Attorneys for the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nation today filed a motion for partial summary judgment in the federal court case filed in August 2011 to protect the tribes' water rights in their shared treaty territory.
 
According to tribal attorneys, the motion is an appropriate step at this time to clarify the issues and protect the current legal process. 

The tribes' motion asks the federal court to rule, as a matter of federal law, that Oklahoma's stream adjudication statutes do not satisfy federal standards or otherwise reach the relevant questions presented in the Nations' lawsuit.
 
The State last week requested that the Oklahoma Supreme Court assume jurisdiction over a proposed adjudication of all claimed rights to the use of water in the Kiamichi, Muddy Boggy, and Clear Boggy Basins—an area that stretches from Ada, Oklahoma, to the Arkansas state line.

"The State's action misses the point," said Michael Burrage, attorney for both the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations. "The law doesn't support them in what they are trying to do, and we believe it's a distraction.  It would be much better for the parties to focus on the forum we're already in—the only one that has jurisdiction over the federal questions that the nations' suit has framed."

The nations have stated that the proposed adjudication is unnecessary and unwise since their federal court claims do not disrupt any existing use of water pursuant to a valid permit.

"The State has said it has to sue its own citizens in order to protect their water rights for them, but that just isn't true," said Burrage. "The nations' complaint expressly states that it does not and will not disturb existing uses of water made under valid permits. That issue isn't even on the table."

The tribes' motion also seeks a ruling on two other questions.

First, that as a matter of federal law, the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations possess water resource rights and interests under their1830 removal-era treaty, subsequent treaties, and other federal laws—"a series of treaties and laws that," Burrage says, "have been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in several rulings."

And second, that Oklahoma's water-use permitting system cannot lawfully authorize the export of waters from a basin that is subject to federal rights without regard for the certain procedural and substantive protections of federal law.
 
A court will grant a motion for summary judgment if there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the party moving is entitled to relief under the law.  Such motions do not dispose of the entire case but serve as useful tools in stating the controlling law.