Opinion ID: 210370
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Control of Coal Leasing and Liabilities Arising Thereunder

Text: We note that specific control of coal leasing is not a prerequisite for a breach of trust claim in this case. As discussed in supra, Part III.D.2-4, the language of the statutes and regulations of the Nation's asserted network demonstrates that the government exercises comprehensive control over coal resource planning, coal mining operations, and coal royalty management and collection. As Mitchell II held regarding the harvesting and management of timber, 463 U.S. at 222, 103 S.Ct. 2961, virtually every aspect of the coal located on the Nation's lands is under the federal government's control. It can fairly be interpreted from the government's comprehensive control of the Nation's coal that the Nation's asserted network establishes a breach of trust claim under the Indian Tucker Act. The government nonetheless argues that the asserted network must establish control or supervision over coal leasing. It is true that the Supreme Court stated that the IMLA [of 1938] and its regulations do not assign to the Secretary managerial control over coal leasing. Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 508, 123 S.Ct. 1079. The government, however, cites no authority for the proposition that control over the greater (e.g., coal resources) does not imply control over the lesser (e.g., leasing of such coal) in the Indian Tucker Act context. Indeed, the Court stated in Mitchell II, 463 U.S. at 225, 103 S.Ct. 2961 (quotation marks and citation omitted), that where the Federal Government takes on or has control or supervision over tribal monies or properties, the fiduciary relationship normally exists with respect to such monies or properties (unless Congress has provided otherwise). Accord Apache, 537 U.S. at 475, 123 S.Ct. 1126 (finding that control over property implied obligation to preserve the property improvements). In this case, the government exercised blanket control over the Nation's coal resources, which could not be developed without the clear and positive approval of the Secretary. The government's argument that specific control of coal leasing is required for a money-mandating breach of trust claim is thus unpersuasive. Even if it carried weight, that argument is flawed as applied to this case. The Indian lands section, 30 U.S.C. § 1300, of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 controls the content of coal leases. Subsections (c) and (d) direct the Secretary to incorporate interim and permanent environmental protection standards for all existing and new leases issued for coal on Indian lands. Subsection (f) also states that [a]ny change required by these subsections in the terms and conditions of any coal lease on Indian lands existing on August 3, 1977, shall require the approval of the Secretary. The subsequently promulgated regulation accordingly amends all leases of coal on Indian lands to comply with the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and all regulations promulgated thereunder, including those codified at 30 C.F.R. Part 750. 30 C.F.R. § 750.20(a) (1987). The government thus exercises actual control over the terms and conditions of coal mining leases, including those already in existence. Further, the Navajo-Hopi Rehabilitation Act of 1950 contemplates government liability for leases of Indian lands requiring approval of the Secretary. Section 635(a) of Title 25 states: Any restricted Indian lands owned by the Navajo Tribe, members thereof, or associations of such members, . . . may be leased by the Indian owners, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, for public, religious, educational, recreational, or business purposes, including the development or utilization of natural resources in connection with operations under such leases. 25 U.S.C. § 635(a) (emphasis added). Subsection (a) makes no mention of government liability. In contrast, subsection (b) differentiates the respective responsibilities by stating explicitly that  land owned in fee simple by the Navajo Tribe may be leased, sold, or otherwise disposed of by the sole authority of the Navajo Tribal Council, . . . and such disposition shall create no liability on the part of the United States. Id. § 635(b) (emphasis added). Similarly, subsection (c) states: The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to transfer, upon request of the Navajo Tribal Council, . . . legal title to or a leasehold interest in any unallotted lands held for the Navajo Indian Tribe, and thereafter the United States shall have no responsibility or liability for, but on request of the tribe shall render advice and assistance in, the management, use, or disposition of such lands. Id. § 635(c) (emphasis added). The Nation thus asserts that by expressly exempting the United States from liability for similar transactions under subsections 635(b) and (c), it is a fair inference that the United States intended to shoulder liability and responsibility for leases of Indian lands under subsection (a) dealing with the development or utilization of natural resources and requiring approval of the Secretary. Nation Br. 47. The government does not dispute the Nation's interpretation, and we agree that government liability from the approval of such leases is a fair interpretation. The Nation's asserted network thus demonstrates that the government controls the leasing of the Nation's coal resources and that the government is responsible for the liabilities arising thereunder.