UTE Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation v. U.S. Dep't of Interior
| Decision Date | 15 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-00547 (CJN) |
| Parties | UTE INDIAN TRIBE OF the UINTAH AND OURAY RESERVATION, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Frances C. Bassett, Pro Hac Vice, Jeremy J. Patterson, Pro Hac Vice, Joanne Harmon Curry, Pro Hac Vice, Michael W. Holditch, Pro Hac Vice, Patterson Earnhart Real Bird & Wilson LLP, Thomas W. Fredericks, Pro Hac Vice, Fredericks Peebles & Patterson LLP, Louisville, CO, Rollie Wilson, Patterson Earnhart Real Bird & Wilson LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Brigman Lee Harman, Sally J. Sullivan, Kristofor R. Swanson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants Deb Haaland, United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Brook McCarrick, Scott D. Cheney, Utah Attorney General's Office, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendants Spencer Cox, Teresa Whilhelmsen.
Sally J. Sullivan, Kristofor R. Swanson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant David Bernhardt.
Daniel Sage Ward, Ward & Berry, PLLC, Tysons, VA, Edwin Barnes, Pro Hac Vice, Timothy R. Pack, Pro Hac Vice, Clyde Snow & Sessions, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant Utah Water Conservancy District.
Brook McCarrick, Norman K. Johnson, Utah Attorney General's Office, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant State of Utah.
This litigation concerns a century-old dispute about water rights. The Ute Indian Tribe brings sixteen claims against various federal and state Defendants for alleged mismanagement of water-development projects in northeastern Utah. Defendants have moved to dismiss some claims and to transfer the remainder to the District of Utah. ECF Nos. 67–70. For the reasons below, the Court grants the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 68, and Motion to Transfer, ECF No. 69, as well as the State Defendant Central Utah Water Conservancy's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 70. All other pending Motions are denied as moot.
A. Facts and Procedural History
Plaintiff Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation is a federally recognized tribe whose land spans "an arid plateau in the Green River Basin of northeastern Utah at the foot of the Uinta Mountains." Ute Indian Tribe of the Unitah & Ouray Indian Rsrv. v. United States , 2021 WL 1602876, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 12, 2021) (" Ute I "); see also Pl.’s Second Am. Compl. ¶ 28 ("Compl."), ECF No. 57. The Tribe's Reservation lies within the drainage of the Colorado River, Compl. ¶ 28, but because river levels vary and Utah receives almost no rain in the summer, water-storage facilities are used to collect snow melt and maintain a consistent water supply throughout the year, Compl. ¶¶ 24–25.
The Tribe filed this suit against the U.S. Department of Interior and two of its technical bureaus, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Reclamation ("Federal Defendants"), as well as the Utah Water Conservancy. It later added claims against the State of Utah (together with the Utah Water Conservancy, the ) after the Court permitted Utah to intervene. The Tribe alleges breaches of rights established by statute, contract, and the Constitution. See Compl. ¶¶ 236–359. Each claim arises from Defendants’ alleged mismanagement of various water-development projects affecting the Green River Basin, id. , some of which began more than a hundred years ago.
Over the last century, the federal government has undertaken a number of efforts—including enactment of several pieces of federal legislation—concerning the development and maintenance of water conveyances within the Tribe's Reservation. The 1899 Indian Appropriations Act ("1899 Act"), for example, authorized the Secretary of the Department of Interior to "grant rights of way for the construction ... of dams, ditches, and canals, on or through the [Reservation] for the purpose of diverting ... waters of the streams in said reservation for useful purposes" "in his discretion." 30 Stat. 941 (1899).
In 1906, Congress enacted the Uintah Indian Irrigation Project, which granted rights of way authorizing the construction of a network of canals to convey water from three rivers that flow across the Reservation for the purpose of irrigating around 100,000 acres of allotted tribal land.1 See Indian Dep't of Appropriations Act of 1906 ("1906 Act"), Pub. L. No. 59-258, 34 Stat. 325, 375-76 (1906); see also Compl. ¶¶ 36–39. In 1967, the Tribe (in conjunction with the United States) transferred some of the water it receives through Uintah Indian Irrigation Project canals to non-Indian water users in exchange for "state-based water rights" held by the Moon Lake Water Users Association. Id. ¶ 125; see also id. ¶¶ 123–24, 126–37; Midview Exchange Agreement ¶¶ 6–8, Defs.’ Ex. B, ECF No. 68-2.
