House OKs study of new reservoir for Tule River tribe
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on September 16, 2008 at 6:07 amFrom the McClatchy News Service:
The House on Monday approved a $3 million study of a potential new reservoir to serve the San Joaquin Valley’s parched Tule River Indian Tribe.
The vote is an important step for the Porterville-area tribe, which has long sought a more reliable water supply. Tribal leaders and their allies envision a dam that would collect water from the south fork of the Tule River flowing from the Sierra Nevada. “We’re simply trying to secure for the tribe what the federal government should have done 100 years ago,” said Damon Nelson, legislative director for Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia. “As far as we’re concerned, everyone in the Valley supports this.”
By itself, though, the House bill is no guarantee a Tule River dam will be built. The tribe still faces significant economic, environmental and political hurdles.
The potential dam under study would be relatively small, containing about 5,000 acre-feet of water. By contrast, the current Pine Flat Dam on the Kings River can contain upward of 1 million acre-feet. The potential dam would be on the Tule River tribe’s reservation, south of Porterville. The tribe could use the new water supplies for its existing development and Eagle Mountain Casino, but not for any future casino that might be built on off-reservation land.
“It’s important to increase water storage for the San Joaquin Valley, and it’s especially important to increase storage for the tribe,” Nelson said.
Read more from the McClatchy News Service by clicking here.
Indians’ water rights give hope for better health
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on September 1, 2008 at 7:05 amFrom the New York Times:
More than a hundred years ago, the Gila River, siphoned off by farmers upstream, all but dried up here in the parched flats south of Phoenix, plunging an Indian community that had depended on it for centuries of farming into starvation and poverty. If that was not bad enough, food rations sent by the federal government — white flour, lard, canned meats and other sugary, processed foods — conspired with the genetic anomalies of the Indians to sow an obesity epidemic that has left the reservation with among the highest rates of diabetes in the world.
Now, after decades of litigation that produced the largest water-rights settlement ever in Indian country, the Indians here are getting some of their water back. And with it has come the question: Can a healthier lifestyle lost generations ago be restored?
Reviving the farming tradition will prove difficult, many tribal members say, because the tribes, who number 20,000, including about 12,000 on the reservation, have not farmed on a big scale for generations. Fast food is a powerful lure particularly for the young, and the trend of late has been to move off the reservation, to work or live. “Nobody wants to get out and get dirt under their fingernails,” said Pancratious Harvey, one of a handful of tribal members who began a community garden a couple of years ago.
Still, the garden, which is filled with vegetables that were once staples in the tribe’s diet, is a sign of enthusiasm for farming that members believe could spread as the water arrives.
Read more from the New York Times by clicking here.
Above all: San Diego’s Kumeyaay water rights threatened
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 29, 2008 at 6:37 amFrom Indian Country Today, an article written by Steven Newcomb of the Indigenous Law Institute, which discusses the history of the Kumeyaay Nation:
Recently, the San Diego Union Tribune published a story about water and the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation. (”Seeking stable source of water, Sycuan looks to Otay District” [July 3, 2008]) The article explained that Sycuan may decide to ”annex its reservation to the nearby Otay Water District” in order to provide the Sycuan Band with enough water for its future business and community needs. But the story failed to mention the many thousands of years that the Kumeyaay utilized the waters in their homeland for their villages and traditional way of life.
The news story also did not address how difficult it is to get non-Native people to learn about and recognize the full scope of Kumeyaay water rights. This is the result of an assumption that the non-Native society is more entitled than the Kumeyaay to the water within the Kumeyaay territory.
In the book ”Hispanic Law,” (1968) author E. N. Kleffens explains that because of the history of Spanish colonization, Castilian crown law is, in ”varying degrees,” ‘’still effective with respect to … the law of land and water …” in states such as California (and other places such as New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and Utah).
When the U.S. assumed possession of that portion of Mexico described in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the laws of the Spanish crown and of the Mexican Republic that were in effect remained in force. A specific legal provision had to be subsequently revised within and by the U.S. system of government.
Steven Newcomb notes that when the U.S. signed the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the laws of the Spanish crown & Mexican Republic were to remain in force, (and Aquafornia notes that in fact, Los Angeles successfully made claims to water rights in the area under the ‘pueblo water rights’), and writes:
… this aspect of Castilian crown law has obviously not been upheld by the United States, by the state of California, or by the City and County of San Diego. Nonetheless, given a Kumeyaay existence that predates the European invasion of Kumeyaay lands by thousands of years, and given that Section 49 of the Laws of the Indies has not been superseded by Congress, the people of California and the City and County of San Diego have a moral obligation and legal responsibility to respect the water rights of the Kumeyaay Nation and of all the indigenous nations of the geographical area known as California (as well as Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and Utah).
