## Facts

- The United States built Coolidge Dam in the 1920s, creating the San Carlos Reservoir to support irrigation for reservation and non-Indian lands.
- Reservoir operations and water allocations were governed substantially by the Globe Equity Decree (1935), favoring downstream users, including the Gila River Indian Community and the San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage District.
- During drought and high irrigation demand, federal officials planned significant releases from the reservoir consistent with project operations and decree-based priorities.
- The San Carlos Apache Tribe asserted that drawing the reservoir below 75,000 acre-feet would cause environmental and public health harms, including fish kills, degraded water quality, exposure of sediments and cultural resources, and injury to tribal recreational and economic interests.
- The Tribe and individual members sued to enjoin releases beyond a minimal flow unless the reservoir maintained a 75,000 acre-foot minimum pool.
- The Tribe alleged violations of the ESA, NEPA, NHPA, FWCA, NAGPRA, and ARPA; asserted a federal common-law public nuisance claim; and alleged breach of federal trust responsibilities in reservoir and project management.
- After prior rulings denying preliminary relief and dismissing certain claims (including some ESA claims for lack of required notice), the court addressed the remaining claims on cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the record supported an ESA violation, including a prohibited “take” of listed species, warranting injunctive or declaratory relief.
2. Whether NEPA, NHPA, and FWCA claims could proceed absent a valid APA claim challenging discrete final agency action.
3. Whether the Tribe produced sufficient evidence of violations of NAGPRA or ARPA from exposing the reservoir bed.
4. Whether a federal common-law public nuisance claim was available or was displaced and/or barred by jurisdictional and sovereign-immunity limits.
5. Whether trust-responsibility claims were timely and supported by a clear waiver of sovereign immunity for the relief sought.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment to the United States on all remaining claims and dismissed the action.
- The court held the Tribe did not present sufficient evidence of an ESA “take” tied to the challenged releases.
- The court rejected NEPA, NHPA, and FWCA theories because they did not supply a freestanding cause of action and, in any event, the ongoing operation of the reservoir was not final agency action reviewable under the APA.
- The court found the NAGPRA and ARPA claims failed for lack of concrete proof of disturbance to specific protected graves or archaeological resources.
- The court rejected the public nuisance claim as unavailable in light of displacement by statutory/decree-based regulation and because the claim also implicated sovereign-immunity and procedural barriers.
- The court concluded trust-responsibility claims were time-barred and lacked a clear waiver of sovereign immunity for the requested injunctive relief.
- The intervenors’ summary-judgment motions were denied as moot.

## Legal Principles

- ESA liability requires evidence supporting the statutory elements of a prohibited “take”; generalized ecological harm and recreation impacts are insufficient without a showing of the requisite species-specific harm.
- NEPA, NHPA, and FWCA challenges to federal compliance typically must proceed under the APA rather than as stand-alone causes of action against the United States.
- APA review requires discrete “final agency action”; continuing operational management of a federal project, without a specific final decision identified, is generally not reviewable.
- Claims under NAGPRA and ARPA require particularized evidence of statutory violations affecting protected cultural items, graves, or archaeological resources.
- Federal common law is displaced where Congress has provided comprehensive statutory and regulatory schemes governing the subject matter.
- Sovereign immunity and statutory limitations periods bar claims against the United States absent a clear waiver and timely filing, including for trust-based theories seeking judicial control over federal project operations.

## Conclusion

The court entered judgment for the United States, holding that the Tribe’s environmental, cultural-resource, nuisance, and trust-responsibility theories failed on evidentiary, APA justiciability, displacement, sovereign-immunity, and timeliness grounds, and it declined to order reservoir operations to maintain a 75,000 acre-foot minimum pool.


San Carlos Apache Tribe v. United States, 272 F. Supp. 2d 860 (D. Ariz. 2003)