Northern New Mexicans Protecting Land Water & Rights v. United States (161 F. Supp. 3d 1020, 2016)

United States District Court for the District of New Mexico 2016-01-30

Indians Judiciary and Judicial Procedure Public Lands Government Organization and Employees

Citations

Full opinion text

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

James O. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and/or For Judgment on the Pleadings; Memorandum in Support, filed November 10, 2015 (Doc. 22)(“MTD”). The Court held a hearing, on January 28, 2016. The primary issues are: (i) whether Plaintiff Northern New Mexicans Protecting Land Water and Rights has associational standing to sue on behalf of members who have not sought just compensation for their loss; (ii) whether Defendant United States of America has consented to be sued, thereby giving the Court jurisdiction to hear the case; and (iii) whether Northern New Mexicans’ remaining claims are barred, because the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(f), 2409a, is the exclusive means for resolving title disputes. Regarding the first issue, the Court determines that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Northern New Mexicans’ claims under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and the Quiet Title Act. Second, because the United States does not consent to be sued under the Quiet Title Act, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Northern New Mexicans’ quiet title claim. Third, because the Quiet Title Act provides the exclusive means for adverse claimants to challenge the United States’ title to real property, Northern New Mexicans’ remaining claims are barred.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Northern New Mexicans is a “nonprofit corporation whose members are property owners in New Mexico that are served by the rights of way know[n] as County Roads 84, 84A, 84B, 84C, 84D, and Sandy Way.” Complaint for Judicial Review Under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706; for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201; and for a Violation of Equal Protection Under the Law ¶ 1, at 2, filed June 30, 2015 (Doc. l)(“Complaint”). The properties that Northern New Mexicans’ members own “are served and accessed by long-standing and vested rights-of-way easements.” Complaint ¶ 13, at 4. These easements — County Roads 84, 84A, 84B, 84C, 84D, and Sandy Way — have “been regarded as public rights-of-way owned by the State of [New] Mexico and administered as either a State highway or as a County Road.” Complaint ¶ 17, at 4. Northern New Mexicans asserts that its members or the County have long-standing easements, or at least rights to use these roads, that were established decades ago. See Response at 11.

1. The History of Revised Statute 2477.

In 1866, Congress provided for public access across unreserved public lands by granting rights-of-way for highway construction. See Act of July 26, 1866, § 8, ch. 262, 14 Stat. 251, 253, codified at 43 U.S.C. § 932 (“[T]he right of way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted.”), repealed by Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Pub.L. No. 94-579 § 706(a), 90 Stat. 2743, 2793 (“FLPMA”). The 1866 Act came to be known as “R.S. 2477.” Letter from Anthony H. Gamboa, General Counsel, Gov’t Accountability Office, to Jeff Bingaman, United States Senator, Regarding Recognition of R.S. 2477 Rights-of-Way under the Department of the Interior’s FLPMA Disclaimer Rules and Its Memorandum of Understanding with the State of Utah (Feb. 6, 2004), filed December 22, 2015 (Doc. 30-5)(“GAO Letter”). R.S. 2477 was self-executing, meaning that an R.S. 2477 right-of-way could come into existence, without any formal public action, whenever the public sufficiently indicated its intent to accept the grant by establishing a public highway across public lands. See S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 425 F.3d 735, 770 (10th Cir.2005); GAO Letter at 1-2.

On October 21, 1976, Congress enacted the FLPMA, which repealed R.S. 2477, but it preserved “any valid” right-of-way “existing on the date of approval of this Act.” Pub.L. No. 94-579, §§ 701(a), 706(a), 90 Stat. 2743, 2786, 2793 (1976). See S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 425 F.3d at 741 (“In 1976 ... Congress abandoned its prior approach to public lands and instituted a preference for retention of the lands in federal ownership, with an increased emphasis on conservation and preservation.”). Consequently, R.S. 2477 rights-of-way perfected before Congress repealed the statute in 1976 remain valid today, assuming they have not lapsed. See GAO Letter at 1-2. After Congress repealed the statute, the public often did not know with certainty whether the rights-of-way were valid, because R.S. 2477 “did not require government approval or public recording of title.” GAO Letter at 2. To handle this uncertainty, the United States Department of the Interior issued a series of policy and other documents discussing how it would administratively recognize or validate specific rights-of-way. See GAO Letter at 2. By 1993, the Interior Department and the court together “had recognized about 1,453 R.S. 2477 rights-of-way across Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands, with about 5,600 claims remaining.” GAO Letter at 2-3.

In 1994, the Interior Department issued a proposed rule to establish a formal process to evaluate R.S. 2477 claims. See GAO Letter at 3. Congress responded by enacting temporary moratoria and, in 1996, imposed a permanent prohibition on certain R.S. 2477-related activity. See GAO Letter at 3. The permanent prohibition states: “No final rule or regulation of any agency of the Federal Government pertaining to the recognition, management, or validity of a right-of-way pursuant to [R.S. 2477] shall take effect unless expressly authorized by an Act of Congress subsequent to the date of enactment of this Act.” GAO Letter at 3. Congress’ enactment meant that numerous R.S. 2477 claims remained unresolved. See GAO Letter at 3-4. To help resolve some of the lingering uncertainty, the Interior Department amended its existing regulations to implement FLPMA § 315, 43 U.S.C. § 1745(a). See GAO Letter at 3. FLPMA § 315 authorizes the Interior Department to issue recordable disclaimers of United States interests in lands. See FLPMA § 315(a), 43 U.S.C. § 1745(a). The Interi- or Department used this process to validate R.S. 2477 rights-of-way. See GAO Letter at 3-4.

State or local governments may file suits to quiet title against the United States if they can demonstrate that they accepted the right-of-way grant before Congress repealed the statute in 1976. Because the Quiet Title Act represents the exclusive means by which claimants may challenge the United States’ title to real property, however, R.S. 2477 claims are barred if the claimant cannot satisfy the Quiet Title Act’s conditions for waiving sovereign immunity. See Sw. Four Wheel Drive, 363 F.3d at 1071 (holding that the plaintiff “cannot establish a claim under the Quiet Title Act [to a public right-of-way under R.S. 2477 across federal public lands] and thus it cannot bring suit against the United States”).

