El Paso Natural Gas Company v. United States
409 U.S. App. D.C. 367
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Three Navajo land sites near Tuba City (Mill, Dump, Highway 160) are contested for contamination; El Paso and Navajo Nation plead Mill Tailings Act and RCRA claims, plus related statutory theories; EPA/BIA settlement in 2010 divested district court of some jurisdiction; district court dismissed Dump RCRA claims with prejudice and Highway 160 mootness, then consolidated appeals followed; the court addresses whether relief requests would interfere with CERCLA cleanup and whether claims survive under various statutes; the appeal also questions the proper scope and viability of a trust-based remedy against the United States for Indian lands.
- The Mill site involved historic uranium mining with tailings and groundwater concerns; the cooperative agreements with DOE required remediation and liability waivers, and the Tribe challenges design/groundwater remedies and timing; the Highway 160 Site received funds and a waiver, with ongoing cleanup efforts; the Dump site was operated without a RCRA permit and shows groundwater contamination, with a CERCLA settlement governing removal/remedial actions.
- The district court held CERCLA §113(h) barred the RCRA claims at the Dump and mooted Highway 160 RCRA claims; the court dismissed the Government’s contingent RCRA counterclaim without prejudice; the Mill Tailings Act claims were dismissed for lack of private rights and APA viability; the Tribe’s other statutory claims (Indian Agricultural Act and Indian Dump Cleanup Act) were dismissed for lack of private rights or APA action; the Tribe’s breach of trust claim was rejected as lacking a cognizable fiduciary duty under controlling Supreme Court precedent.
- On appeal, the Court reverses the Dump dismissal with prejudice (remanding for dismissal without prejudice), vacates mootness for Highway 160 (allowing merits review), affirms dismissal of the Government’s counterclaim without prejudice, and upholds dismissal of Mill Tailings Act and related claims on APA grounds while ruling that no private right of action exists under several Indian statutes; the Court also rejects a broad trust-based damages theory under the Indian Tucker Act and related precedents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does CERCLA §113(h) bar the RCRA claims at the Dump? | Appellants argue no, or require limited discovery | Government contends §113(h) bars all challenges to the removal/remedial action | Yes, bar applicable; but Dump claims dismissed without prejudice on remand |
| Are the Highway 160 Site RCRA claims moot? | Tribe argues claims survive and groundwater remediation may be within RCRA scope | District Court mooted them due to appropriation/waiver | Not moot; remand for merits review |
| Is the Government's contingent RCRA counterclaim proper with prejudice? | Counterclaim should be with prejudice if baseless or improper | Counterclaim valid under RCRA and properly dismissed without prejudice as moot | Affirmed dismissal without prejudice |
| Do Mill Tailings Act claims provide APA review rights or private rights? | Act creates private remedy via APA; waiver may bar relief | APA claims barred or limited; waiver controls for Third Claim; Fourth Claim fails | Mill Tailings Act does not preclude APA review; Third/Fourth Claims dismissed on other grounds; appeal on those findings affirmed in part and reversed in part |
| Do statutes create enforceable trust duties against the U.S. (Breach of Trust)? | Cites 25 U.S.C. §640d-9(a) and other acts to establish fiduciary duties | Supreme Court precedent requires a specific duty; statutes cited do not create enforceable trust duties | No private breach-of-trust action; Navajo II forecloses reliance on §640d-9(a) plus control; no actionable fiduciary duty found |
Key Cases Cited
- Frey v. EPA, 403 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2005) (discusses objective-indicator limitation for §113(h) review)
- Cannon v. Gates, 538 F.3d 1328 (10th Cir. 2008) (broad standard for what constitutes a challenge to CERCLA action)
- McClellan Ecological Seepage Situation v. Perry, 47 F.3d 325 (9th Cir. 1995) (suits interfering with cleanup qualify as challenges to CERCLA action)
- Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Int’l Union v. Richardson, 214 F.3d 1379 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (conceptualizes §113(h) as withdrawal of jurisdiction when predicate conditions are met)
- Navajo Nation v. United States (Navajo II), 556 U.S. 287 (S. Ct. 2009) (limits fiduciary-trust theory under Indian Tucker Act; rejects §640d-9(a) plus control argument)
- Navajo Nation v. United States (Navajo I), 537 U.S. 488 (S. Ct. 2003) (establishes framework for Indian trust claims; need specific rights-creating duties)
- White Mountain Apache Tribe v. United States, 537 U.S. 465 (S. Ct. 2003) (trust duties require more than bare trust; discretionary authority matters)
- Mitchell v. United States (Mitchell I), 445 U.S. 535 (1980) (limits on fiduciary duties under Allotment Act)
- Mitchell v. United States (Mitchell II), 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (identifies statutes creating fiduciary duties for trust claims)
- Navajo I, 537 U.S. 493 (2003) (coalesces framework for trust-duty analysis in tribal context)
- Colorado v. United States, 990 F.2d 1565 (10th Cir. 1993) (distinguishes state-like duty contexts in CERCLA actions)