35th Annual American Bar Association Water Law Conference

       Los Angeles, California                           March 29, 2017

The Future of Indian Water Right Settlements in an Age of Uncertainty

 

Jennifer Gimbel, a senior research scientist at Colorado State University, moderated the panel discussion entitled, “The Future of Indian Water Right Settlements in an Age of Uncertainty.” Gimbel began her introduction by acknowledging that certainty is the main goal when identifying water rights; states and water users want to know what belongs to Indians and how they want to use it. Gimbel introduced two of the most pressing sources of uncertainty—funding and resources.   Over the last few years, states “ponied up” a considerable amount for successful settlements. Nonetheless, states want to maintain control over water, making it difficult to determine how water rights should be administered.

Pamela Williams, Director of the Secretary’s Indian Water Rights Office in the U.S. Department of Interior (“Department of Interior”), began her discussion by quoting Secretary Ryan Zinke:

I believe Indian water right settlements are a critical part of the United States government’s responsibility for tribes across the country. During my time as a Montana congressman, I fought [to ratify] the Blackfeet Nation’s water compact because water is both life to the Tribe and also a key resource for the surrounding community. Not only is water an economic driver, it is an important component of [Blackfeet Nation’s] culture and traditions. As Secretary of the Interior, I recognize the importance of maturing these resources.

Williams then said that water right settlements are not over, they will continue. By Williams’s count, over the past thirty years, Congress enacted thirty-one settlements. The Department of Interior is “hard at work” on the eighteen settlement negotiations in place and are implementing the recently enacted settlements.

Williams continued by discussing the way in which the Department of Interior handles Indian water right settlements. A group called “Working Group on Indian Water Right Settlements,” which is composed of high-level decision makers, including all assistant secretaries and the Solicitor, makes recommendations to the Secretary of Interior regarding Indian water right settlements. The Secretary’s Indian Water Rights Office coordinates Indian water rights settlements through teams in the field that include representatives from, inter alia, the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (“Reclamation”), the Solicitor’s Office, and the U.S. Department of Justice.

In 1990, the Criteria and Procedures for Participation of Federal Government in Negotiating for Settlement of Indian Water Rights Claims was published in the Federal Register. Williams clarified that these Criteria and Procedures are not regulations, but rather they are guidelines agencies and administrations follow to determine what settlements it will support and the extent of federal contributions. Since the 1990 publication, every administration has applied the Criteria and Procedures with varied interpretations. Williams acknowledged that some individuals think they are poorly written, while others think they are a masterpiece of flexibility.

Williams then discussed a recent development regarding negotiating water rights settlements. In February 2015, Representative Rob Bishop, Chairman of the United States House Natural Resources Committee, sent a letter to the Department of Interior and the Department of Justice outlining the process that the House Resources Committee would follow when entertaining Indian water rights settlements. Specifically, he requested a formal statement from the Department of Interior and Department of Justice affirming post-settlement compliance with his additional criteria that emphasize compliance with the 1990 Criteria and Procedures focusing on financial aspects of settlements. The Department of Interior complied and provided statements on binding water right settlements, including the four passed in the 114th Congress. Those four included Blackfeet Water Rights Settlement Act – a “tremendous victory” – Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Water Rights Settlement Act, amendments to the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, and Chocktaw Nation of Oklahoma and the Chickasaw Nation Water Settlement. Williams noted the Bishop process is functioning—although it is not followed in the Senate, it is followed in the House.

Vanessa Ray Hodge, an attorney at Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, continued the discussion by focusing on the Criteria and Procedures applied to Indian water rights settlements. The 1990 Criteria and Procedures purport to guide Indian water rights settlement negotiations. Hodge noted that the sixteen criteria were developed in response to a Federal executive branch desire to have a more principled negotiating role and intended to outline general policy goals that water settlements should reflect. These include substantive goals such as federal waivers, legal claims, appropriate financial contribution (including federal government and non-Indian parties), and procedural goals such as how to budget the settlements, types of funds to create settlement, and calculating infrastructure cost.

At the time the 1990 Criteria and Procedures were developed, Congress passed few settlements. Indian water rights settlements significantly increased and, over time, the Department of Interior and Department of Justice developed a specific approach to their application of criteria and procedures for settlements. Hodge opined that Department of Interior generally applies those procedures to all Indian water rights settlements, notwithstanding factual histories or circumstances related to individual tribes and their specific negotiations. In that regard, Hodge believes that, although the 1990 Criteria and Procedures are useful, they should be updated to reflect a more holistic approach to Indian water rights settlements.