Read more from Indian Country Today by clicking here.
Soboba Band’s water rights conflict resolved under settlement act
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 25, 2008 at 5:35 amFrom Indian County Today:
With President George W. Bush’s signing of an act that brings a water rights conflict of more than 150 years to a close for a southern California Indian tribe, Secretary of the Interior Department Dirk Kempthorne and a congresswoman joined the tribe Aug. 15 for a ceremony celebrating its passage.
Under the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Settlement Act (Public Law 110-297), signed by the president July 31, the Sobobas, their neighbors in Riverside County and three water districts are guaranteed adequate future water supplies, an exchange of land and millions of dollars from the federal government. The Sobobas will also get $18 million from some of the water districts for economic development and a potential economic stimulus.
”It’s been a very long negotiation, and we thank our former tribal chairmen and council members who fought so hard for this, leaving us to merely dot the i’s and cross the t’s,” Soboba Chairman Robert Salgado Sr. said in a joint press release with Interior.
Calling the Soboba’s decision to hold back using some of its water rights a ”tipping point” in the settlement, Kempthorne praised the tribe’s cooperation.
”By agreeing to gradually phase in increased water use over the next half-century, the Soboba have provided the Eastern Municipal Water District and the Lake Hemet Municipal Water District the time to develop and implement a groundwater management plan to cure the current overdraft in the San Jacinto Basin,” he said in the release.
Read more from Indian Country Today by clicking here.
President is the last dam in Soboba water rights issue
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 6, 2008 at 6:47 amFrom Indian Country Today:
The Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians now awaits President George W. Bush’s signature on a bill that will enable the tribe to sustain enough water for its reservation and end nearly 75 years of litigation.
With the U.S. Senate’s unanimous July 23 vote approving the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Settlement Act, which the House had already passed, the act will resolve the tribe’s water claims and authorize the secretary of the Interior Department to execute an agreement between the tribe and three water districts in southern California.
Introduced by Rep. Mary Bono Mack, R-Calif., the act was needed by the federal settlement team to authorize the settlement agreement of Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which is pending in federal district court.
”Water is essential to building and sustaining a community. I am pleased that after over 75 years of struggle, litigation and negotiation, this bill clearly shows how reaching a consensus will help the tribe and San Jacinto Valley achieve a reliable water source for years to come,” Bono Mack said.
”We are at this point today because of the collaborative efforts and many years of hard work by the tribe, our local water districts, the federal government and local leaders. This is great news that will benefit the tribe and our entire region, and I am honored to have played a part in reaching such a positive resolution to this issue.”
The Soboba Band was affected by settlement which occurred in the 1800’s when settlers began building dams and diverting streams; this led to the tribe drilling wells in order to supply water to their reservation.
In the 1930’s, the Metropolitan Water District tunneled thirteen miles through the San Jacinto Mountains as part of the construction of the Colorado River Aqueduct. The building of the San Jacinto tunnel was the most challenging part of the task. The numerous faults and fractures caused the groundwater to drain into the tunnel, drying up springs and creeks in the upland area of the reservation. The water flooded the contractor’s equipment twice and eventually led to MWD taking over the project and completing the tunnel in 1939.
”We’ve always seen the light at the end of the tunnel,” Soboba Tribal Chairman Robert J. Salgado said. ”As soon as the president signs the bill, we’ll be able to celebrate in a good way.”
The settlement of the tribe’s water rights adds another chapter to its history, he said. ”The water was made by the Creator. He made it for all of us. When you do it the Indian way, everybody is blessed; but the outside world doesn’t understand where we come from. When they learn to walk in our moccasins, then they’ll understand.”
Every tribal chairman since the 1930s, Salgado said, has worked on the water settlement. ”They did all the hard work. Now I get to sign the agreement. I’m very proud that I am chairman of the Soboba Band. We give all the glory to the Creator.”
Read the full text of this article from Indian Country today by clicking here.
Bono Mack’s historic water settlement bill signed into law
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 1, 2008 at 5:55 amFrom the California Chronicle:
Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack´s (CA-45) bill to resolve an ongoing water dispute and bring a long-awaited solution to this issue for the Soboba Tribe, local residents and water districts was signed into law today by the President. The Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians Settlement Act of 2007, H.R. 4841, will put an end to over 75 years of litigation and create new sources of water for residents in Riverside County.
“This is a historic moment for the Soboba Tribe and our entire community,” said Bono Mack. “After over 75 years of hardship, legal battles and negotiation, this law will bring much-deserved relief to those who have been so significantly impacted by water deprivation and ongoing litigation.
