Hualapai v. Haaland, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-08154-DJH

Docket: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/54578125/Hualapai_Indian_Tribe_v_Haaland_et_al
Complaint: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25033411/complaint_82024.pdf

The complaint filed by the Hualapai Tribe is about the proximity of the exploratory drilling holes to geological faults that could potentially affect Ha'Kamwe', their sacred spring. The tribe is particularly worried that the drilling activities might intersect with subsurface faults and fractures, creating pathways that could alter the groundwater flows essential to the spring.

The planned drilling sites for the lithium exploration project are to be positioned close enough to potentially penetrate deep into the aquifer supporting Ha'Kamwe'. This could disrupt the aquifer's pressurized layers, particularly given the variations in thickness and composition of these layers across the area. This could affect the spring’s flow and temperature, which are crucial for its sacred conditions.

Moreover, the tribe highlights that the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) environmental assessment relies on outdated or inadequate studies that do not sufficiently address the current project's specific impact on the spring, particularly in relation to the interconnected faults.

Resolution Conditions:

• YES: The court issues a decision on or before December 31, 2025, that mandates modifications to the BLM-approved lithium exploration project near Ha'Kamwe' in response to the Hualapai Tribe's lawsuit. This includes any modifications aimed at mitigating environmental impact or preserving cultural sites, as specified by the court. It can also include the court ordering the BLM to prohibit the project (DOI-BLM-AZ-C010-2021-0029-EA) entirely.

• NO: The court does not mandate modifications to the project by the specified date, which includes:

  • The court outright denies the tribe's request for modifications.

  • The court dismisses the case.

  • The decision to modify the project is left to the BLM without court mandate.

  • The case remains unresolved or the court’s decision does not specifically require modifications to the project as of December 31, 2025.

Additional Information:

• Official court rulings, judicial orders, and legally binding agreements will be considered valid sources to confirm any mandated modifications.

• If the court extends the decision timeline beyond 2025, or if the case is under appeal as of the end date, the condition will be resolved as "NO".

Hualapai Indian Tribe v. Haaland et al (3:24-cv-08154), Arizona District Court

Hualapai Indian Tribe v. Haaland et al (3:24-cv-08154), Arizona District Court, Filed: 08/02/2024 - PacerMonitor Mobile Federal and Bankruptcy Court PACER Dockets