El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. United States
774 F. Supp. 2d 40
D.D.C.2011Background
- Intervenor Navajo Nation sues the United States over uranium mill tailings near Tuba City, AZ, asserting UMTRCA, RCRA, AIARMA, ILODCA, CWA, and trust-duty violations.
- EPNG originally asserted APA/UMTRCA and RCRA claims; court previously dismissed APA/UMTRCA portion in 2009 but preserved RCRA claims.
- Navajo asserted separate intervenor claims identical to some EPNG claims and additional AIARMA and ILODCA theories.
- UMTRCA cooperative agreement with the Tribe includes a broad waiver of liability relating to remedial actions.
- Court now considers whether these claims are reviewable, whether AIARMA/ILODCA create private rights or can be brought under APA, and whether trust-duty theories survive.
- Court grants defendant’s motion to partially dismiss, dismissing most Tribe claims with prejudice and one CWA claim without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UMTRCA claims are reviewable under the APA. | Tribe argues UMTRCA violations are reviewable under APA. | UMTRCA precludes APA review for remedial actions under the cooperative agreement waiver. | UMTRCA claims are not reviewable under the APA; waiver precludes诉讼. |
| Whether AIARMA and ILODCA create private rights of action. | Tribe contends these statutes imply private rights and remedies. | Statutes do not create private rights; consultation provisions do not imply private remedies. | No private right of action implied; claims not cognizable under APA. |
| Whether Tribe may bring AIARMA/ILODCA claims under APA. | Tribe seeks APA review for AIARMA/ILODCA violations. | No final agency action under APA; no discrete act required by the statutes. | APA review barred; no final agency action cognizable. |
| Whether the Navajo trust-duty theory supports a claim. | Trust duties exist under treaty and federal law. | No independent cause of action; no specific fiduciary duty grounded in statute; waiver bars claim. | No cognizable trust-duty claim; separate theories fail. |
Key Cases Cited
- Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (U.S. 2004) (failure to act is reviewable only for discrete agency actions; not here)
- Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Prot. Ass'n, 485 U.S. 439 (U.S. 1988) (consultation provisions do not create a private right of action)
- Sandoval v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 532 U.S. 275 (U.S. 2001) (factors for implied private rights of action; focus on legislative intent)
- Cobell v. Norton, 240 F.3d 1081 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (discusses limits of trust claims and implied duties)
- United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (U.S. 2003) (trust duties require specific rights-creating prescriptions; not implied)