In 1956, Congress enacted the Colorado River Storage Project, which (among other things) authorized the Central Utah Project. See Pub. L. No. 84-485, 70 Stat. 105 (1956). If fully implemented, the Project would have constructed irrigation and water-storage facilities in six units, including two units (the Uintah and Ute Indian Units) with reservoirs designated to supply water to the land of Tribal members. Fed. Defs.’ Mot. Partial Dismissal at 5 ("Mot."), ECF No. 68. But construction on those Units was first deferred, then abandoned. See Compl. ¶¶ 53, 155, 169, 175–76.
The Tribe—after commissioning a report to identify its water rights ("Decker Report")2 —signed the "1965 Deferral Agreement" with the United States and the Central Utah Water Conservancy. See id. ¶¶ 154–64; 1965 Deferral Agreement, Defs.’ Ex. A, ECF No. 68-1. Under the Agreement, the Tribe deferred the use of some of its water, Compl. ¶ 155, in exchange for a recognition that the Decker Report accurately describes its water rights, id. ¶ 156; a commitment to "address the Tribe's water storage needs," id. ¶ 159; and a promise to complete the Uintah and Ute Indian Units by January 1, 2005, id. ¶ 160–62.
By 1992, however, it had become clear that Interior would not complete the Uintah or Ute Indian Units. Id. ¶¶ 170–76, 191; see also Mot. at 7–8. To remedy this, Congress passed the Central Utah Project Completion Act of 1992 ("1992 Act"), Compl. ¶¶ 182–185, 191–206, which purported to settle once and for all any claims that the Tribe might have under the 1965 Deferral Agreement. See Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-575 §§ 501 –07, 106 Stat. 4600, 4650–55 (1992). Title V of the 1992 Act, the "Ute Indian Rights Settlement," afforded the Tribe approximately $2 million per year in compensatory repayments in exchange for an express waiver of "any and all claims relating to its water rights covered under the" 1965 Deferral Agreement. Id. § 507, 106 Stat. at 4655; Compl. ¶ 192–93.
Twenty years later, in 2012, the Tribe and the United States executed another settlement to resolve a dispute in the Court of Federal Claims. See Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Rsrv. v. United States , No. 06-866 (Fed. Cl. June 1, 2012); see also 2012 Settlement Agreement, Defs.’ Ex. D, ECF No. 68-4. There, the Tribe sought (among other things) money damages for Interior's alleged mismanagement of its nonmonetary trust assets. See 2012 Settlement Agreement ¶¶ 2, 4. In exchange for $125 million, the Tribe agreed to waive any claims that the United States (1) "failed to preserve ... or maintain [the Tribe]’s non-monetary trust assets or resources," (2) "inappropriately transferred, sold, encumbered, allotted, managed, or used [the Tribe's] non-monetary trust assets or resources," or (3) "failed to deposit monies into [the Tribe's] trust funds" in a "timely manner." Id. ¶ 4.
Six years later, in March 2018, the Tribe filed this sixteen-count lawsuit.3 After granting the State of Utah's Motion to Intervene, ECF No. 52, the Court gave the Tribe leave to file a Second Amended Complaint against both Federal and State Defendants. See ECF No. 57. Defendants then moved to dismiss, arguing that claims one through eleven and sixteen should be dismissed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6).4 See ECF Nos. 67–68, 70. Defendants have not moved to dismiss the remaining claims—which concern the execution and implementation of a water-exchange contract between the United States and the State of Utah (Claims 12–15)—but instead move to transfer them to the District of Utah, Motion to Transfer, ECF No. 69.
On a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, "the party asserting federal jurisdiction ... has the burden of establishing it," and the Court presumes that it "lack[s] jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record." DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno , 547 U.S. 332, 342 n.3, 126 S.Ct. 1854, 164 L.Ed.2d 589 (2006) (quoting Renne v. Geary , 501 U.S. 312, 316, 111 S.Ct. 2331, 115 L.Ed.2d 288 (1991) ). If the Court has jurisdiction, it will then decide whether Plaintiffs have stated a claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). "[I]n deciding a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, it is well established in this Circuit that a court is not limited to the allegations in the complaint but may consider material outside of the pleadings in its effort to determine whether the court has jurisdiction in the case." Bennett v. Ridge , 321 F. Supp. 2d 49, 52 (D.D.C. 2004).
On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), "the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing a factual basis for the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant." Capital Bank Int'l Ltd. v. Citigroup, Inc. , 276 F. Supp. 2d 72, 74 (D.D.C. 2003) ; see also Williams v. Romarm, SA , 756 F.3d 777, 785 (D.C. Cir. 2014). To prevail, "[t]he plaintiff must allege specific facts connecting the defendant with the forum," as "...
To continue reading
Request your trial