2. The History of the Disputed Roads.

Northern New Mexicans asserts that its members or the County gained title to these roads decades ago. See Response at 11. Historians provide insight into the roads’ ownership:

So far as known, no deed or other documentary evidence of title has been obtained from the Indians, but it appears from evidence submitted that this road or highway has been used by the public for more than fifty years, and the Board has determined and hereby (p. 538)/ determines that the Territory and State acquired by such use, an easement in and over said land, subject only to a reversion to the Pueblo whenever said land shall no longer by [sic] used by the public or the state as a highway, or shall be abandoned by the State for a new location across said Grant.

Stanley M. Hordes, History of the Santa Fe County Roads Passing Through Boundaries of Tesuque, Pojoaque, Nambe, San Ildefonso and Santa Clara Pueblos (“Hordes Report), available at http:// nnmprotect.org/docs/CR84/HordesReport SantaFeCountyFulLpdf.

Federal officials have similarly recognized the historic existence of Spanish land grant access roads. Ralph Emerson Twitchell, Special Assistant to the United States Attorney General, noted

I have deemed it advisable to call your attention to the fact that the lands of every Indian Pueblo in New Mexico are crossed by highways which have existed since the earliest days of the Spaniards and which are not in the most part State highways and part of the highway system in this section. There is not doubt in my mind that these roads, having been established by the Spaniards, the public has acquired a right by prescription to the use of the same and that no interference will meet with the approval of the Court....

Letter from R.E. Twitchell, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, to Charles H. Burke, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Santa Fe (March 22,1923), filed December 22, 2015 (Doc. 301). Similarly, the Solicitor for the Interior found in 1959 that it has traditionally been customary for mining locators, homestead, and other public land entrymen to build and or use such roads across public lands other than granted rights-of-way as were necessary to provide ingress and egress to and from their entries or claims without charge, the question whether a fee may be charged for such use is not only of broad, general interest but to make such a charge now would change a long practice.

United States Department of the Interior, 66 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 361 (1959). Accordingly, Northern New Mexicans argues that the San Ildefonso Pueblo does not own these roads. See Response at 10.

In contrast, the San Ildefonso Pueblo has argued for decades that it owns these roads. See San Ildefonso Orders County Off Land: SF Has No Right-of-Way Over Pueblo Lands for Road Maintenance, The New Mexican, Aug. 4,1965, at A1 (explaining that the San Ildefonso Pueblo ordered Santa Fe County to stop maintaining roads on “pueblo property”). After ordering Santa Fe County not to use the roads in 1965, the disputes continued. See Dale Lezon, San Ildefonso, County To Discuss Easements: Officials Seek More Ongoing Exchange, Albuquerque Journal, Aug. 12, 1999, at B2 (“Lezon Article”). In 1999, Santa Fe County officials met with Pueblo officials to attempt to resolve “[ujncertainty over easements for county roads on tribal land.” Lezon Article at 1. Richard Anaya, County Commissioner in 1999, said that “[p]aying the pueblo for county road easements may be necessary.” Lezon Article at 1. Nonetheless, Marcos Trujillo, another 1999 County Commissioner, stated that he refused to support paying for easements. See Lezon Article at 1. Northern New Mexicans notes that Santa Fe County and the Pueblo were not able to resolve the disputes over the rights-of-way.

3. The Events Leading to the Lawsuit.

On December 6, 2013, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) sent a letter to some of Northern New Mexicans’ members informing them that they were trespassing “on tribal lands of the Pueblo of San Ildefonso.” . Letter from Raymond Fry, Superintendent of the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Northern Pueblo Agency, to Katherine Miller (dated December 6, 2013), filed June 30, 2015 (Doc. ^(“December 6 Letter”). Northern New Mexi- . cans asserts that, through this December 6 Letter, the BIA “has acted arbitrarily and capriciously” by “seeking to extinguish these public property rights/easements that cross tribal land, and which provide the sole means of access to Plaintiffs fee simple real property.” Complaint ¶ 19, at 4. Northern New Mexicans argues that the BIA’s action has impaired its members’ ability to use the public easements to access their property. See Complaint ¶20, at 5. Accordingly, Northern New Mexicans asserts four causes of action against the four Defendants: (i) the United States; (ii) Sally Jewell, Secretary of the United States Department of Interior; (iii) Kevin Washburn, Assistant Secretary for the BIA; (iv) William Walker, Regional Director for the BIA’s Southwest Office; and (iv) Raymond Fry, Superintendent for the Northern Pueblo Agency within the BIA Southwest Region.

First, Northern New Mexicans alleges that the Defendants acted arbitrarily and capriciously by issuing a decision in derogation of its members’ public right-of-way easement. See Complaint ¶26, at 5. It argues that the Defendants issued a memorandum stating that Northern New Mexicans’ members were trespassing by using their rights-of-way. See Complaint ¶ 32, at 6. Northern New Mexicans contends that the Defendants’ memorandum, and “ongoing refusal to recognize and grant Plaintiffs members access to its private property by way of Plaintiffs vested easement violates the Act of 1866, and Plaintiffs members vested property rights.”’ Complaint ¶ 32, at 6. Northern New Mexicans argues that the Defendants’ actions are arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (“APA”). Complaint ¶ 33, at 6.

Second, Northern New Mexicans brings a quiet title action under the Quiet Title Act. It contends that its members have “a vested right of ingress and egress to their private property over the rights-of-way for which the County of Santa Fe holds title.” Complaint ¶ 39, at 7. Northern New Mexicans argues that, because the Defendants’ interference with its members’ property rights has clouded title to their property, the Court should quiet title “by declaring the existence and validity of such rights-of-way.” Complaint ¶ 44, at 8.

Third, Northern New Mexicans alleges that, if the law allows the Defendants to deprive its members of the right of access to their real property and cloud title, “such action constitutes a taking of Plaintiffs property for which compensation is due within the meaning of the [Takings Clause of the] Fifth Amendment” to the Constitution of the United States. Complaint ¶ 48, at 8. Finally, Northern New Mexicans argues that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, art. 8, July 4, 1848, 9 Stat. 929, affords former Mexican citizens occupying the land on which Northern New Mexicans’ members now reside “the full protection of United States citizens and equal protection under the laws of the United States.” Complaint ¶ 57, at 10. It contends that the Defendants’ actions in preventing its members from accessing their property violate its members’ rights to equal protection under the law. See Complaint ¶ 60, at 10.

