Does the boundary of the CRIT reservation extend into California, or not?

CRIT says it does, and its Big River enterprise on the California side of the Colorado River is an important source of revenue for the Tribes. A group of Big River residents, most of them paying leases to CRIT, disagree. They call themselves Colorado River Residents For Justice, and it is their claim that no federal court has yet verified CRIT’s claim to ownership of the land they live on.

Late last week, CRIT’s case against Water Wheel Inc., a land lessor on the California side, was ruled on in U.S. District Court. The judge ruled that CRIT is the valid leaseholder of the land and is entitled to collect damages, and the ruling appears to give CRIT the right to move ahead with eviction proceedings.

But Residents For Justice see it differently. They claim that the ruling also prohibited CRIT from pursuing Robert Johnson personally, and that by gaining an Order of Eviction from a state court, CRIT would giving up its sovereign immunity, opening up the issue of whether the CRIT reservation extends into California or not.

Below are two press releases we received from each of the parties in this case. The first appeared yesterday, courtesy of CRIT Attorney General Eric Shepherd. The second was faxed to KLPZ Radio this morning by Colorado River Residents For Justice.

FROM CRIT:

PARKER, Arizona (September 28, 2009) — The U.S. District Court late last week awarded a significant legal victory to the Colorado River Indian Tribes in its case against a land lessor who has refused to abide by the terms of its lease.

In the case titled Water Wheel Camp Recreational Area, Inc.; Robert Johnson v. The Honorable Gary LaRance; Jolene Marshall, Judge David Campbell affirmed a ruling by the CRIT Tribal Court to evict Water Wheel and order the company to pay damages to CRIT for non-payment of rent.

The decision validates the Tribal Court’s decision, allows the Tribes to move forward with the eviction of Water Wheel, Inc., and allows the Tribes to the collect a multi-million dollar damage award. It also again upheld that CRIT has the full legal right to enforce leases and legal agreements on its lands in California.

“This is an important victory for CRIT and a ruling that upholds our Tribal sovereignty,” said Tribal Chairman Eldred Enas. “It shows that no one who enters into an agreement with CRIT is above the law and protects the integrity of the Tribal court system. CRIT is committed to moving forward with this matter and similar lease enforcement issues on its western boundary.”

The Court also ruled that the facts of the case did not support CRIT exercising personal jurisdiction over Johnson.

This case followed from a suit in Tribal Court by CRIT against Water Wheel, Inc., and Robert Johnson for eviction and damages for past due, and holdover rent. Water Wheel had a 32-year lease for 26 acres of riverfront land along the California side of the Colorado River that expired in July 2007.

Water Wheel and Johnson were supposed to surrender the property peaceably and without resort to legal process upon expiration. They did not, and the Tribes filed suit. The Tribal court found in favor of the Tribes and assessed multi-million dollar damages, and the Tribal Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

Thereafter, Water Wheel and Johnson sought relief in U.S. District Court from the Tribal Court judgment, claiming that the Judge (Gary LaRance) had no power to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonmember (non-Indian owned) corporation, or a nonmember who acted only as an agent of the corporation.

The U.S. District Court’s decision said that “The most compelling facts in support of a consensual relationship between Water Wheel and CRIT are Water Wheel’s 32-year lease of tribal land and its three-year hold-over tenancy on that land. A lease is one of the classic examples of a consensual relationship cited by the Supreme Court…Indeed, it is difficult to think of a more consensual relationship than a nonmember’s occupancy of tribal land under a formal written agreement with the tribe.”

The court also wrote that “In an attempt to overcome the virtually dispositive fact of the lease, Plaintiffs argue that the property does not belong to CRIT, that the lease is not valid, and that the lease is with the United States, not CRIT…Plaintiffs quite inconsistently…assert that they are not challenging the Indian title or reservation status of the land. A federal court judgment [has determined] that the property is owned by the United States ‘in trust for the Colorado River Indian Tribes.’”

CRIT is pursuing damages and eviction of other tenants on the western boundary who have not paid their rents or abided by the terms of their leases. The decision will boost CRIT’s efforts on this front, and CRIT will proceed with its cases against these lessors in the coming weeks and months.

FROM COLORADO RIVER RESIDENTS FOR JUSTICE:

On September 23rd, 2009, we received a ruling from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The Judge ruled that the CRIT Tribal Council had no jurisdiction over Robert Johnson personally, and ordered that the judgment against him in the tribal litigation is null and void. He ordered that portion of the tribal court vacated and specifically directed CRIT to pursue for further action against Robert Johnson. In short, CRIT cannot take any action against Robert Johnson which is associated with his presence at Water Wheel Resort, or its operations.

However, the court concluded that there was Tribal Court jurisdiction over Water Wheel Resort because it had operated under the Lease for 32 years and was by this time a holdover tenant. However, there is no execution of judgment provision in the federal order, meaning that CRIT currently does not have authority to evict Water Wheel. With this, it seems clear that CRIT cannot evict Water Wheel Resort unless it first obtains an Order of Eviction from a state court. However, filing such an action constitutes a tribal waiver of sovereign immunity, which in turn would establish a legal right by Water Wheel Resort to defend the suit on the issues associated with the boundary issue – including that the land is not held in trust and it is not within the Colorado River Indian Reservation. The federal laws prohibiting the CRIT Reservation from expanding into California would be fair game in that litigation.

While CRIT’s right to lease land in California has been upheld in this case, it appears that the courts have still not ruled directly on where CRIT’s western boundary lies, and until they do, the challenges by residents at the heart of this dispute may be far from over.