Crow Creek Sioux Tribe v. United States
132 Fed. Cl. 408
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- Crow Creek Sioux Tribe (federally recognized) alleges the United States breached its fiduciary duties and effected a Fifth Amendment taking of the Tribe’s Winters water rights from the Missouri River after construction/operation of Pick–Sloan dams (Fort Randall and Big Bend).
- Dams inundated ~15,000 acres of the reservation; Congress previously appropriated limited compensation for land inundation.
- Tribe seeks $200 million plus declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the U.S. diverted or used water to others’ benefit and failed to manage tribal water rights under 25 U.S.C. § 162a.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing (inter alia) the claim is time-barred, unripe/insufficiently concrete (no injury), and lacks a money‑mandating statute.
- The court focused on ripeness/standing (no demonstrated actual or imminent injury and no way shown to calculate compensable damages); it declined to permit discovery and granted dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / Ripeness (injury) | Winters creates a presently perfected possessory water interest; diversion by U.S. converts tribal asset to government use and thus causes damages; discovery would show diverted volumes and value | Tribe has not alleged an actual or imminent injury or any reduction in water available for reservation purposes; therefore claim is unripe | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction—no present or imminent compensable injury shown |
| Money‑mandating source (trust duties) | General trust relationship and 25 U.S.C. § 162a impose duties to manage tribal natural resources, supporting Tucker Act jurisdiction for money damages | § 162a and related law impose general management duties but not specific, money‑mandating obligations for natural resources; no statute/regulation identified that mandates payment | Court finds no specific money‑mandating statutory/regulatory duty shown; general trust language insufficient for jurisdiction |
| Damages calculation / accounting remedy | Tribe sought discovery/accounting to quantify diverted water and hire experts to value it, asserting that would supply damages basis | Even if diversion could be measured, Tribe has not shown how measured diversion equals actual damages absent demonstrated loss of beneficial use or other injury | Discovery and accounting would not cure the jurisdictional defect; value of diverted water alone does not establish compensable injury here |
| Statute of limitations / timing | (Implied) Relief could be based on continuing diversion and ongoing injury; discovery could identify compensable periods | Six‑year statute of limitations and other timing defenses may bar claims; absent a ripe injury, temporal accrual issues unresolved | Court did not reach full limitations analysis but dismissed on ripeness grounds; statute of limitations remains a potential barrier |
Key Cases Cited
- Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908) (Indian reserved water rights doctrine)
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) (Tucker Act money‑mandating requirement)
- Casitas Mun. Water Dist. v. United States, 708 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (ripeness for takings claim requires demonstrated effect on beneficial use)
- Navajo Nation v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 34 F. Supp. 3d 1019 (D. Ariz. 2015) (dismissal where tribe could not identify specific statutory/regulatory trust duties breached)