Northern New Mexicans seeks a declaratory judgment stating: (i) that the Defendants’ interference with its access rights is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and/or otherwise unlawful,” Complaint ¶ 1, at 10-11; (ii) that the “public holds the previously described rights-of-way as a vested property right”; Complaint ¶ 2, at 11; (iii) that the Defendants’ attempt to deny Northern New Mexicans’ members access to their property violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, see Complaint ¶ 4, at 11; and (iv) that the Defendants’ actions violate “the rights preserved to Plaintiffs members by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo,” Complaint ¶ 5, at 11. Northern New Mexicans also asks the Court to enjoin the Defendants from interfering with the public’s vested rights. See Complaint ¶ 3, at 11.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Defendants answered the Complaint by including a Prefatory Statement indicating that the APA and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure — not the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — apply to two of Northern New Mexicans’ causes of action. See Federal Defendants’ Answer at 1-2, filed September 21, 2015 (Doc. 8)(“Answer”). The Court concluded that the Defendants’ Prefatory Statement constitutes a proper response to Northern New Mexicans’ assertion of two APA claims. See Northern New Mexicans Protecting Land Water and Rights v. United States, 2015 WL 8329509, at *1 (D.N.M. Dec. 4, 2015)(Browning, J.).

1. The MTD.

The Defendants raise numerous jurisdictional flaws about Northern New Mexicans’ Complaint. See MTD at 1-2. First, they argue that the Quiet Title Act “provides the exclusive means by which Plaintiff can challenge BIA’s December 6, 2013 letter, and thus Plaintiffs APA, constitutional, and Treaty claims are barred by the QTA’s limits on the United States’ waiver of sovereign immunity.” MTD at 1 (emphasis in original). In turn, they assert that the “quiet title claim is barred because the QTA’s waiver of sovereign immunity is limited to title claims that do not involve ‘trust or restricted Indian lands,’ ” which are the lands at issue. MTD at 1-2. The Defendants argue that these “two issues alone render this Court without jurisdiction to hear any of the claims in Plaintiffs Complaint.” MTD at 2.

The Defendants next contend that, even beyond the “dispositive jurisdictional issues, the Court would lack jurisdiction b^sed on other considerations.” MTD at 2. First, the Defendants assert, Northern New Mexicans are not proper plaintiffs in a quiet title action, because they “failed to invoke the QTA’s waiver of sovereign immunity by failing to plead with ‘particularity’ its interests” in the disputed properties. MTD at 2 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(d)). Second, the Defendants argue that Northern New Mexicans cannot pursue their takings claim, because the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, “vests jurisdiction for such claims solely in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.” MTD at 2.

Third, the Defendants contend that “Plaintiff lacks associational standing because quieting title in the alleged rights-of-way or easements and seeking just compensation for the alleged taking of its members’ properties requires the individual members to participate in the lawsuit.” MTD at 2. Fourth, the Defendants assert that “the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo does not provide Plaintiff or its members with a cause of action.” MTD at 2. Finally, the Defendants argue that “Plaintiff has failed to allege a plausible equal protection claim.” MTD at 2. In total, the Defendants contend that the Court should dismiss Northern New Mexicans’ APA and non-APA claims under rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See MTD at 7. The Defendants assert that the Court should apply the rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) standards in determining whether to dismiss Northern New Mexicans’ claims under rule 12(c). See MTD at 7.

2. The Response.

Northern New Mexicans responded on December 22, 2015. See Plaintiffs Response to Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and/or for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed December 22, 2015 (Doc. 30)(“Response”). It disputes the Defendants’ theory “on many fronts.” Response at 2. Above all, Northern New Mexicans argues that, if it fails to plead with particularity, the fault lies with the Defendants for two reasons: (i) “it is the United States who created an ‘alleged’ title dispute”; and (ii) “the United States failed to identify the property that it claims an interest in, only identifying such interest in relation to the named county road rights-of-way.” Response at 2. It asserts that it is “in a catch-twenty two,” because the December 6 Letter similarly does not identify the land with particularity. Response at 2. Northern New Mexicans appears to contend that, because the United States claims title to the land, it must identify the land with particularity. See Response at 3.

Northern New Mexicans next responds to the Defendants’ argument that the law bars their claims. See Response at 4. It asserts that the Quiet Title Act waives the United States’ immunity from suit. See Response at 6. Moreover, it states that, when a plaintiff does not assert any competing interest in the property at issue, the Quiet Title Act’s waiver limitations and other requirements do not apply. See Response at 7. It argues that these limitations and requirements do not apply here, because Northern New Mexicans does not assert ownership of the property — only its members assert interests. See Response at 7. Additionally, Northern New Mexicans contends that the law does not bar' its other claims, because its action to quiet title is “not inextricably intertwined” with its other causes of action. Response at 4. It seems to suggest that the Quiet Title Act does not provide the exclusive remedy fon title actions against the United States. See Response at 8. Accordingly, it argues that it can sue under the APA. See Response at 13-14.

Northern New Mexicans also argues that it seeks to protect several vested easements, not ones that the County holds, but those that its members hold. See Response at 14-15. It asserts that many people may hold easements, which “are real property rights coexisting on the same right-of-ways which also exist overlain the top of the subservient fee property of the United States.” Response at 15. Northern New Mexicans emphasizes that it does not allege the “rights vested in the state of New Mexico and the County of Santa Fe,” but it asserts its members’ right to use the public easements. Response at 15-16. It states: “These vested easements exist in addition to the public easements vested in the state of New Mexico and Santa Fe County.” Response at 16.

It concedes that the “United States government has long argued against the notion that private vested easements across public ground for rights-of-way exist,” but argues that “good grounds and precedent exist to support just that outcome.” Response at 16. Despite its argument that precedent supports the existence of private easements in this situation, it “will admit to the Court that the only case secured deciding private vested easements existing across federal lands is United States v. 9,947.71 Acres of Land, More or Less, in Clark Cty., State of Nev., 220 F.Supp. 328, (D.Nev.1963)[“(9,947.71 Acres of Land)”].” Response at 16. Northern New Mexicans asserts that its situation is similar to the situation in 9,947.71 Acres of Land, because the United States passed title to its right-of-way to the public in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. See Response at 19.

Regarding the Tucker Act claim, Northern New Mexicans argues that the Court has jurisdiction over its Tucker Act claim, because it does not seek damages over $10,000.00. See Response at 19. It contends that, because it seeks only a declaratory judgment, it “may permissibly pursue this action under the federal district courts’ concurrent jurisdiction. See Response at 20. Finally, it asserts that it has associational standing. See Response at 21.

