Hydro Resources, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
608 F.3d 1131 (2010)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Due to a series of historical events, an area of land in New Mexico abutting the Navajo Reservation became known as the checkerboard region because alternating land parcels were owned by the state, the federal government, the Navajo Nation, individual tribe members, and private persons and entities. Hydro Resources, Inc. (HRI) (defendant) owned a parcel in the checkerboard region outright. There were no inhabitants on the land, the land was not inside any Indian reservation, and the land had not been set aside for Indian use and was not under federal control for Indian benefit. When HRI wanted to mine for uranium, it needed to first obtain the permit required by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had delegated its authority to issue such mining permits to the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) for all New Mexico mining except mining on Indian lands. Having no reason to think its land might constitute Indian land, HRI obtained the necessary permit from the NMED. The EPA did not question that permit until, sometime later, a dispute arose over the status of HRI’s land. At that point, the EPA issued a decision that HRI’s land qualified as Indian land because it was part of a dependent Indian community. The EPA therefore concluded that HRI needed to obtain a mining permit from the EPA, rather than from NMED. HRI sued the EPA in the federal court of appeals, challenging the EPA’s decision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gorsuch, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 905,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,100 briefs, keyed to 995 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

