Hopi Tribe v. United States, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5283

Background

The Hopi Tribe sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims seeking money damages to cover costs to provide safe drinking water for five reservation communities due to arsenic contamination.
The Tribe alleges the U.S. funded/assisted construction of wells and that contamination (natural arsenic) makes water unsafe under federal standards (40 C.F.R. § 141.62).
Four community systems are owned/operated by the Hopi; one is operated by BIA. The Tribe seeks damages to pay for alternative water sources and infrastructure.
The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under the Indian Tucker Act and denied jurisdictional discovery; the Hopi appealed.
The Federal Circuit reviewed whether the Tribe identified a statutory/regulatory source that (1) imposes specific fiduciary duties on the U.S. and (2) is fairly interpreted as money‑mandating.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Act of 1958 / 1882 Executive Order create a fiduciary duty to manage drinking‑water quality	The trust language (land held in trust) plus Winters reserved water rights imply U.S. duties over water quality on the reservation	The trust language is "bare" and does not prescribe specific duties to manage water quality	Held: No fiduciary duty established by Act/Executive Order; bare trust language insufficient
Whether Winters reserved‑water doctrine imposes an affirmative U.S. duty to ensure on‑reservation water quality	Winters implies reserved water rights and thus U.S. responsibility for water serving the reservation, including quality	Winters reserves amounts and protects against third‑party diversions/contamination, but does not obligate the U.S. to provide infrastructure or treat naturally occurring contaminants	Held: Winters does not impose an independent duty to manage on‑reservation water quality absent third‑party interference
Whether scattered statutes authorizing assistance (IHS, Indian Sanitation, Indian Health Improvement Act, funding provisions) create money‑mandating fiduciary obligations	These statutes demonstrate comprehensive U.S. involvement and control, so common‑law trust duties (to preserve/manage) should be inferred and be money‑mandating	The statutes authorize assistance and funding but do not use trust language or create the kind of specific, prescriptive control that accepts fiduciary duties enforceable in damages	Held: No specific, trust‑creating statutory/regulatory prescription; assistance statutes do not create money‑mandating fiduciary duties
Whether factual discovery into U.S. control over water resources could establish jurisdiction	More evidence of control would show actual administration and support inferring fiduciary duties	Control alone is insufficient; jurisdiction requires a specific statutory/regulatory acceptance of fiduciary duties	Held: Denial of jurisdictional discovery was proper; more evidence of control would not alter the legal requirement for a statute/regulation explicitly accepting fiduciary duties

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (statutes/regulations that create detailed, specific management duties can impose fiduciary obligations enforceable in damages)
United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (bare trust language does not by itself impose specific fiduciary duties)
United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287 (two‑step test: identify specific duty; then ask whether it is money‑mandating)
United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (statutory/regulatory specificity requirement for fiduciary duties)
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. United States, 537 U.S. 465 (trust language plus exclusive use/control can evoke common‑law trustee duties to preserve administered property)
Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128 (Winters reserved‑water doctrine: reservation implies water reserved to fulfill reservation purpose)
Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (establishing reserved water rights doctrine)