3. The Reply.

The Defendants replied on January 22, 2016. See Federal Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss and/or for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed January 22, 2016 (Doc. SUC'Reply”). The Defendants reiterate that “all of the claims raised in Plaintiffs Complaint are premised on the title dispute over Plaintiffs and its members’ alleged interests in rights-of-way over roads traversing the Pueblo of San Ildefonso.” Reply at 1. As such, the Defendants argue that Northern New Mexicans’ “lawsuit is cognizable — if at all — pursuant only to the waiver of sovereign immunity of. the Quiet Title Act.” Reply at 1. They emphasize that Northern New Mexicans’ quiet title claims fail “on several grounds.” Reply at 1.

Most importantly, the Defendants argue, Northern New Mexicans cannot seek to quiet title to the disputed roads. See Reply at 1-2. They argue that, in recognition of this fact, the Response “changes course and contends that Plaintiff does not, after all, seek to quiet title in these roads.” Reply at 2. They argue that, instead, Northern New Mexicans asserts that its members are adverse claimants who seek to quiet title. See Reply at 3. The Defendants assert that Northern New Mexicans “cannot amend its complaint with a response brief to a motion to dismiss.” Reply at 2. Furthermore, the Defendants argue that “the QTA’s ‘prohibition of suits challenging the United States’ title in Indian trust land may prevent suit even when a plaintiff does not characterize its action as a quiet title action.’ ” Reply at 2 (quoting Iowa Tribe of Kan. & Neb. v. Salazar, 607 F.3d 1225, 1230 (10th Cir.2010)). They also argue that Northern New Mexicans cannot avoid the Quiet Title Act’s limitations by alleging that the disputed roads are public roads. See Reply at 5.

The Defendants raise standing concerns in connection with Northern New Mexicans’ quiet title claim. See Reply at 3. They argue that associations can bring only derivative claims — “the claims of its members who would have standing in their own right” — unless it asserts a direct harm to itself. Reply at 3. Here, they contend, Northern New Mexicans “readily agrees that its members are adverse claimants” to provide the organization with standing, yet simultaneously argues that Northern New Mexicans as an entity is not an adverse claimant under the Quiet Title Act, thereby allowing it to maintain its suit. Reply at 3. The Defendants argue that the “Plaintiff cannot have it both ways.” Reply at 3. Moreover, the Defendants contend that litigating the quiet-title claim requires “direct participation of Plaintiff’s members as parties.” Reply at 11. The Defendants allege, however, that direct participation precludes associational standing. See Reply at 11.

The remainder of the Defendants’ Reply reasserts the MTD’s arguments that the Quiet Title Act provides the only means by which Northern New Mexicans can sue. See Reply at 4-5 (arguing that Northern New Mexicans cannot pursue its APA claim); id. at 6-7 (stating that Northern New Mexicans’ quiet-title claim does not satisfy the Quiet Title Act’s sovereign immunity waiver); id. at 11-12 (contending that the Quiet Title Act bars Northern New Mexicans’ claim because it fails to plead with particularity); id. at 12 (arguing that Northern New Mexicans does not allege the necessary facts to plead an equal-protection claim). The Reply concludes by arguing that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Northern New Mexicans’ takings claim, because Northern New Mexicans seeks only a declaratory judgment, while “just compensation ... is the only proper remedy for a takings claim.” Reply at 10. The Defendants state: “Because Plaintiffs Complaint fails to plead any jurisdictional amount of damages for its takings claim, it has failed to establish this Court’s jurisdiction and the claim must be dismissed.” Reply at 11.

4. The Hearing.

The Court held a hearing on January 28, 2015. See Transcript of Hearing (taken January 28, 2015)(“Tr.”). The Court initiated the hearing by explaining its position on the parties’ claims. See Tr. at 2:1-11:24 (Court). The United States agreed with the Court’s position that Northern New Mexicans lacks standing on the quiet-title and takings claims. See Tr. at 12:7-11 (agreeing with the Court’s analysis). The Court then asked the United States whether Northern New Mexicans has standing to pursue its APA claim. See Tr. at 12:16-20 (Court). The United States asserted that it did not consider the December 6 Letter a final agency action under the APA, which it said is a prerequisite to the Court’s jurisdiction. See Tr. at 13:3-10 (Smith). It stated that the letter was a statement of a legal position and not a final determination to undertake a project. See Tr. at 13:3-10 (Smith). It argued that it was a request for negotiations and that, before the BIA took any further action, it would have to refer the matter up the hierarchy to seek a- legal decision whether a trespass is actually occurring. See Tr. at 13:17-22 (Smith). In short, it asserted that the December 6 Letter was only a “step in the process.” Tr. at 15:3 (Smith). Accordingly, it argued that Northern New Mexicans lacked standing on the quiet-title claim, the takings claim, and the APA claim. See Tr. at 20:20-23 (Smith).

Northern New Mexicans responded that it has standing on all of its claims, because it seeks a declaratory judgment. See 21:23-22:3 (Richards). The Court asked how Northern New Mexicans could litigate its takings claim and quiet-title claim without involving its members, which would preclude standing. See Tr. at 22:9-13 (Court). Northern New Mexicans could not provide a case holding that it did not need its members to litigate the claim, but it argued that it could do so, because it sought only a declaratory judgment. See Tr. at 23:9-12 (Richards); id. at 24:2-5 (Richards)(stating that, for declaratory judgment actions, “we don’t believe the individual members have to be brought in at this time”). It cited cases indicating that courts can issue declaratory relief for takings claims. See Tr. at 23:12-20 (Richards). It observed in passing, however, that the cases provided such relief only when compensation was unavailable. See Tr. at 24:23-25:1 (Richards)(citing a case that granted injunctive relief “where a claims court remedy is inadequate”).

At one point, Northern New Mexicans admitted that plaintiffs cannot make a takings claim until they are denied compensation. See Tr. at 32:12-21 (Richards)(“If you don’t get compensation, then you can bring a takings claim but until you are denied, sometimes in state court, sometimes in Federal Court, you just don’t get to make a takings claim.”). Nevertheless, it argued that it or its members could pursue compensation claims, demonstrating to the Court that adequate relief is available. See Tr. at 26:8-9 (stating that compensation will be available if they can show there has been a taking); id. at 26:13-15 (Riehards)(asserting that each member could bring an individual claim for compensation); id. at 33:10-17 (Richards)(“If this Court were to provide that type of declaration then the individuals who are harmed in the future by the actual taking could go forward and bring a compensatory damages claim.”). Northern New Mexicans admitted that it has never sought compensation in this case or any other case. See Tr. at 37:1113 (Richards). Later in the hearing, Northern New Mexicans conceded that no taking had occurred: “The letter itself doesn’t take the property. The letter itself impacts a right that will at some point in the future cause a taking of certain property rights.” Tr. at 25:10-13 (Richards). It therefore admitted that, currently, it has no takings claim. See Tr. at 32:9-12 (Richards)(“We are not yet arguing there has been an absolute taking. We’re arguing that the actions the Government is currently engaging in may result in a taking.”).

