Opinion ID: 210370
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Money-Mandating Elements of the Nation's Asserted Network

Text: There is no question the Treaty of 1849 establishes a general trust relationship. Specifically, the treaty states that the Navajo tribe was lawfully placed under the exclusive jurisdiction and protection of the Government of the said United States, and that they are now, and will forever remain, under the aforesaid jurisdiction and protection and that the Government of the United States shall so legislate and act as to secure the permanent prosperity and happiness of said Indians. Art. I, XI. While this general trust relationship is potentially reinforcing of the conclusion that the relevant statute or regulation imposes fiduciary duties, that relationship alone is insufficient to support jurisdiction under the Indian Tucker Act. Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 506, 123 S.Ct. 1079 (citation omitted). There must be specific rights-creating or duty-imposing statutory or regulatory prescriptions. Those prescriptions need not, however, expressly provide for money damages; the availability of such damages may be inferred. Id. In Apache, the Court found it significant that a statute provided that the Fort Apache Military Reservation would be held by the United States in trust for the White Mountain Apache Tribe. See 537 U.S. at 468-69, 474-75, 123 S.Ct. 1079 (quoting the Act of Jan. 24, 1923, ch. 42, 42 Stat. 1187). In Mitchell II, the statutes and regulations gave the government full responsibility to manage Indian resources and land for the benefit of the Indians. 463 U.S. at 224, 103 S.Ct. 2961; see also Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 504-05, 123 S.Ct. 1079 (discussing Mitchell II ); Apache, 537 U.S. at 474, 123 S.Ct. 1126 (same). Even the statute at issue in Mitchell I went beyond the general trust relationship and established a limited trust relationship by stating that the United States does and will hold the land thus allotted . . . in trust for the sole use and benefit of the Indian to whom such allotment shall have been made. 445 U.S. at 540-42, 100 S.Ct. 1349 (quoting General Allotment Act); see Mitchell II, 463 U.S. at 224-25, 103 S.Ct. 2961 (discussing Mitchell I limited trust relationship and general trust relationship); see also Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 504, 123 S.Ct. 1079 (discussing Mitchell I); Apache, 537 U.S. at 473, 123 S.Ct. 1126 (same). In contrast, the Court found that the IMLA of 1938 and its regulations did not satisfy this statutory and regulatory language threshold in Navajo III : Nor do they even establish the `limited trust relationship' existing under the [General Allotment Act]; no provision of the IMLA [of 1938] or its regulations contains any trust language. 537 U.S. at 508, 123 S.Ct. 1079. Justice Ginsburg emphasized that this lack of trust language set Navajo III apart from Apache. Apache, 537 U.S. at 479-81, 123 S.Ct. 1126 (Ginsburg, J., concurring) (comparing existence of trust language in Apache statute with absence of such in Navajo III statute and regulations). Where the IMLA of 1938 and its regulations failed, however, the network of other statutes and regulations asserted by the Nation succeeds. The coal that is the subject of Lease 8580 and its amendments sits on the Nation's reservation lands, which are held for it in trust by the United States. Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 495, 123 S.Ct. 1079. The Treaty of 1868 established the Navajo reservation, setting a territory apart for the use and occupation of the Navajo tribe of Indians. 15 Stat. 667 at art. II, XIII. The Executive Order of 1884 added lands from Arizona and Utah to the Navajo reservation for Indian purposes. The Act of 1934 confirmed the exterior boundaries of the Navajo Indian Reservation, in Arizona, stating that the lands were to be permanently withdrawn from all forms of entry or disposal for the benefit of the Navajo. 48 Stat. 960 § 1. The Act of 1934 also authorized the Secretary of the Interior to accept relinquishments and reconveyance to the United States of such privately owned lands, which would be held in trust for the Navajo Tribe of Indians. Id. § 2. The Act of December 22, 1974 (Act of 1974), 88 Stat. 1712, 25 U.S.C. §§ 640d to 640d-31, confirmed that the lands described in the Act of 1934 shall be held in trust by the United States exclusively for the Navajo Tribe and as a part of the Navajo Reservation. 25 U.S.C. § 640d-9. Because [m]inerals and standing timber are constituent elements of the land itself, United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians of Wind River Reservation, 304 U.S. 111, 116, 58 S.Ct. 794, 82 L.Ed. 1213 (1938), and because there is no language severing coal from the land held in trust, the language stating that the government holds lands in trust for the Nation applies equally to the Nation's coal located on that land. Therefore, the substantive sources of law cited by the Nation contain explicit trust language. Because such language is necessary but not sufficient for an Indian Tucker Act breach of trust claim, we proceed to evaluate whether the network of statutes and regulations asserted by the Nation establishes specific fiduciary or other duties that can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation for damages sustained. Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 506, 123 S.Ct. 1079.
