Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. The United States
1989 WL 60149, 877 F.2d 961 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The United States government, acting as a fiduciary for an Indian community, does not breach its trust duty unless the community proves the government's actions were clearly erroneous, unreasonable, or fell below a fair and honorable dealings standard, especially when state law is generally inapplicable to Indian reservation water rights.
Facts:
- The Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (the Community) developed as an agricultural society utilizing irrigation from the Salt and Gila Rivers in Arizona.
- After the reservation was created in 1859, upstream settlements diverted river water, hindering the Community’s ability to irrigate their farms.
- In 1904, the United States undertook irrigation projects to protect the Community’s farming capacity and, acting as a fiduciary, leased some reservation lands.
- The Community claimed the United States breached its fiduciary duty in several ways related to lease administration: by requiring lessees to purchase Tempe Drain water the Community was entitled to, prohibiting lessees from drilling wells, failing to obtain reasonable cash rentals, entering into successive development leases that didn't fully develop the land, and discouraging, delaying, or withholding lease approvals.
- The Community also contended that the government failed to protect the reservation's groundwater resources from depletion by off-reservation pumping.
- The Indian Bureau interpreted the Buckeye/Arlington litigation settlement, approved by Congress in 1947, to permit well drilling only on reservation land within the San Carlos Irrigation Project (SCIP) or on lands specifically named in the settlement.
Procedural Posture:
- The Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community originally filed claims on August 14, 1951, with the Indian Claims Commission as cause of action IV in Docket 236, which was subsequently subdivided into Dockets 236-A through 236-N.
- Dockets 236-F and 236-I were never decided by the Indian Claims Commission.
- These specific dockets were transferred to the United States Court of Claims.
- The Dockets 236-F and 236-I were then transferred to the United States Claims Court and consolidated for trial.
- The United States Claims Court (Judge Harkins) dismissed the Community's claims on February 27, 1986, concluding that the United States did not breach its fiduciary trust or fail to deal fairly and honorably.
- The Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (appellant) appealed the Claims Court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the United States breach its fiduciary duty of trust or fail to deal fairly and honorably with the Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community in its administration of reservation land leases and water resources?
Opinions:
Majority - PER CURIAM
No, the United States did not breach its fiduciary duty of trust or its duty of fair and honorable dealings in representing the Community’s interests in leasing and managing the reservation lands and water resources. The appellate court reviews the trial court's factual findings under a 'clearly erroneous' standard, and the appellant must show the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous or, if correct, cannot support the trial court’s legal conclusion. Regarding the Tempe Drain water, the Community failed to show that lessees were required to pay the Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association (SRVWUA) for water owned by the Community; the trial court found payments were only for water needs exceeding the Tempe Drain supply. Concerning the prohibition of developing wells, state law is inapplicable to Indian reservations unless Congress expressly provides, making an examination of Arizona water law unnecessary. The Indian Bureau reasonably interpreted the Buckeye/Arlington settlement to limit well drilling, and the Community did not establish that the water in question was not Gila River subsurface flow or solely percolating groundwater. As for the reasonableness of rents, the Community’s arguments were largely dependent on the rejected water issues, and it failed to show that factors influencing rental rates were inexcusable for the government. The government never undertook an obligation for full development in first-term leases, and partial development was deemed preferable due to water supply limitations. Finally, the Community did not show unreasonableness in alleged lease discouragement, delays, or withholdings, with one specific claim being settled with full compensation. The court also found that the groundwater depletion issue was properly before the Claims Court, as evidenced by the Community's prior filings.
Analysis:
This case underscores the high burden of proof placed on Indian tribes alleging a breach of trust by the federal government, particularly when appealing factual determinations made by a lower court. It reaffirms that appeals courts generally defer to the trial court's factual findings unless they are 'clearly erroneous.' Furthermore, it highlights the principle that state law on issues like water rights is generally inapplicable to Indian reservations, reinforcing federal primacy and the unique legal relationship between tribes and the federal government.
