Mattaponi Indian Tribe v. Commonwealth, Circuit Court No. 3001-RW/RC
| Decision Date | 05 February 2007 |
| Docket Number | Circuit Court No. 3001-RW/RC |
| Court | Circuit Court of Virginia |
| Parties | RE: Mattaponi Indian Tribe, et al v. Commonwealth of Virginia, et al |
Troutman Sanders
Troutman Sanders Building
1001 Haxall Point
Richmond, VA 23219
David S. Bailey, PLLC
Attorney at Law
16397 Triple Creek Lane
Beaverdam, VA 23015
Hope M. Babcock, Esquire
Institute for Public Representation
600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
L. McCauley Chenault, County Attorney
King William County, Virginia
P. O. Box 1810
Mechanicsville, VA 23116
James E. Bennett, Esquire
York County Attorney
224 Ballard Street
Yorktown, VA 23690
Jeffrey M. Summers
New Kent County Attorney
P.O. Box 50
New Kent, VA 23124
Stuart E. Katz, Esquire
Office of the City Attorney
2400 Washington Avenue
Newport News, VA 23607
M. Scott Hart, Esquire
Troutman Sanders, LLP
P.O. Box 61185
Virginia Beach, VA 23466
John H. Foote, Esquire
Walsh, Colucci, Lubely, et al
4310 Prince William Parkway
Suite 300
Prince William, VA 22192
Joseph F. Phillips, Esquire
Williamsburg City Attorney
401 Lafayette Street
Williamsburg, VA 23185
Leo P. Rogers, Esquire
James City County Attorney
P.O. Box 8784
Williamsburg, VA 23187
Dear Counsel:
The Supreme Court of Virginia consolidated these actions in Alliance to Save the Mattaponi v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 423, 621 S.E.2d 78 (2005), all of which dealt with issues concerning plans by the Defendant localities to construct the King William Reservoir Project ("Reservoir"). All of the issues presented were resolved except one: the Mattaponi Indian Tribe's claims against the City of Newport News under the 1677 Treaty at Middle Plantation ("Treaty") between King Charles II and the predecessors of the Mattaponi Indian Tribe. The Circuit Court held that while Virginia law governed the Tribe's Treaty claims, the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to try any claims made under the Treaty. The Supreme Court of Virginia agreed that Virginia law governs the Tribe's Treaty claims, yet held that the Circuit Court indeed has jurisdiction to decide them. The Supreme Court then remanded the case for trial of the issues between the Tribe and the City of Newport News.
Upon remand the Court granted the Plaintiffs' ("Tribe") motion to file an Amended Complaint and to add as parties defendant all of the localities having an interest in the project, including the City of Williamsburg, James City County, King William County, New Kent County, and York County. These localities, together with the City of Newport News, are the Defendants to this action. Pursuant to a settlement agreement, the City of Williamsburg, James City County, New Kent County, and York County have agreed with the Tribe to be bound by all rulings of the Court. Today the Court addresses the several motions that are ripe for decision.
The Mattaponi Indian Tribe claims approximately four hundred and fifty enrolled members, approximately sixty-five of whom live on the Mattaponi Reservation ("Reservation"), which is situated on the Mattaponi River in eastern Virginia. Although the Tribe is not formally recognized by the United States, it is recognized as a legitimate Indian tribe by the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Reservation was initially set aside by an act of the colonial government of Virginia in 1658. The 1677 Treaty at Middle Plantation affirmed the existence of this Tribal land, and the Reservation is maintained today under the laws of Virginia.
The King William Reservoir Project proposes to build a large reservoir upstream from the Mattaponi Reservation for the purpose of supplementing the water supplies of the City of Newport News and neighboring localities. The Reservoir will draw water from the Mattaponi River into its location on Cohoke Creek, a tributary of the Mattaponi River. In its opinion, the Supreme Court of Virginia rendered a detailed factual account that more completely describes the project's history to this point. See Alliance to Save the Mattaponi v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 423, 621 S.E.2d 78.
The Tribe asserts that construction of the Reservoir would encroach upon certain rights it enjoys under the 1677 Treaty at Middle Plantation, specifically the rights to hunt, fish and gather, as described in Article VII of the Treaty. Moreover, the Tribe asserts that the Reservoir's construction will unlawfully infringe on the rights it possesses in and to the waters of the Mattaponi River. The Tribe seeks to protect its water rights under the principles of both riparianrights and the reserved water rights doctrine. The Tribe forcefully claims that the Mattaponi River is essential to its ancient heritage and its spiritual identity, as well as to its economic livelihood.