Maria O’Brien of Modrall Sperling in Albuquerque, NM, took a step back from the technical discussion and first asked, “Why should we care about Indian water rights settlements?” The answer, she said, “Start[s] with the premise that Indian water rights require a source and certainty of access to supplied water to sustain homelands and economic development.”

Indian water rights settlements play a significant role by acting as a mechanism for solving a “complex conquest over water.” Thus, O’Brien continued, irrespective of ever-changing administrations, we will continue needing Indian water right settlements. Conflicts over water are consistent, and a myriad tribes throughout the United States are still without water rights settlements.

Settlements allow flexible, creative approaches and solutions to issues involving infrastructure and water allocation—issues that could not be addressed by simply quantifying Indian water rights in the context of litigation. Settlements, as opposed to litigation, unite states, the federal government, tribes, and other significant water users, which can provide varied resources not limited to financial contributions, such as modeling resources and technical assistance. These broad contributions enable the settlements to move forward and solve disputes over Indian water rights as well as local concerns about the water supply in a way that is not possible when resorting to litigation.

O’Brien then discussed a recent success in Indian water rights settlement arena — Oklahoma’s first Indian water right settlement between Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and Chickasaw Nation. Congress enacted this Indian water right settlement in December 2016, after five years of negotiation. It started with litigation, but Oklahoma and the Tribes decided to “roll up their sleeves” and reach a settlement. The federal government participated in the negotiation and was instrumental in its success. O’Brien considers every settlement to be unique, and in this one, Oklahoma and the Tribes needed work through policy issues that sourced their mutual conflict for many decades. Although settlements are unique, common issues do prevail, such as a mutual desire to reach a resolution and identify core principles at issue. It can take a substantial amount of time for parties to articulate their individual needs. Even so, settlements are favored over litigation because they encourage resolution rather that frame settlements as purely adversarial.

Next, Williams discussed the way in which the federal government funds these settlements. In 2009, from the same Omnibus Appropriations bill that enacted the Navajo Water Rights Settlement Act, Congress created a reservation settlement fund that is apportioned from the Bureau of Reclamation fund containing billions of dollars. The reservation settlement fund only applies to settlements with a Bureau of Reclamation component and does not relieve financial pressure on the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The reservation settlement fund is intended to last until 2029 and provide roughly $120 million per year for certain identified settlements. These include the Crow and Blackfeet Tribes in Montana that settled for roughly $400 million each, and the Navajo Tribe in Arizona that settled for one billion dollars.

Finally, O’Brien extended the dialogue by differentiating the types of available funding. She first explained that congressionally enacted settlements rely on discretionary funding which only authorizes appropriations for each individual settlement. This discretionary funding is given to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Reclamation (when projects involve a water settlement component) when the agencies ask for funds in their programmatic budget to fulfill financial obligations when settlements are enacted.

On the other hand, the 2010 Claims Resolution Settlement Act provided mandatory congressional funding for Indian water rights settlements enacted under this statute. For Congress to appropriate mandatory funding, it must find a same-year offset, meaning Congress reallocates funding from one program into another needing the mandatory funds. One of the first Indian water settlements receiving mandatory funding was the Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act, which is almost fully funded, unlike the discretionary funding for the Pechanga and Blackfeet Tribes water rights settlements which are funded over time.

 

Gia Austin

Image: Lake Powell and Grand Staircase-Escalante as seen from space. Flickr user NASA, not copyrighted.


Silver v. Pueblo Del Sol Water Co., 384 P.3d 814 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016) (holding: (i) that the Arizona Department of Water Resources’ (“ADWR”) interpretation of “legal availability” was valid under the statute defining “adequate water supply”; (ii) that ADWR must consider an unquantified federal reserved water right for the purposes of an Adequate Water Supply Designation (“AWSD”); and (iii) that ADWR was not required to separately consider the impact of pumping on a conservation area and the local surface or groundwater).

In 1988, the United States Congress designated roughly thirty-six miles of the San Pedro River basin (“Basin”) as a national conservation area (“Conservation Area”), and simultaneously created a federal reserved water right for the Conservation Area “in a quantity sufficient to fulfill the purpose” of protecting the public lands surrounding the River. The Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) manages the Conservation Area. Since 1989, the BLM has filed three statements of claim for the Conservation Area covering surface and groundwater.

The General Stream Adjudication for the Gila River System (“Gila Adjudication”), active for approximately 40 years, has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the conflicting claims and water rights for the Basin. BLM federal reserved rights are part of the the Gila Adjudication. The Gila Adjudication will determine whether BLM “has a reserved right to the groundwater ‘where other waters are inadequate to accomplish’” the reservation’s purpose and the minimum amount necessary to achieve that purpose.

