Navajo Nation v. United States Department of the Interior
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99376
| D. Ariz. | 2014Background
- Navajo Nation ("Nation") alleges the United States impliedly reserved Winters water rights for the Navajo Reservation, including unquantified rights to mainstream Colorado River water in the Lower Basin of Arizona.
- The United States participated in Arizona v. California but filed Winters claims for the Nation only for the Little Colorado River; no Lower Basin mainstream water rights for the Nation were adjudicated in the 1963–1964 proceedings.
- The Secretary of the Interior adopted several management actions for the Lower Colorado River (2001 Surplus Guidelines ROD; 2008 Shortage Guidelines ROD; 2002 Implementation Agreement FEIS; interstate off‑stream storage regulations and related Storage & Release Agreement) that the Nation says were developed without considering its unquantified Winters rights.
- The Nation sued under NEPA and the APA (Claims One–Five and Four respectively) alleging procedural failures and alleged a separate breach‑of‑trust claim against the Federal Defendants (Claim Seven); Claim Six was voluntarily withdrawn.
- Federal Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction (standing) and lack of an identified waiver of sovereign immunity for the breach‑of‑trust claim; Other intervenors filed moot joinders.
- The court concluded the Nation lacks Article III standing for Claims One–Five and Four because it failed to show a concrete, imminent injury traceable to the challenged actions; Claim Seven was dismissed for failure to identify an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity and lack of a sufficiently specific fiduciary duty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing for NEPA claims (Claims One, Two, Three, Five) | Nation: procedural NEPA violations harmed Nation because agency didn't consider its unquantified Winters rights; procedural injury threatens Nation's concrete water interests | Fed: Nation only alleges speculative, future ‘system of reliance’ by third parties; Winters rights (if any) vested long before challenged actions and were not legally impaired by them | Dismissed for lack of Article III standing — Nation failed to show injury that is actual, imminent, and reasonably probable |
| Article III standing for APA challenge to interstate banking rule (Claim Four) | Nation: rule allows others to bank water that may belong to Nation, creating reliance that will harm Nation's future water access | Fed: alleged harm is speculative and not imminent; rule does not legally alter vested Winters rights | Dismissed for lack of Article III standing — alleged injury is conjectural |
| Breach of trust (Claim Seven) | Nation: United States breached fiduciary duty by failing to determine or protect Nation’s unquantified Lower Basin water needs/rights | Fed: Nation fails to identify a specific preexisting, enforceable duty distinct from general trust obligations; Winters recognition does not create a discrete duty to protect an unquantified interest in ongoing allocations | Dismissed — no sufficiently specific, enforceable duty pleaded; claim also barred by sovereign immunity absent a waiver |
| Sovereign immunity waiver for breach‑of‑trust claim | Nation: invokes APA/other doctrines to obtain equitable relief | Fed: APA does not waive immunity for Claim Seven because it does not challenge final agency action or allege a constitutional claim; Norton and APA §704 limits apply | Dismissed — Nation failed to identify an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity; APA waiver inapplicable to this non‑final‑action, non‑constitutional breach claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (recognition of reserved Indian water rights upon reservation creation)
- Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128 (reserved water rights vest at reservation date and have priority over later appropriators)
- Arizona v. California, 376 U.S. 340 (1954/1964 proceedings allocating Lower Basin water and related decree)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (Article III standing requires concrete, imminent injury)
- Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (APA §706(1) requires a discrete, mandatory duty for claims of agency inaction)
- Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed)
- Gros Ventre Tribe v. United States, 469 F.3d 801 (distinctness requirement for enforceable fiduciary duties owed by the United States to tribes)