Opinion ID: 778271
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the BIA Deviate from a Required Duty?

Text: 12 In applying part one of the discretionary function exemption analysis, we examine the relevant statutes and regulations to determine whether the agency deviated from some required action or process. We are aware of no statute or regulation, however, that mandates adequate maintenance of the Bowler Ranch irrigation system. No federal statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribes a course of action to which the BIA did not adhere. Berkovitz, 486 U.S. at 536. We note, however, that 25 C.F.R. § 171.1 provides that: 13 The Officer-in-Charge [of an Indian Irrigation Project] will be guided by the basic requirement that the operation will be so administered as to provide the maximum possible benefits from the project's or unit's constructed facilities. The operations will insure safe, economical, beneficial, and equitable use of the water supply and water conservation. 14 25 C.F.R. § 171.1(c) (emphasis added). A plausible argument can be made that this regulation imposes on the BIA a duty to insure safe operations; that is, the BIA must operate its irrigation systems in a way that does no harm to people or property. However, we assume for the sake of discussion that this regulation provides only general guidance, rather than a mandatory duty of the specific sort found in Berkovitz. 15 The O'Tooles maintain that, because the government contract with the Tribe to maintain the irrigation system was entered into pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Self-Assistance Program, the United States was required to fully fund this contract. The O'Tooles rely on 25 U.S.C. § 450j-1(a)(1), which provides: The amount of funds provided under the terms of self-determination contracts... shall not be less than the appropriate Secretary would have otherwise provided for the operation of the programs... without regard to any organizational level within the Department of the Interior... at which the program ... is operated. This language ensures that [t]he government is not allowed to save money by hiring the tribes to perform ... programs for less money than the government would have spent. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Secretary, Dept. of Health and Human Servs., 279 F.3d 660, 663 (9th Cir.2002). The O'Tooles argue that this statute removes any element of choice from government funding and expenditure decisions in this area. 16 The O'Tooles overlook the fact that the following section, 25 U.S.C. § 450j-1(b), provides that, [n]otwithstanding any other provision in this subchapter, the provision of funds ... is subject to the availability of appropriations.... In other words, the language of § 450j-1(a)(1) remains subject to the availability of funds. Thus, BIA's argument, that insufficient funding prevented adequate maintenance of the irrigation system, is a valid defense to the allegation that the maintenance agreement with the Tribe was inadequately funded under § 450j-1(a)(1). Section 450j-1(b) forecloses the argument that the government has an affirmative duty to provide full funding for projects entered into under this Program. See Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, 279 F.3d at 665. 17 Because the government did not deviate from actions or policies mandated by statute or regulation in failing to adequately maintain the Bowler Ranch irrigation system, the BIA's irrigation repair decisions were the product of choice, protected under the first part of the discretionary function exception test. 18