cappaert v. United States,
426 U.S. 128, 138 (1976).
26. Nation, 876 F.3d at 1157.
27. Id
28. Id. at 1158.
29. Id.
30. Id. at 1159.
31. Id. at 1159-60.
32. Id. at 1159-60.
33. Id. at 1160.
4 PUBLIC LAND & RESOURCES LAW REVIEW Vol. 0
III. ANALYSIS
A. Standing
34. Id.
35. Id.
36. Id.
37. Id.
38. Id.
39. Id.
40. Id.
41. Id. at 1162.
42. Id. at 1161.
43. Id. at 1160.
44. Id.
45. Id. (See Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341
F.3d 961, 975 (9th Cir. 2003) (established the “reasonably probable” standard)).
2018 NAVAJO NATION V. DEP’T. OF THE INTERIOR 5
disregarded the Nation’s reserved rights under Winters.46 The court held
that the Nation failed to establish it had standing under the first alleged
injury because the chain of events it posited was too speculative, was not
supported by any facts, figures, or data, and failed to show how the
Guidelines would have “impede[d] the ascertainment and declaration of
the Nation’s Winters rights.”47
The Nation also asserted that until the Nation’s water rights were
quantified, the Nation’s water needs would not be met. Although the court
found this alleged injury more persuasive, it too was insufficient to convey
standing.48 Water constraints already in effect under the BCPA and the
1964 Decree apportioned water amounts, and the Guidelines merely
dictated when there was a surplus or shortage.49 Therefore, it could not be
established that the Guidelines independently caused procedural injury to
the Nation.50
Further, the court held that the Nation unraveled its own argument
by citing cases that reiterated the standard that a plaintiff “must identify
how the challenged action threatens, to a reasonable probability, some
separate interest.”51 Here, the Nation failed to show how the Guidelines
threatened “the Nation’s unadjudicated water rights or its practical water
needs.”52 Therefore, because of the aforementioned mistakes, the court
affirmed that the Nation’s NEPA claims lacked standing.53
B. Sovereign Immunity
44. Id.
48. Id. at 1162-64.
49. Id. at 1165.
50. Id. at 1166.
51. Id.
52. Id. at 1166-67.
53. Id. at 1167.
54. Id.
55. Id. at 1168-69 (See United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586
(1941)).
56. Id. at 1168.
57. Id. at 1170-71 (discussing Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) v. United
States, 870 F.2d 518 (9th Cir. 1989); Gallo Cattle Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 159
F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)).
6 PUBLIC LAND & RESOURCES LAW REVIEW Vol. 0
IV. CONCLUSION
58. Id. at 1172 (See Presbyterian Church, 870 F.2d at 525; See Gallo
Cattle Co., 159 F.3d at 1198).
59. Id.
60. Id. at 1172-73.
61. Id. at 1173-74.
62. Id. at 1173-74.
63. Id. at 1174.