Arizona v. Navajo Nation

THE EXISTENCE OF A TRUST RELATIONSHIP AND POTENTIAL BREACH

The States of Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, The Metropolitan Water District Of Southern California, and other entities (collectively “Arizona”) contend that the Navajo Nation (“the Nation”) has failed to establish a violation of a trust relationship between the Nation and the U.S. Government (“Government”). Brief for Petitioner, Arizona et al. at 35. Although Arizona acknowledges that the Government has had a general trust relationship with Indian nations since the country’s inception, Arizona contends that the Nation’s water claims do not require affirmative action on the Government’s part. Id. at 34. Arizona contends that the Government has no responsibility to actively assess the Nation’s water needs or to develop a plan to meet such needs. Id. at 26. Rather, Arizona argues that neither Congress nor the Executive has specifically adopted a relevant measure to establish such a relationship. Id. Arizona further argues that, at most, the Nation and the Government might have a “bare” or “limited” trust relationship, which does not impose a stringent fiduciary burden on the Government. Id at 34.

Arizona further argues that the Nation has not stated a cognizable claim because the Nation failed to point to a substantive legal basis for the Government’s alleged fiduciary duty. United States v. Navajo Nation; Brief for Petitioner at 27. Arizona also contends that the Nation must identify a specific trust relationship even where the Nation is trying to claim non-monetary relief. Brief for Petitioner at 29. Arizona notes that, in cases such as United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, the parties did not seek monetary damages, yet the Court nonetheless understood the trust relationship to require the Government’s explicit acceptance of particular duties. Id. at 28.

The Navajo Nation argues that it has stated a valid claim based on broken treaty obligations and the Nation’s trust relationship with the Government. Brief for Respondent, Navajo Nation et al. at 16. The Nation argues that several treaties with the Government require the Government to provide sufficient waters for the reservation. Id. For example, the Nation asserts that the 1868 Treaty language guaranteeing the Navajo people a “permanent home” on the reservation implies that the permanent home has sufficient water. Id. at 22. The Nation also notes that treaty language requires that the Navajo people give up all external claims to land outside the reservation–further implying the need for a water guarantee by the Government so that the Nation can pursue agriculture on the reservation. Id.

The Nation further emphasizes that the treaties must be read according to the way that the Navajo people would have understood them. Brief for Respondent at 17. The Nation argues that such an interpretation would favor tribal interests. Id. at 18. Any ambiguities, the Nation contends, should be resolved in favor of the Nation. Id. at 20. Further, the Nation also asserts that the trust relationship would not result in vague judicially-created obligations to Indian nations. Id. at 37. Rather, the Nation contends that the judicial analysis would consider each case individually and analyze the specific Indian nation and treaty situation. Id. at 37. In short, the Nation argues that if the Navajo people understood the treaties to be a promise of water as well as land, and if the United States knew that the Nation needed said water, that water on the Reservation was “what the parties bargained for” when they entered into the treaties. Id. at 35.

THE WINTERS DOCTRINE

Arizona denies that the Winters doctrine guarantees the Nation water. Brief for Petitioners at 30. The Winters doctrine comes from the case, Winters v. United States, and states that federal reservations of Indian land include an implied amount of water necessary for the reservation’s wellbeing. Id. Arizona, however, refutes that the Winters doctrine guarantees water to the Navajo Nation because an implied water right is only a “limited” or “bare” trust. Id. at 34. Such implied rights, argues Arizona, cannot create the kind of affirmative duty required to mandate the Government’s assessment of the Nation’s water rights. Id. at 35. Further, Arizona argues that the Winters doctrine is common law, and that Supreme Court precedent has not recognized that common law can impose fiduciary duties on the Government. Id. at 26.

Arizona also refutes the Nation’s argument that the 1868 Treaty imposes duties on the Government. Brief for Petitioner at 35. The Federal Parties, also petitioners in this case, argue that just because the 1868 Treaty encourages agriculture and the cultivation of land does not mean that the 1868 Treaty imposes a duty on the Government regarding the Nation’s water supply. Brief for Petitioner, Federal Parties at 38–39. Arizona posits that the Treaty’s silence regarding water-related rights prevents the Nation from asserting the present claims for equitable relief. Id. at 39.

The Nation disagrees with Arizona and argues that the Winters doctrine should apply. Brief for Respondent at 20. The Nation contends that Supreme Court precedent has long understood treaty guarantees of a permanent Native homeland as guaranteeing sufficient waters for the reservation. Id. The Nation also notes that other treaties between Indian nations and the Government have established an implied duty for the Government to ensure Indian water interests, even where the treaty did not explicitly mention water. Id. Further, the Nation points to the historical record which reveals that the Navajo people were forced by the Government off fertile lands and into the arid, unsuitable living conditions of the contemporary Reservation in the Bosque Redondo region. Id. at 23. The Nation argues that the Government knew that the Nation needed appropriate water resources to survive, and that the Treaties were written with such concerns in mind. Id.

The Navajo Nation further contends that both the 1849 and 1868 Treaties impose affirmative duties on the Government regarding the Nation’s water interests. Brief for Respondent at 24. The Nation argues that both treaties support the provision of sufficient water for the Nation. Id. at 21. The Nation interprets the language of the 1849 treaty, stating that the Government should secure the “permanent prosperity and happiness” of the Nation, as a guarantee of water as well as land. Id. The Nation also argues that the language of the 1868 Treaty was meant to encourage agriculture, which is not possible without proper water supply. Id. at 22.

THE CONSOLIDATION DECREE AND JURISICTION

Arizona contends that compelling the Government to provide the Nation water from the Colorado Basin would violate the Consolidation Decree (“the Decree”) established in Arizona v. California. Brief for Petitioner at 20. Arizona contends that the Decree generally forbids the Government from releasing waters in its control from the Colorado River absent a valid contract or designation as a rights holder. Id. at 36, 42. Arizona notes that the Nation lacks the relevant contracts and was not a named a relevant rights holder. Id. Further, Arizona contends that Article IX of the Decree reserves exclusive jurisdiction over this matter to the Supreme Court, and that lower courts cannot intrude by adjudicating water rights. Id. at 21–23. Arizona concludes that allowing such cross-jurisdictional action would result in chaos. Id. at 23.

The Nation disagrees and argues that the Government should be allowed to assess the Nation’s water needs without violating the Decree or trespassing on the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. Brief for Respondents at 44. The Nation contends that they are not seeking the mere quantification of their water rights. Id. Rather, the Nation contends that they are simply asking the Government to determine the scope of their water needs, regardless of where that water originates. Id. at 44–45. Thus, the Nation argues that their claim does not pertain to the subject matter of the Decree and does not trigger the provisions therein. Id. at 44.