Federal appeals court dismisses water rights lawsuit against federal, state, and Navajo government

WINDOW ROCK

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a group of New Mexico water users challenging federal, state, and tribal officials over water management practices. The plaintiffs claimed the officials had violated federal water laws, depriving them of their rights, but the court upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss the case due to sovereign immunity and lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs—comprising Guy Clark and five others from Sandoval, San Juan, and Bernalillo counties—filed suit against officials, including U.S. Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, representatives from the Navajo Nation, and New Mexico state officials. The group alleged that ongoing mismanagement of water resources in the Colorado River Basin, particularly affecting the San Juan River, had infringed upon their rights under various federal statutes.

In its decision, the court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, which dismissed the case on the grounds of sovereign immunity and lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, arguing that the defendants violated various federal statutes governing water use in the Colorado River Basin, including the Reclamation Act of 1902 and the Endangered Species Act. They also alleged that the defendants failed to enforce laws protecting their water rights and that political pressures led to non-compliance with federal mandates.

The plaintiffs’ complaint centered on their claims of deprivation of water rights due to alleged mismanagement by federal and tribal officials. They argued that rulings in prior litigation, such as the San Juan Basin general stream adjudication and the Navajo Inter Se case, infringed upon their due process rights, including rights to be heard and to receive adequate legal service.

The Tenth Circuit, however, concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish a direct connection between the defendant’s actions and the alleged harm. The court noted that many of the claims relied on broad legal conclusions without specific factual support.

The plaintiffs also sought declaratory judgments on several points of federal law, including the application of the beneficial use requirement to the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project and related Bureau of Reclamation projects. They claimed that state and federal courts ignored key environmental and water laws in their adjudications. The Tenth Circuit rejected these arguments, emphasizing that sovereign immunity protected the defendants, and that federal jurisdiction did not extend to the plaintiffs’ claims.

A critical element of the case involved the plaintiffs’ argument that sue-and-be-sued clauses in federal statutes effectively waived sovereign immunity. However, the court determined that the plaintiffs failed to preserve this argument at the district court level and, therefore, could not raise it on appeal. The court cited procedural precedent, noting that issues not raised before the lower court are generally forfeited.

Procedural shortcomings

The Federal, State, and Navajo defendants argued that the case represented a collateral attack on state court decisions and lacked a proper jurisdictional basis. The court agreed, further highlighting that Congress had not waived tribal sovereign immunity for such claims. The court also noted procedural shortcomings in the plaintiffs’ filings, including reliance on legal citations without adequate analysis of their applicability.

The ruling also addressed the application of the Eleventh Amendment, which bars suits in federal court against state officials acting in their official capacities. The plaintiffs attempted to invoke the Ex parte Young doctrine, which allows suits for prospective relief against state officials alleged to be violating federal law. However, the court found that the plaintiffs’ allegations lacked the specificity required to fall within this exception, further undermining their case.

The plaintiffs argued that their claims should proceed under exceptions such as the Ex parte Young doctrine, which allows suits against state officials for ongoing violations of federal law. The Tenth Circuit disagreed, stating that the plaintiffs failed to specify how the defendants had violated federal laws. Instead, their claims consisted of broad accusations and legal conclusions without sufficient factual backing.

The court noted that “conclusory allegations cannot establish jurisdiction,” emphasizing the need for plaintiffs to provide clear and specific claims when challenging sovereign immunity. Similarly, the court dismissed arguments that statutes like the McCarran Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act provided waivers of immunity. It ruled that these laws did not apply to the plaintiffs’ claims, as the case was not a comprehensive adjudication of water rights or a proper action against federal agencies.

Sovereign immunity protection

Tribal sovereignty also played a significant role in the decision. The court ruled that the Navajo Nation officials, including former Navajo Division of Natural Resources Executive Director Rudy Shebala and David Zeller, the Navajo Agricultural Products Industry CEO, were protected by sovereign immunity. It highlighted that Congress has not abrogated tribal immunity in cases like this, and the plaintiffs failed to show how their claims fell within any exceptions.

The court further noted that the plaintiffs’ legal strategy appeared to be a collateral attack on prior New Mexico state court rulings regarding water rights in the San Juan Basin, including those involving the Navajo Nation. Federal courts, the judges said, are not the appropriate forum for such challenges.

Overall, the case portrays ongoing tensions over water management in the arid Southwest, where disputes between states, tribes, and private water users have become increasingly contentious amid climate change and dwindling water supplies. The plaintiffs claimed that New Mexico’s water litigation processes denied them due process and disproportionately favored the Navajo Nation, but the court found these allegations insufficient to overcome immunity defenses.

The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief on several points of federal law, including whether specific water projects are subject to federal oversight and environmental regulations. However, the Tenth Circuit ruled that their claims lacked the necessary legal foundation to proceed.

While the case has been dismissed, the court left the door open for the plaintiffs to potentially refile their claims. The dismissal was issued without prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs could return to court if they could address the jurisdictional deficiencies identified by the judges.

Water rights settlement ongoing

While the case is a win for the Navajo Nation, the advocation of finalizing its water rights settlements in northeastern Arizona and northwestern New Mexico and the Navajo Gallup Water Supply Project are still ongoing.

President Nygren and Speaker Crystalyne Curley have made several visits to Washington, D.C., thus far, working with key stakeholders in the Senate and House to approve the settlements as the last few weeks for the current federal government begins to wind down to make way for a new Republican-heavy federal government to take over after January 20.

For now, the decision marks a victory for federal, state, and tribal officials, reaffirming the legal protections afforded by sovereign immunity.

Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren thanked the Tenth Circuit.

“We are thankful to the Tenth Circuit for honoring Navajo sovereignty,” stated President Nygren in a Nov. 14 Navajo DOJ press release.

Navajo Nation Attorney General Ethel Branch stated that the Navajo Nation Department of Justice was “committed to defending the Nation’s sovereignty and water rights.”

“This decision is yet another litigation victory against unfounded attempts to diminish the Navajo’s sovereignty,” Branch states in the press release.

---