Whether the Ninth Circuit Opinion infringes upon the Supreme Court's retained and exclusive jurisdiction over the allocation of water from the Lower Basin of the Colorado River

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Consolidated Decree in Arizona v. California, 547 U.S. 150 (2006), apportions the mainstream of the Colorado River in the Lower Basin (“LBCR”) among three States, decrees rights to the LBCR for five Indian Reservations (but not the Navajo reservation) and various other entities, and prescribes how the Secretary of the Interior (“Secretary”) shall operate the mainstream dams in satisfaction of the decreed rights and water delivery contracts entered under the Boulder Canyon Project Act (“BCPA”). The Court retained exclusive jurisdiction “for the purpose of any order, direction, or modification of the decree, or any supplementary decree, that may at any time be deemed proper in relation to the subject matter in controversy.” Id. at 166-67 (emphasis added). The United States “assumes Indian trust responsibilities only to the extent it expressly accepts those responsibilities by statute,” treaty, or regulation. US. v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 564 U.S. 162, 176-77 (2011). The federal treaties with the Navajo Nation (“Nation”) do not require the Secretary to develop a plan to secure water for the Nation; and they do not address water at all. The doctrine of implied rights to water in Winters v. United States, 426 U.S. 207 (1908) (“Winters Doctrine”) cannot justify imposing such a fiduciary duty on the Secretary. The questions presented are: I. Does the Ninth Circuit Opinion, allowing the Nation to proceed with a claim to enjoin the Secretary to develop a plan to meet the Nation’s water needs and ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued manage the mainstream of the LBCR so as not to interfere with that plan, infringe upon this Court’s retained and exclusive jurisdiction over the allocation of water from the LBCR mainstream in Arizona v. California? II. Can the Nation state a cognizable claim for breach of trust consistent with this Court’s holding in Jicarilla based solely on unquantified implied rights to water under the Winters Doctrine? iii PARTIES TO PROCEEDING The Petitioners were and appellees below. Petitioners from Arizona are the State of Arizona, the Central Arizona Water Conservation District, the Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association, and the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District. Petitioners from Nevada are the State of Nevada, the Colorado River Commission of Nevada, and Southern Nevada Water Authority. Petitioners from California are The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Coachella Valley Water District, and Imperial Irrigation District. The State of Colorado is also a Petitioner. Respondent Navajo Nation was the plaintiff and appellant below. Respondents also include the federal defendantappellees below the U.S. Department of the Interior, Deb Haaland, Secretary of the Interior, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Arizona Power Authority, an and appellee below, is also a Respondent.