Northern New Mexicans then stated that it wanted to amend its pleadings to remove its takings claim. See Tr. at 26:4— 6 (“We do not want to bring a direct takings claim at this point.”). It also stated that it agrees with the Court that it should dismiss its quiet-title claim. See Tr. at 27:7-10 (Richards). It asserted that it has sought to amend its Complaint previously, even suggesting that the Court had not permitted it to amend, see Tr. at 27:7-11, but Northern New Mexicans never filed a motion to amend. The Court asked what the amended claims would look like. See Tr. at 27:20-23 (Court). Northern New Mexicans asserted that it would seek a declaration that its membership has a right to use long-existing rights-of-ways, and that it would not seek to quiet title in its member’s or the County of Santa Fe’s names. See Tr. at 28:5-16 (Richards). In short, it contended that the amended complaint could not bring a quiet title action, because it does not seek to quiet title in any party’s name. See Tr. at 29:9-12 (Richards).

The United States then argued that, even if Northern New Mexicans had standing, the Court would nonetheless lack jurisdiction, because the United States did not waive sovereign immunity. See Tr. at 43:1-44:17 (Smith). It stated that the United States does not waive its sovereign immunity when a person claims an interest in Indian lands. See Tr. at 44:25-45:25 (Smith). Further, the United States observed that the County of Santa Fe is not involved in the litigation. See Tr. at 18:5-12 (Smith). It suggested that Santa Fe County did not bring a lawsuit, because it “probably recognized that the quiet title act is not available here, and that other avenues have to be pursued.” Tr. at 18:6-8 (Smith). The Court asked Northern New Mexicans why Santa Fe County was not involved. See Tr. at 37:16-17 (Court). Northern New Mexicans responded that Santa Fe County has its own legal counsel and chose not to be involved in this lawsuit. See Tr. at 37:18-38:5 (Richards).

The United States then argued that the Court must dismiss Northern New Mexicans’ remaining claims, because they all require the Court to determine title to the disputed roads. See Tr. at 38:24-39:25 (Smith). The United States contended that Supreme Court precedent bars the Court from issuing a declaratory judgment on any of Northern New Mexicans’ remaining claims, because the declaration would require the Court to resolve the title dispute about who owns the roads. See Tr. at 39:1-40:11 (Smith). The Court asked Northern New Mexicans how the Court could grant relief on Northern New Mexicans’ remaining claims without determining who owns title to the roads. See Tr. at 55:16-19 (Court). Northern New Mexicans said that the Court could issue a declaration that the United States deprived them of their fundamental right— the right to own property. See Tr. at 55:20-25 (Richards).

The United States asserted that, instead of pursuing this litigation in its current form, Northern New Mexicans’ members should proceed under the Tucker Act in seeking compensation. See Tr. at 60:11-19 (Smith). It stressed, however, that the members did not need to act immediately, because no taking had occurred, and because there was no final agency action under the APA. See Tr. at 60:11-61:16 (Smith).

LAW REGARDING STANDING

A federal court may hear cases only where the plaintiff has standing to sue. Standing has two components. First, standing has a constitutional component arising from Article Ill’s requirement that federal courts hear only genuine cases or controversies. Second, standing has a prudential component. See Habecker v. Town of Estes Park, Colo., 518 F.3d 1217, 1224 n. 7 (10th Cir.2008)(Lucero, J.)(noting that prudential standing concerns may prevent judicial resolution of a case even where constitutional standing exists). The burden of establishing standing rests on the plaintiff. See, e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 104, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998). The plaintiff must “allege ... facts essential to show jurisdiction. If they fail to make the necessary allegations, they have no standing.” FW/PBS v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231, 110 S.Ct. 596, 107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990)(internal citations and quotations omitted). Moreover, where the defendant challenges standing, a court must presume lack of jurisdiction “unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.” Renne v. Geary, 501 U.S. 312, 316, 111 S.Ct. 2331, 115 L.Ed.2d 288 (1991)(quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986))(internal quotation marks omitted). “It is a long-settled principle that standing cannot be inferred argumentatively from averments in the pleadings but rather must affirmatively appear in the record.” Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1326 (10th Cir.1997)(Henry, J.)(quoting FW/PBS v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. at 231, 110 S.Ct. 596) (citations omitted)(internal quotation marks omitted).

1. Article III Standing.

“Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to Cases and Controversies.” San Juan Cty., Utah v. United States, 503 F.3d 1163, 1171 (10th Cir.2007)(en banc). See U.S. Const, art. III, § 2. “In general, this inquiry seeks to determine ‘whether [the plaintiff has] such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination.’ ” Wyoming ex rel. Crank v. United States, 539 F.3d 1236, 1241 (10th Cir.2008)(Ebel, J.)(quoting Massachusetts v. EPA 549 U.S. 497, 539, 127 S.Ct. 1438, 167 L.Ed.2d 248 (2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[A] suit does not present a Case or Controversy unless the plaintiff satisfies the requirements of Article III standing.” San Juan Cty., Utah v. United States, 503 F.3d at 1171. To establish standing, a plaintiff must show three things: “(1) an injury in fact that is both concrete and particularized as well as actual or imminent; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct; and (3) a likelihood that the injury would be redressed by a favorable decision.” Protocols, LLC v. Leavitt, 549 F.3d 1294, 1298 (10th Cir.2008)(Hartz, J.)(internal quotation marks omitted).

“Standing is determined as of the time the action is brought.” Smith v. U.S. Court of Appeals, for the Tenth Circuit, 484 F.3d 1281, 1285 (10th Cir.2007)(Seymour, J.)(quoting Nova Health Sys. v. Gandy, 416 F.3d 1149, 1154 (10th Cir.2005)(Ebel, J.)). In Smith v. U.S. Court of Appeals, for the Tenth Circuit, the Tenth Circuit rejected a plaintiffs standing to challenge the Colorado appellate courts’ practice of deciding cases in non-prece-dential, unpublished opinions, which the plaintiff asserted allowed courts to affirm incorrect decisions without interfering with official, “published” law. 484 F.3d at 1285. The Tenth Circuit noted that the plaintiff had recently taken his state appeal and, therefore,

was in no position to challenge the adequacy of state appellate review in cases culminating in unpublished opinions unless he could show that he would in fact receive such review from the state court of appeals (and from the state supreme court as well, if it took the case on certiorari).