The government assumed coal resource planning responsibilities in the Navajo-Hopi Rehabilitation Act of 1950. [3] Specifically, the Act authorized and directed the government to embark on a program of basic improvements for the conservation and development of the resources of the Navajo and Hopi Indians, . . . and the supplying of means to be used in their rehabilitation. 25 U.S.C. § 631. The Act thus appropriated $500,000 and funds from time to time appropriated pursuant to this subchapter for [s]urveys and studies of timber, coal, mineral, and other physical and human resources and mandated that the Nation be kept informed and afforded opportunity to consider from their inception plans pertaining to the program authorized. Id. §§ 631, 638 (emphasis added). In the context of the Act, it is clear that the government conducted such surveys and studies of the Nation's coal resources for the purpose of developing the coal economically.
The regulations promulgated pursuant to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 also establish that the government assumed comprehensive control of coal mining operations. In 1977, the Department of the Interior promulgated what would become 25 C.F.R. Part 216 Subpart B (1987). [4] These regulations established detailed performance standards . . . to each coal mining operation on Indian lands on or after December 16, 1977, including specifying requirements for signs and markers, postmining use of land, back-filling and grading, waste disposal, topsoil handling, protection of hydrologic systems, revegetation, and steep-slope mining. Id. §§ 216.103 to 216.111. Similarly in 1984, the Department of the Interior promulgated what would become 30 C.F.R. Part 750 (1987). These regulations established numerous surface coal mining operations responsibilities for the Office of Surface Mining, the Bureau of Land Management, the Minerals Management Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The responsibilities included approving and disapproving permits, inspection and enforcement, protecting non-coal resources, approving and disapproving coal exploration and mining plans, administering mining leases, collecting and accounting for royalties, and furnishing copies of notices and orders to mineral owners. 30 C.F.R. §§ 750.6, 750.18 (1987). In addition, the regulations specifically make the Bureau of Indian Affairs responsible for providing representation for Indian mineral owners and other Indian land owners in matters relating to surface coal mining and reclamation operations on Indian lands. Id. § 750.6(d).
In addition, the government assumed comprehensive control of the management and collection of royalties from coal mining. Section 303 of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1983 directed the Secretary of the Interior to study the question of the adequacy of royalty management for coal, uranium and other energy and nonenergy minerals on Federal and Indian lands. The study shall include proposed legislation if the Secretary determines that such legislation is necessary to ensure prompt and proper collection of revenues owed to the United States, the States and Indian tribes or Indian allottees from the sale, lease or other disposal of such minerals. Concluding that the existing auditing systems should be extended to cover solid minerals royalty management in addition to oil and gas and that new legislation was not required to do so, 51 Fed.Reg. 15,764 (Apr. 28, 1986), the Department of the Interior promulgated regulations for solid minerals such as coal, requiring the maintenance and access to records, the accounting and auditing of royalties, and the collection of royalties. See 30 C.F.R. Parts 212, 216, 218 (1987). Also pursuant to the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1983, the Department of the Interior promulgated 30 C.F.R. Part 206 Subpart F (1989), which prescribes the procedures to establish the value, for royalty purposes, of all coal from Federal and Indian Tribal and allotted leases. 30 C.F.R. § 206.250(a) (1989). These rules largely continue past practice for coal valuation, 54 Fed.Reg. 1492 (Jan. 13, 1989) (stating purpose and background in final rule); adopt valuation methods [that] would yield a reasonable and long-term maximum rate of return for both Federal and Indian leases, 52 Fed. Reg. 1840 (Jan. 15, 1987) (stating purpose and background of proposed rulemaking notice); and are intended to ensure that the trust responsibilities of the United States with respect to the administration of Indian coal leases are discharged in accordance with the requirements of the governing mineral leasing laws, treaties, and lease terms, 30 C.F.R. § 206.250(d). Citing Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 508 n. 12, 123 S.Ct. 1079, the government emphasizes that 30 C.F.R. Part 206 Subpart F was not promulgated until 1989, after the events at issue in this case, and as such, until 1989 the regulation was just that  a practice  and therefore irrelevant to Tucker Act jurisdiction. U.S. Br. 42-43. While it is true that the regulation was adopted after the events at issue, Navajo III, 537 U.S. at 508 n. 12, 123 S.Ct. 1079, the government does not dispute that the asserted sections of 30 C.F.R. Part 206 Subpart F describe actual practices that existed at the time of the lease amendments and that such practices are within the Department of the Interior's authority. Where the government exercises actual control within its authority, neither Congress nor the agency needs to codify such actual control for a fiduciary trust relationship that is enforceable by money damages to arise. See Apache, 537 U.S. at 475, 123 S.Ct. 1126 (finding a fair inference that an obligation to preserve the property improvements was incumbent on the United States as trustee where government exercised its discretionary authority to supervise and occupy property); see also Mitchell II, 463 U.S. at 225, 103 S.Ct. 2961 ([W]here 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).). Therefore, the practices described by 30 C.F.R. Part 206 Subpart F are relevant and support a finding that the government had comprehensive control of the management and collection of royalties from coal mining.
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.