“Water is essential to building and sustaining a community. Now that this bill has been signed into law, the Tribe and the San Jacinto Valley will benefit from new sources of water and a consensus-based solution to a very difficult situation.
“Residents throughout the region will benefit for years to come because of the hard work and collaboration by the Tribe, our local water districts, the Federal government, and local leaders. I am honored to have played a role in reaching such a positive resolution to this issue.”
The Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians Settlement Act resolves a lawsuit that was pending in the United States District Court in California for years – Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Among its provisions, this law provides long-term sustainability of the San Jacinto River Valley´s water supply by bringing new sources of water to local residents. Additionally, the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians Settlement Act assists both the Tribe and local residents with critical water infrastructure needs, according to Bono Mack.
Read more from the California Chronicle by clicking here.
New reports available on economic efficiency of water use & allocation, tribal communication, and financing Delta improvements and environmental mitigation
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 31, 2008 at 6:53 amFrom the California Water Plan E-news:
Economic efficiency of water development & allocation:
A paper recently submitted to the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force examines the economic efficiency of water use and allocation in California. It was written by economist Roger Mann. The paper identifies key issues related to the economic efficiency of water development, allocation and use in California and discusses general policy changes that might improve economic efficiency. Click here to read the report.Tribal Communication Plan:
A Tribal Communication Plan has been posted on the Water Plan Web site. It is intended to help everyone involved in the California Water Plan – including the Department of Water Resources and all
other state and federal agencies – to communicate appropriately and effectively with all California Native American Tribes about water issues that may affect them in their territories and ancestral
homelands. Click here to read the report.
And from my own wanderings, this report from the California Research Bureau, commissioned by the Delta Vision Task Force titled “Financing Delta Improvements and Environmental Mitigation”:
Resolution of the Delta’s water supply, water quality, and fish problems may involve
building various structures, possibly including gates, pumps, canals, levees, and dams, and undertaking landscaping rearrangements to improve habitat for several species of flora and fauna. Resolution also involves changing water flow regimes in ways that would make more or less water, but probably less, available for human uses. This work and these changes will cost serious money. Cost estimates for many of these actions have not yet been developed. This paper explores approaches to financing these “improvements” and “mitigations.” While a little abstract, this is abstraction that matters. It will determine from whose pockets a good deal of money will come.California has a long history of financing water projects. The first section of this paper reviews this history, in hopes of identifying water-financing principles that might be adapted to Delta improvements and mitigation. Some deep-seated controversies about how Delta improvements should be financed have roots in this history, and it may be helpful to point them out.
A core idea in California’s approach to financing water projects is that beneficiaries should pay for them. Decades ago, this was a straightforward proposition – people or water districts should pay for the necessary dams, canals, and pumps and the costs of operating them in proportion to the amount of water they received. In the current age of rising environmental sensitivity, it is a little muddier. An alternative formulation that applies, at least crudely, to housing developments and highway projects, is that project proponents should pay to mitigate at least some of the environmental harm that their project is likely to cause. The second section of this paper explores this controversial subject. It seems unlikely that any consensus can be reached about how to finance facilities in the Delta without reaching some agreement about how to deal with this matter.
Read the full text of this report by clicking here.
Bill aimed at settling San Jacinto Valley Indian water rights dispute headed to president
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 26, 2008 at 7:30 amFrom Riverside’s Press-Enterprise:
A bill to resolve a decades-old San Jacinto Valley Indian water rights dispute is headed for President Bush’s signature with passage of the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians Settlement Act late Thursday in the U.S. Senate.
The bill, introduced by Rep. Mary Bono Mack, R-Palm Springs, passed the House of Representatives in May. The legislation implements a 1991 federal government settlement and another settlement with San Jacinto Valley water suppliers that took about eight years to resolve.
“I am thrilled an agreement has been reached that will benefit the many individuals and families impacted by this ongoing water dispute,” Bono Mack said in a news release. “We would not be at this point without the many years of hard work and cooperation by the tribe, our local water districts and local leaders.”
The legislation provides “a secure and reliable water supply not only for the tribe, but the community,” Loretta Tuell, Washington, D.C.-based legal counsel for the tribe on the water issue, said by phone. In Indian water rights cases, negotiations, rather than litigation, are “the best means to come to resolution,” she said.
The settlement awards the tribe $18 million from local water districts, $11 million from the federal government and the right to 2 billion gallons of water a year from the aquifer. The tribe agreed to use no more than half the water allotment for the first 50 years. What isn’t used will be available to other local water providers.
Read the full text of this story from Riverside’s Press-Enterprise by clicking here.