Pueblo Del Sol Water Company (Pueblo) is a private water company. Pueblo serves an area five miles from the San Pedro River. In June 2011, Pueblo applied for an AWSD, which would allow it to pump groundwater to a planned community subdivision and other projects. Pueblo’s application included its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (“CC&N”), a certification provided by the Arizona Corporation Commission to public utilities. Pueblo sent its application to ADWR, the agency that reviews AWSD applications. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 45—108 requires subdivision developments outside active water management areas to show the existence of an adequate water supply as designated by ADWR. Under ADWR’s regulations, an adequate supply requires continuously legally and physically available water to satisfy the proposed needs for at least one hundred years. BLM objected to the Pueblo’s application, citing failure to properly analyze availability of water under ADWR’s regulations.

ADWR rejected the objection and accepted Pueblo’s application. BLM appealed to the Superior Court of Arizona, which reversed ADWR’s decision. The lower court held that ADWR abused its discretion because ADWR failed to meet its statutory duty to ensure that the water source will be available for at least 100 years. The lower court found that ADWR’s definition of “legal availability” erroneously allowed a decision to be based solely on whether the applicant had a CC&N. ADWR and Pueblo appealed the judgment.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Arizona decided three issues: (1) whether ADWR’s interpretation of “legal availability” under the statute defining adequate water supply was valid; (2) whether ADWR should have considered BLM’s unquantified reserved water right in its AWSD determination; (3) and whether ADWR was required to consider the impact of pumping on the Conservation Area and local surface and groundwater.

First, BLM argued that ADWR failed to make a valid determination of legal availability when it accepted Pueblo’s application without initially considering the federal government’s senior, unquantified federal reserved right. The court disagreed with BLM, finding that ADWR’s interpretation of legally available was valid when the statutes and regulations were read together.

Legal availability is a two step determination under ADWR’s interpretation of A.R.S. § 45–108(I)(1). First, ADWR must find that the water company is using the water for a reasonable and beneficial use. Second, ADWR must find that the water company has a legal means of delivering the water. ADWR has determined under R12–15–718(C) that the second step means a private water company has a CC&N.

The court agreed with ADWR that Pueblo’s planned use of the water was reasonable and beneficial because they planned to supply a subdivision with the water, thus satisfying the first step. The court also agreed with ADWR that Pueblo demonstrated a legal means of delivering the water because it had a CC&N, thus satisfying the second step. The court explained that ADWR’s determination that the second step requires the company to have a CC&N should be given great weight because the Director is an expert in the field vested with broad powers to achieve groundwater conservation. The court explained further that the department’s requirement that a water company have a CC&N kept with the consumer protection purposes of the statute because it requires the utility to be sufficiently financially viable to deliver, store, and treat such water.

The court also noted that in addition to determining mere legal availability, the Director of the ADWR has a more involved duty to determine whether adequate water is available. To make this determination, the Director is obligated to consider physical availability, which required the director to consider the water already commited to approximately 200 users. The ALJ determined that the Director considered Pueblo’s proposed water source and the demands from other users, and that Pueblo demonstrated that sufficient water would be available for 100 years.

Second, BLM argued that ADWR should consider its unquantified federal reserved water right, which has priority over Pueblo’s. ADWR countered by arguing that determination of those water rights fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Gila Adjudication and could not be adjudicated by ADWR in this proceeding. The court agreed with BLM, finding that ADWR not only had jurisdiction to consider the BLM’s claimed right, but had a duty to do so.

The court interpreted the language of R12–15–716(B), which requires the Director to consider the existing uses of groundwater, to include the consideration of the BLM’s federal reserved right. The court found that requiring ADWR to consider BLM’s right was in keeping with the intent of the groundwater statutes to protect Arizona’s economy and welfare, and to provide a comprehensive framework for the management and regulation of grounrwate, without compromising the preservation of the conservation area.

The court stated ADWR could use its expertise and knowledge to create an educated estimate of BLM’s quantified water right. However, the court distinguished ADWR’s duty to consider BLM’s claim from quantifying it. The court explained that quantification was the exclusive domain of the Gila Adjudication.

Finally, BLM argued that Pueblo’s proposed pumping might interfere with the Conservation Area and local surface or groundwater. The court found that ADWR was not required to separately consider the impact of pumping on the Conservation Area and local surface or groundwater. The court did not want to impose an obligation beyond ADWR’s obligation to consider adequate water.

Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment of the superior court, and remanded the action to ADWR with instructions to consider the BLM’s water rights claim in its evaluation of Pueblo’s application.

Trevor C. Lambirth

Image: Snow above the San Pedro River valley. Flickr user Lon&Queta, Creative Commons.