Appellant Brief - Turtle Talk

ecause no one conducted an Environmental Impact Study (“EIS”), as required by
statute and regulation. 15 Id.
The Tenth Circuit held that the development company did not have a vested
interest in the lease at the time the Department rescinded its approval because the
lease was void. Id. at 894. In order to have legal effect, a lease must be validly
approved according to relevant statutes and regulations. Id. at 894-95. The
Department’s cancellation of the lease “did not divest Sangre of a leasehold
interest because Sangre’s interest never vested in the first place.” Id. at 895.
In an earlier case, that same court held that local agency actions that are
contrary to the regulations and contrary to the best interests of the Indian do not
create vested rights in the property interest. Gray v. Johnson, 395 F.2d 533, 536-
537 (10th Cir. 1968). 16 “Agents of the government must act within the bounds of
15 The District Court denied the injunction, and the Court of Appeals reversed
and remanded with instructions to enjoin the United States from approving the lease
agreement without the required EIS. Id. While the development company and the
BIA worked on the EIS, the Pueblo reconsidered the lease and asked the Department
to void it. Id. The Department then rescinded the prior lease approval citing
environmental considerations and the Pueblo’s opposition. Id. The trustee of the
development company’s bankruptcy estate brought suit asserting that the
Department’s recision of the lease constituted a taking under the Fifth Amendment.
Id. at 893-94.
16 There is no evidence in the record that suggests that it was in the best interest
of the Band to omit the two stipulations. In fact, it is difficult to imagine how that
(continued...)
55