484 F.3d at 1285.

By contrast, in Nova Health System v. Gandy, the Tenth Circuit found that abortion providers had standing to challenge an Oklahoma parental-notification law on the grounds that they were in imminent danger of losing patients because of the new law. See 416 F.3d at 1154. Although it concluded that the plaintiffs had standing, the Tenth Circuit was careful to frame the issue as whether, “as of June 2001 [the time the lawsuit was filed],” Nova Health faced any imminent likelihood that it would lose some minor patients seeking abortions. 416 F.3d at 1155. Moreover, while focusing on the time of filing, the Tenth Circuit allowed the use of evidence from later events — prospective patients lost because of the notification law after the lawsuit began — to demonstrate that the plaintiff faced an imminent threat as of the time of filing. See 416 F.3d at 1155.

2. Prudential Standing.

“Prudential standing is not jurisdictional in the same sense as Article III standing.” Finstuen v. Crutcher, 496 F.3d 1139, 1147 (10th Cir.2007)(Ebel, J.). Prudential standing consists of “a judicially-created set of principles that, like constitutional standing, places limits on the class of persons who may invoke the courts’ decisional and remedial powers.” Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. Geringer, 297 F.3d 1108, 1112 (10th Cir.2002)(Ebel, J.)(internal quotation marks omitted). Generally, there are three prudential standing requirements: (i) “a plaintiff must assert his' own rights, rather than those belonging to third parties”; (ii) “the plaintiffs claim must not be a generalized grievance shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens”; and (iii) “a plaintiffs grievance must arguably fall within the zone of interests protected or regulated by the statutory provision or constitutional guarantee invoked in the suit.” Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. Geringer, 297 F.3d at 1112 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Traditionally, federal courts framed the zone-of-interests test as an issue of prudential standing. The Supreme Court recently clarified that the zone-of-interests analysis “is an issue that requires us to determine, using traditional tools of statutory interpretation, whether a legislatively conferred cause of action encompasses a particular plaintiffs claim.” Lexmark Int’l v. Static Control Components, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1377, 1387, 188 L.Ed.2d 392 (2014). Statutory standing “extends only to plaintiffs whose interests fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.” Lexmark Int’l v. Static Control Components, 134 S.Ct. at 1387. Notably, the Supreme Court stated that it “often ‘conspicuously included the word ‘arguably’ in the test to indicate that the benefit of any doubt goes to the plaintiff.’ ” Lexmark Int’l v. Static Control Components, 134 S.Ct. at 1389 (quoting Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2199, 183 L.Ed.2d 211 (2012)). Moreover, the test “forecloses suit only when a plaintiffs interests are so marginally related to or inconsistent with the purposes implicit in the statute that it cannot reasonably be assumed that Congress authorized the plaintiff to sue.” Lexmark Int’l v. Static Control Components, 134 S.Ct. at 1389 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). This “lenient approach” preserves the APA’s flexible judicial-review provisions. Lexmark Int’l v. Static Control Components, 134 S.Ct. at 1389.

LAW REGARDING SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

“The United States cannot be sued without its consent.” Garcia v. Unit ed States, 709 F.Supp.2d 1133, 1137 (D.N.M.2010)(Browning, J.). “Congressional consent — a waiver of the traditional principle of sovereign immunity — is a prerequisite for federal-court jurisdiction.” Garcia v. United States, 709 F.Supp.2d at 1137-38. “The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that Congress has waived sovereign immunity for all of his claims.” Garcia v. United States, 709 F.Supp.2d at 1138. See Bork v. Carroll, 449 Fed.Appx. 719, 721 (10th Cir.2011)(“So it is that a plaintiff seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts bears the burden of identifying an applicable statutory waiver of sovereign immunity when challenged to do so.”); Summa v. United States, 936 F.2d 584, 1991 WL 114638, at *3 (10th Cir.1991)(unpublished table decision)(holding in a Federal Tort Claims Act ease that the “Plaintiffs bore the burden of proving that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over their claims”)(citing Miller v. United States, 710 F.2d 656, 662 (10th Cir.1983)).

1. General Sovereign Immunity Principles.

It is “axiomatic that the United States may not be sued without its consent and that the existence of consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction.” United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212, 103 S.Ct. 2961, 77 L.Ed.2d 580 (1983) (citations omitted). See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994): United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399, 96 S.Ct. 948, 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976); United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586, 61 S.Ct. 767, 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941). As with any jurisdictional issue, the party bringing suit against the - United States bears the burden of proving that sovereign immunity has been waived. See James v. United States, 970 F.2d 750, 753 (10th Cir.1992). A waiver of sovereign immunity cannot be implied and must be unequivocally expressed. See United States v. Nordic Vill, Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 33-34, 112 S.Ct. 1011, 117 L.Ed.2d 181 (1992); United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538, 100 S.Ct. 1349, 63 L.Ed.2d 607 (1980); United States v. Murdock Mach. & Eng’g Co. of Utah, 81 F.3d 922, 930 (10th Cir.1996). The United States’ agencies also have sovereign immunity absent a waiver. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994)(“Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit”).

2. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2).

Section 1346(a)(2) provides:

(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the United States Court of Federal Claims, of:

(2) Any other civil action or claim against the United States, not exceeding $10,000 in amount, founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress, or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort, except that the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any civil action or claim against the United States founded upon any express or implied contract with the United States or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort which are subject to sections 7104(b)(1) and 7107(a)(1) of title 41.

28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2). The Supreme Court of the United States has held that this statute “empowers district courts to award damages but not to grant injunctive or declaratory relief.” Lee v. Thornton, 420 U.S. 139, 140, 95 S.Ct. 853, 43 L.Ed.2d 85 (1975). The Tenth Circuit found the exercise of jurisdiction under this statute improper when the plaintiff “sought the equitable relief of rescission, while employing language designed to render the federal defendants liable in damages in the amount of the promissory note.” Ortiz v. United States, 661 F.2d 826, 830-31 (10th Cir.1981). See McKay v. United States, 516 F.3d 848, 851 (10th Cir.2008)(“But this action involves a contractual, not a constitutional, obligation and plaintiff does not cite, nor have we found, any contract case holding that [28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) ] may be avoided ... by forgoing the damages remedy the Act permits and seeking equitable relief it prohibits.”). “A plaintiff attempting to invoke the subject matter of the federal district courts bears the burden to establish his or her claim does not exceed the $10,000.00 jurisdictional limit established by” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(f). Cortez v. EEOC, 585 F.Supp.2d 1273, 1288 (D.N.M.2007)(Browning, J.).

3. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(f) and 2409a.

Section 1346(f) provides: “The district courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of civil actions under section 2409a to quiet title to an estate or interest in real property in which an interest is claimed by the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(f). Section 2409a provides in relevant part:

The United States may be named as a party defendant in a civil action under this section to adjudicate a disputed title to real property in which the United States claims an interest, other than a security interest or water rights. This section does not apply to trust or restricted Indian lands....

28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a). These statutes, together referred to as the Quiet Title Act, provide subject-matter jurisdiction and a waiver of sovereign immunity for quiet-title actions against the United States. See Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2199, 2206, 183 L.Ed.2d 211 (2012)(“From its title to its jurisdictional grant to its venue provision, the Act speaks specifically and repeatedly of ‘quiet title’ actions. That term is universally understood to refer to suits in which a plaintiff not only challenges someone else’s claim, but also asserts his own right to disputed property.”) (citations omitted).

“Congress intended the QTA to provide the exclusive means by which adverse claimants could challenge the United States’ title to real property.” United States v. Mottaz, 476 U.S. 834, 841, 106 S.Ct. 2224, 90 L.Ed.2d 841 (1986). The Tenth Circuit has stated that, “as its legislative history makes clear, the QTA applies even where the plaintiff claims an estate less than a fee simple ... [such as] an easement.” McKay v. United States, 516 F.3d at 850 (alteration in original)(internal quotation marks omitted).

28 U.S.C. § 2409a(g) provides:

Any civil action under this section, except for an action brought by a State, shall be barred unless it is commenced within twelve years of the date upon which it accrued. Such action shall be deemed to have accrued on the date the plaintiff or his predecessor in interest knew or should have known of the claim of the United States.

28 U.S.C. § 2409a(g). As the Supreme Court has stated: “The limitations period is a central condition of the consent given by the Act.” United States v. Mottaz, 476 U.S. at 843, 106 S.Ct. 2224. A plaintiffs claim being timely under this statute of limitations is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit under 28 U.S.C. § 2409a. See Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Bd. of Univ. and Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 273, 287, 103 S.Ct. 1811, 75 L.Ed.2d 840 (1983)(“Block v. North Dakota ”)(“When waiver legislation contains a statute of limitations, the limitations provision constitutes a condition on the waiver of sovereign immunity.”); Rio Grande Silvery Minnow (Hybognathus amarus) v. Bureau of Reclamation, 599 F.3d 1165, 1175 (10th Cir.2010)(“Timeliness under subsection [ (g) ] is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit under section 2409a.”)(alteration in original)(footnote added).

“The twelve-year limitations period is strictly construed in favor of the United States.” Rio Grande Silvery Minnow (Hybognathus amarus) v. Bureau of Reclamation, 599 F.3d at 1176. The Tenth Circuit has “held that for purposes of determining when ‘the claim’ accrues under § 2409a(f), ‘[a]ll that is necessary is a reasonable awareness that the government claims some interest adverse to the plaintiffs.’ ” Vincent Murphy Chevrolet Co., Inc. v. United States, 766 F.2d 449, 452 (10th Cir.1985). “Knowledge of the claim’s full contours is not required. All that is necessary is a reasonable awareness that the Government claims some interest adverse to the plaintiffs.” Rio Grande Silvery Minnow (Hybognathus amarus) v. Bureau of Reclamation, 599 F.3d at 1176 (emphasis in original).

Furthermore, “the United States need not assert a full legal title in the disputed property for the limitations period to accrue; the claimed adverse interest in the title of the property merely must be substantial enough to create a cloud on title.” Rio Grande Silvery Minnow (Hybognathus amarus) v. Bureau of Reclamation, 599 F.3d at 1176. The Tenth-Circuit has held that the knowledge of deed restrictions in place that benefítted the United States was sufficient to trigger the running of the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(f). See Vincent Murphy Chevrolet Co., Inc. v. United States, 766 F.2d at 452 (“Appellants concede knowledge of a ‘claim’ — the deed restrictions— as early as 1965. This is all that is necessary under § 2409a(f).”). The Tenth Circuit elaborated:

While the Supreme Court in Block indicated that the statutes waiving immunity should not be construed in an unduly restrictive manner, it cautioned that these statutes could not be interpreted in such a manner as to “ ‘extend the waiver beyond that which Congress intended.’ ”

To hold that the twelve-year statute of limitations did not begin to run until conditions began changing would give rise to an interpretation of the term “claim” under § 2409a(f) which could extend the limitations period indefinitely. We cannot extend the waiver of immunity under the quiet title act beyond that which Congress could have intended and we refuse to do so without a clear expression of legislative intent.

Appellants argue that in the twelve-year period following 1965, they would not have had a cause of action to quiet title since there would have been no justiciable controversy as the cause of action could not have accrued until conditions began changing. While such argument evokes empathy, we do not believe that it comports with the limited waiver of sovereign immunity Congress intended, and in construing the statute of limitations strictly as a condition to the waiver of sovereign immunity, we must reject appellants’ argument.

Vincent Murphy Chevrolet Co., Inc. v. United States, 766 F.2d at 452 (citations omitted).

Although 28 U.S.C. § 2409a contains a sovereign immunity waiver, it is limited to title claims that do not involve “trust or restricted Indian lands.” 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a).

Thus, the Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity is qualified by an exception for suits challenging title to lands held in trust for Indian tribes: “when the United States claims an interest in real property based on that property’s status as trust- or restricted Indian lands, the Quiet Title Act does not waive the Government’s immunity.”

Governor of Kan. v. Kempthorne, 516 F.3d 833, 841 (10th Cir.2008)(quoting Neighbors for Rational Dev., Inc. v. Norton, 379 F.3d 956, 961 (10th Cir.2004)).

The Supreme Court has emphasized the Indian-land exception’s importance: “If we were to allow claimants to try the Federal Government’s title to land under an officer’s-suit[] theory, the Indian land exception to the QTA would be rendered nugatory.” Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. at 285, 103 S.Ct. 1811 (footnote added). Thus, “when the United States claims an interest in real property based on that property’s status as trust or restricted Indian lands, the Quiet Title Act does not waive the government’s immunity.” United States v. Mottaz, 476 U.S. at 843, 106 S.Ct. 2224. See Wildman v. United States, 827 F.2d 1306, 1309 (9th Cir.1987)(“The ordinary reason[s] for enforcing sovereign immunity ... are reinforced when Indian lands are in question.”). “As long as the United States has a ‘colorable claim’ to a property interest based on that property’s status as trust or restricted Indian lands, the QTA renders the government immune from suit.” State of Alaska v. Babbitt, 75 F.3d 449, 451-52 (9th Cir.1996).

