Clark v. Haaland

New Mexico residents and an association of acequias, which are also known as “community ditches,” filed a lawsuit in federal court in New Mexico against federal, Navajo Nation, and state defendants seeking declarations regarding the application of federal law to certain reclamation and irrigation projects. The plaintiffs alleged that certain state court rulings had “overthrow[n] the first principles of federal water law, so they must be corrected by the federal courts.” Included in the relief sought by the plaintiffs were declarations that the Navajo Dam and Navajo Indian Irrigation Project (NIIP) are Bureau of Reclamation projects subject to the Reclamation Act of 1902, and to Section 8 of the Reclamation Act—which enacts a federal policy of water conservation—in particular. The plaintiffs also sought declarations that the Navajo Dam and NIIP are subject to the “practicably irrigable acreage standard”—which is the application of the beneficial use requirement to irrigation projects—and that when adjudicating claims to an interstate river, courts must consider factors that include global warming. The plaintiffs alleged that a state court judge previously “refused to consider the dire and growing shortages of water in the Colorado River system caused by global warming and prolonged drought.”

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by New Mexico residents who alleged that state, Tribal, and federal defendants violated federal water law in violation of the plaintiffs’ water rights. The plaintiffs’ allegations included that adjudication of water rights in interstate rivers must consider global warming. The Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that the claims must be dismissed because sovereign immunity prevented the courts from exercising jurisdiction over the defendants.