In their pretrial filings, the Defendants deny that the Reservoir will infringe on any rights the Tribe may have under Article VII of the Treaty. The Defendants also claim that the doctrine of reserved water rights has no application in Virginia, and thus does not afford the Tribe a basis for relief.
Although the City of Newport News and King William County advanced the motions before the Court, the remaining localities are bound by the Court's rulings on these motions, and therefore the Court will refer to the Defendants collectively. Furthermore, the Court recognizes that while the Tribe has nonsuited both the Article VII and the reserved water rights claims as to King William County, the Tribe maintains those claims against the remaining Defendants.
The Court will address the following motions:
1. Defendants' demurrer to the Tribe's assertion of rights under Article VII of the Treaty;
2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to the Tribe's assertion of rights under Article VII of the Treaty;
3. Defendants' demurrer to the Tribe's assertion of reserved water rights; and
4. Defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to the Tribe's assertion of reserved water rights.
It is well established that a demurrer admits the truth of properly pled facts. Rosillo v. Winter, 235 Va. 268, 270, 367 S.E.2d 717, 717 (1988). It tests the legal sufficiency of the facts pled, and when deciding a demurrer, the "court must consider the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and sustain the demurrer if the pleading fails to state a valid cause of action." Sanchez v. Medicorp Health Sys., 270 Va. 299, 303, 618 S.E.2d 331, 333 (2005).
Under Rule 3:18 of the Rules of the Virginia Supreme Court, either party may make a motion for summary judgment and the trial court may grant the motion if it appears that the moving party is entitled to judgment in his favor as a matter of law. Va. Sup. Ct. R. 3:18. A trial court of this Commonwealth, in considering a motion for summary judgment, must adopt allreasonable inferences from the facts that are most favorable to the nonmoving party, unless these inferences are forced, strained, or contrary to reason. Dickerson v. Fatehi, 253 Va. 324, 327, 484 S.E.3d 880, 882 (1997) (citing Carson v. LeBlanc, 245 Va. 135, 139-40, 427 S.E.2d 189, 192, 89 Va. Law Rep. 908 (1993)). Summary judgment is authorized only when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and is appropriate only if the record, taken as a whole, could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party. Id. Summary judgment shall not be entered if any material fact is genuinely in dispute. Va. Sup. Ct. R. 3:18.
The Defendants' demurrer and motion for summary judgment both deny that the Reservoir's construction will infringe on any rights the Tribe may enjoy under the Treaty. Article VII of the Treaty, the provision of the Treaty at issue, reads:
That the said Indians have and enjoy theire wonted conveniences of Oystering, fishing, and gathering Tuccahoe, Curtenemmons, wild oats, rushes, Puckoone, or any thing else for their natural Support not usefull to the English, upon the English Devidends...
The parties' respective positions regarding Article VII are relatively clear. The Tribe asserts that the Treaty's language clearly protects the Tribe's fishing rights, and that the Reservoir's effects on its ability to exercise those rights would clearly be adverse and severe. In particular, the Tribe sees Article VII as protecting its aboriginal fishing practices so long as the exercise of those rights does not interfere with the settlers' fishing and gathering rights. Any protection of things "useful to the English," the Tribe argues, could apply only to those activities then contemplated by the parties entering into the Treaty, as evidenced by the language of the treaty. Thus, the Tribe does concede that the Commonwealth of Virginia, as successor to the English crown's rights and obligations under the Treaty, retains some fishing and gathering rights under the Treaty.
In the Tribe's view, however, the Treaty does not permit the Commonwealth to develop the land in a manner that would adversely affect the Tribe's rights, but rather acts only to prevent the Tribe from interfering with the Commonwealth's ability to fish and gather. According to the Tribe, the Reservoir's construction would adversely affect the Tribe's fishing rights protected by the Treaty, and furthermore, the construction would be clearly outside the scope of any fishing, hunting and gathering rights retained by the Commonwealth under Article VII of the Treaty.
On the other hand, the Defendants claim that the Tribe's claimed Treaty rights are not so extensive as to prevent the building of the Reservoir. They argue that any rights bestowed upon the Tribe under Article VII of the Treaty are specifically restricted by the words "notuseful to the English upon the English Devidends." To be sure, the Defendants place substantial emphasis on the language "English Devidends" as giving the settlers, and by succession the Commonwealth, the predominant right to make use of the land as they see fit, without concern for any interests of the Tribe. Thus, the Defendants assert that...
To continue reading
Request your trial