The Hoopa Valley India Tribe (Tribe) filed suit against the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to compel the agency to provide funding for the Tribe's proposed river and species restoration projects on the Trinity River in Northern California under the mandatory contracting provisions of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA).[1] The Ninth Circuit upheld a district court decision to grant summary judgment to BOR on the grounds that the Tribe's restoration programs were not eligible for mandatory contracts under the ISDEAA because the provision applied only to programs which were "for the benefit of Indians because of their status as Indians,"[2] not to programs for the benefit of the general public.

The salmon and steelhead fisheries along the Trinity River in Northern California historically have been central to of the Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe's livelihood and culture. Since 1955, the Tribe's salmon fisheries have been decimated by the Trinity River Division, a system of dams and diversions which diverted almost 90 percent of the upper river's flow to California's Central Valley. To address the severe river degradation caused by the Trinity River Division, Congress created a restoration program in 1984[3] and continued to provide for the river's restoration in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA).[4] In accordance with these statutes, the Department of Interior issued a Record of Decision recommending restoration measures for the river following the Tribe's participation in a "Trinity River Flow Evaluation Study" (Trinity Flow Study) thus reaffirming the federal government's commitment to restoring the river's salmon and steelhead populations in the Trinity River.

The Tribe first applied to BOR to fund its Trinity River restoration activities in 1999 under the ISDEAA as mandatory self-determination contracts, which are contracts "for the planning, conduct and administration of programs or services which are otherwise provided to Indian tribes and their members pursuant to Federal law."[5] BOR declined to provide the funds because the agency considered Trinity River restoration to be a national program, not one designed for the Tribe's specific benefit. The Tribe appealed BOR's decision to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA). IBIA affirmed BOR's decision in part, ruling that while the programs, functions, services, and activities related to the Trinity Flow Study and subsequent Record of Decision were eligible for self-determination contracts under the ISDEAA because they were directly connected to a Congressional grant of tribal authority in the CVPIA, restoration projects designed to benefit the public as a whole should not be funded as mandatory self-determination contracts. In 2002, the Tribe again requested funding from BOR for Trinity River restoration projects as mandatory self-determination contracts. BOR denied the request, citing the 1999 IBIA decision limiting self-determination contracts to activities related to the Trinity Flow Study and Record of Decision.

Following the denial of its 2002 request, the Tribe filed suit in federal court to challenge BOR's interpretation of mandatory self-determination contracts under the ISDEAA. The Tribe specified five Trinity River restoration activities for which it had been denied mandatory contracts: sediment transport monitoring, channel rehabilitation site physical monitoring, rehabilitation site biological monitoring, mainstem outmigrant monitoring, and participation in the Channel Restoration Subcommittee. In addition, the Tribe sought a declaratory judgment that all other programs, services, functions, and activities necessary to implement the Record of Decision were eligible for funding as mandatory self-determination contracts. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court held that the mandatory contracting provisions in the ISDEAA only applied to restoration activities which benefited the Tribe in particular. Restoration activities undertaken by the Tribe that were designed to generally benefit the Trinity River and all its users were not eligible for funding as ISDEAA mandatory self-determination contracts.

The Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision to grant BOR summary judgment de novo.[6] It first examined whether the district court was correct to conclude that the Trinity River restoration programs did not fall within the mandatory contracting provisions of the ISDEAA. The ISDEAA requires the government to enter into contracts with tribes for the planning, conduct, and administration of federal programs which are "for the benefit of Indians because of their status as Indians."[7] In addition, the ISDEAA provides for a second class of contracts that the government may use its discretion to fund. Programs "which are of special geographic, historical, or cultural significance" to a tribe but are national in scope[8] are not eligible for mandatory funding but may receive federal funds at the government's discretion.

The Tribe argued that the Trinity River restoration programs are "for the benefit of Indians because of their status as Indians"[9] and thus are eligible for funding as mandatory self-determination contracts. The Ninth Circuit disagreed. In Navajo Nation v. Department of Health & Human Services,[10] the court determined the scope of federal programs "for the benefit of Indians because of their status as Indians" to be limited to only those programs directed at Indians specifically.[11] Citing its earlier reasoning, the Ninth Circuit held the Trinity River restoration program was intended to benefit a wide range of interests in the river and its fisheries, not just the tribe. Programs which "collaterally benefit Indians as a part of the broader population" but are not "specifically targeted" at the Tribe are not eligible for mandatory funding under ISDEAA. [12] While the Tribe is a beneficiary of the restoration activities, Congress did not "specifically target" the Tribe to perform the restoration work. The increased fish populations and resulting recovery of tribal, commercial, and recreational fisheries that are the ultimate goals of the Trinity River Restoration will benefit the tribe, as well as commercial and recreational fishers, no matter who performs the restoration work. There was no dispute on appeal that the Tribe was eligible for funding under mandatory self-determination contracts for programs which specifically target the Tribe. The tribe is eligible to apply to do the restoration work, but the government is under no obligation to award it the contracts because, unlike programs eligible for self-determination contracts, the Trinity River restoration only "collaterally benefit[s] Indians as a part of the broader population."[13]

The Ninth Circuit next addressed whether the government's trust obligations to the Tribe require BOR to fund the restoration activities as mandatory contracts. The Tribe argued that the government's trust obligation "to protect the fishery resources of the Hoopa Valley Tribe"[14] should take precedence over its other statutory obligations. The Ninth Circuit recognized that the federal government is bound to a "distinctive obligation of trust"[15] in its dealings with Indians, and that it has interpreted this obligation to "extend to any federal government action."[16] However, the Ninth Circuit determined these trust obligations can coexist with a wide range of federal statutory responsibilities. The Ninth Circuit determined that the federal government's fiduciary obligation to the Tribe in this situation was limited to the conservation and restoration of the Trinity River and its fisheries; it did not include an obligation to award the Tribe contracts to accomplish this restoration.

In conclusion, the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's decision to grant summary judgment to BOR. The river restoration projects for which the Tribe requested funding were not intended for the Tribe's exclusive benefit, and thus did not meet the criteria for mandatory self-determination contracts under the ISDEAA.