“Because § 2409a limits the sovereign immunity of the United States, it must be interpreted according to federal law.” Rio Grande Silvery Minnow (Hybognathus amarus) v. Bureau of Reclamation, 599 F.3d at 1177. “However, federal courts may properly look to state law as an aid in determining the application of statutory language to specific facts.” Rio Grande Silvery Minnow (Hybognathus amarus) v. Bureau of Reclamation, 599 F.3d at 1177. “In particular, ‘questions involving ownership, transfer and title to real estate have traditionally been resolved according to the laws of the state where the realty is located.’ ” Rio Grande Silvery Minnow (Hybognathus amarus) v. Bureau of Reclamation, 599 F.3d at 1177. “But ‘such state law should b.e compatible with the purpose of [the legislation so as] to find the rule that will best effectuate the federal policy.’ ” Rio Grande Silvery Minnow (Hybognathus amarus) v. Bureau of Reclamation, 599 F.3d at 1177 (alteration in original).

ANALYSIS

First, Northern New Mexicans lacks standing to pursue its takings claim and quiet title claim. Second, because the United States has not consented to be sued, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Northern New Mexicans’ quiet title action. Third, as the Quiet Title Act establishes the exclusive remedy for claims challenging the United States’ interests in real property, Northern New Mexicans’ remaining claims are barred.

I. THE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION OVER NORTHERN NEW MEXICANS’ TAKINGS CLAIM AND QUIET TITLE CLAIM

Whether a party has Article III standing is a “threshold jurisdictional question” that a court must decide before it may consider the merits. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. at 102, 118 S.Ct. 1003. As an association, Northern New Mexicans must either satisfy Article Ill’s requirements with respect to its own harm or satisfy the Supreme Court’s three-part test governing assoeia-tional standing. See Kan. Health Care Ass’n, Inc. v. Kan. Dep’t of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 958 F.2d 1018, 1021 (10th Cir.1992). Northern New Mexico does not allege that it has suffered any harm itself. Rather, it alleges that its members have suffered injuries. See Response at 21 (noting that the “Plaintiff is asserting association standing”); Complaint ¶ 34, at 7 (“Plaintiffs members have been harmed by the actions of Defendants as their property values have diminished.”); id. ¶35, at 7 (“Defendants’ actions have prevent [sic] Plaintiff [sic] members from securing financing to purchase, sell or refinance their real property.”); id. ¶36, at 7 (“Plaintiff [sic] members have been harmed and are at imminent risk of irreparable harm from Defendants’ unlawful conduct.”). To sue on behalf of its members, Northern New Mexicans must show that: (i) its members have standing to sue; (ii) the interests at stake are relevant to the organization’s purpose; and (iii) neither the claim asserted, nor the relief requested, requires the individual members to participate in the lawsuit. See Jarita Mesa Livestock Grazing Ass’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 140 F.Supp,3d at 1177-78, 2015 WL 6389741, at *37 (citing Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Envtl. Serv., 528 U.S.167, 181, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000), and Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343, 97 S.Ct. 2434, 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977)(“Hunt”)).

Turning to the first prong, Northern New Mexicans asserts that its individual members have standing. See Response at 21. It argues that its members, New Mexico property owners, suffer a concrete injury in that their property values have diminished. See Complaint ¶ 43, at 8; Response at 21. It contends that the Defendants’ December 6 Letter caused this injury by clouding their title and diminishing their property values. See Complaint ¶ 43, at 8. Finally, it asserts that a declaratory judgment or injunction barring the Defendants from interfering with their property rights could redress this injury. See Complaint ¶ 46, at 8; id. ¶¶ 1-5, at 10-11. Northern New Mexicans identifies the members that own property that the Defendants’ actions allegedly harmed. See Plaintiffs Initial Disclosures Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P., Rule 26(A)(1), filed November 10, 2015 (Doe. 22-l)(de-scribing “members of Northern New Mexicans Protecting Land Water and Rights!,] identifying their membership interests and attesting to harm resulting from the BIA’s action in issuing the December 6, 2013, Decision of trespass”); Affidavits of Property Owners, filed December 22, 2015 (Doc. 30 — 2). Accordingly, Northern New Mexicans “specifically ‘identifies] members who have suffered the requisite harm.’ ” Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. E.P.A., 642 F.3d 192, 199-200 (D.C.Cir.2011)(quoting Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1151-52, 173 L.Ed.2d 1 (2009)). See Am. Chem. Council v. Dep’t of Transp., 468 F.3d 810, 820 (D.C.Cir.2006)(holding that “an organization bringing a claim based on associational standing must show that at least one specifically-identified member has suffered an injury-in-fact.... At the very least, the identity of the party suffering an injury in fact must be firmly established.”). Northern New Mexicans, thus, shows that its members have standing individually.

Northern New Mexicans also satisfies the Hunt test’s second prong. Its asserted purpose is “to assist the community with protecting their rights to land and water.” Response at 21. With respect to the third prong, however, Northern New Mexicans does not demonstrate associational standing on its Takings Clause action or its quiet-title claim. The Court addresses the takings claim first.

The Tenth Circuit has stated that an association usually lacks standing to pursue damages claims on its members’ behalf. See In re Integra Realty Res., Inc., 262 F.3d 1089, 1098 n. 5 (10th Cir.2001). Accordingly, associations usually lack standing to bring takings claims for “just compensation.” Wash. Legal Found. v. Legal Found, of Wash., 271 F.3d 835, 849-50 (9th Cir.2001)(“Because the appropriate relief — determining what, if any, just compensation is due to the owner of the property taken — necessarily requires the participation of the individual members, Washington Legal Foundation does not have representational standing to pursue a Fifth Amendment taking claim.”), aff'd on other grounds, 538 U.S. 216, 123 S.Ct. 1406, 155 L.Ed.2d 376 (2003). See United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Grp., Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 554, 116 S.Ct. 1529, 134 L.Ed.2d 758 (1996)(stating that the Supreme Court’s “precedents have been understood to preclude associational standing when an organization seeks damages on behalf of its members”); Rent Stabiliza