Navajo’s give their side of the story in response to recent High Country News article
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 24, 2008 at 5:59 amThe March issue of High Country News ran an extensive story (click here) about the Navajo Nation & the current litigation ensuing for them to claim their water rights. Ron Milford, who was featured in the article, took issue with much of it and has written a lengthy response, which High Country News is running unedited. Says High Country News: Though Milford’s statement levels a number of false accusations towards Jenkins, High Country News is running the full response by Milford et. al. here on hcn.org. We stand by the original story; it was not only well-written and comprehensive, but also accurate and balanced, giving Milford and his colleagues plenty of words to air their issues.
Mr. Milford’s response to the High Country News article:
In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. — George Orwell.
Featured in the March 17, 2008, issue of High Country News (HCN) and in the April 16 issue of the Navajo Times (the Times) was a Navajo water rights-related article by HCN’s Matt Jenkins titled “Seeking the Water Jackpot.” Letters to the HCN editor by concerned readers, like “Felice,” who wrote on 3/23/08, said things such as “I agree that Matt Jenkins did seem to have a bias against the grassroots Dine folks … .” Felice and like-minded reviewers of HCN and the Times do not know the half of it, which is why we wrote this reply.
Navajos’ Massive Unemployment
Jenkins opens his article by describing the deplorable condition of our infrastructure, including our roads, and our unemployment. He correctly said that unemployment is routinely at about 50%, and it has surged to 67%. The unemployment rate for Arizona, as we begin writing, is 4%. For the U.S. it is around 4.8%. During America’s “Great Depression” of the 1930s, it averaged 17%. The routine Navajo unemployment rate is therefore 1,150% higher than Arizona’s, almost 1,000% higher than the U.S. at large and almost 200% higher than the U.S. average during the Great Depression.
Jenkins’ condescending article suggests that Navajos should accept the state of things and the “drinking water” or, more correctly, the faucet water, focus that Navajo Nation water lawyer Stanley Pollack and his Navajo Water Rights Commission are mostly limiting their Arizona/Utah efforts to. The New Mexico settlement has similar and other serious limitations.
Having faucet water, avowedly important, nonetheless remains a minimalist start, e.g., every urban U.S. ghetto has faucet water. Also, economist and Indian law expert, Erik Jensen, has recently observed that “Substantial economic development in Indian Country will not occur without significant infusions of outside capital … .” Navajo, the largest tribe in North America, requires not a “significant” but an epic infusion of capital—the Navajo Nation is the size of West Virginia. The single major source for this desperately needed, anti-poverty, and pro-employment capital rests in the Navajo Nation’s water rights; including sovereign authority over rights, longdenied agricultural rights, and full compensation for waived and lost rights.
Pollack and the Water Commission have failed to even pose the question, “What will the last 30% of Navajos on the Nation, who still lack running water, have when the faucet water arrives?” In the absence of an immense infusion of capital, they’ll have the same 50% unemployment rate that prevails on the Nation now. Plus, without full rights, and the full compensation due for the valuable rights and priority dates waived and lost by Pollack and his Commission, Navajo will still have no sustainable way to maintain its economy or infrastructure like, say, Arizona does. What the Navajo Nation needs is something like the water and related values we already supply to Arizona; which has the fastest growth of any state in the U.S.
Read the rest of this rebuttal by clicking here.
Indian reservation asks judge to determine their water entitlement; ruling could affect 6 water agencies & 2900 property owners
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on May 29, 2008 at 6:26 amFrom Riverside’s Press-Enterprise:
On the edge of a dirt road, Anthony Madrigal Jr. peers over the same sage-covered, boulder-strewn land that his Cahuilla ancestors have lived on for thousands of years. But it’s not the tribal land that’s got residents of Southwestern Riverside County so concerned as much as the water beneath it — and who will get the right to use it.
Cahuilla Creek, a mostly dry riverbed that snakes through the reservation near Anza, belies the amount of water in an aquifer below. Concerned that development in the area will draw on groundwater that belongs to them, the Cahuilla Band of Indians and a smaller nearby tribe asked a federal judge to establish just how much water they’re entitled to.
Although it is unclear what that amount will be, the tribes’ request comes at a time of drought and legal restrictions that have cut water supplies to the Inland region. The ruling could affect thousands of property owners and as many as six major water agencies across much of the 750-square-mile watershed of the Santa Margarita River that stretches from the Anza Valley to Camp Pendleton.
The tribes recently notified the agencies and some 2,900 property owners along the rural back roads of Anza, Aguanga and Sage to the vineyards and avocado groves of Temecula and beyond that they are being added as defendants in the decades-old court case.
Madrigal said tribal members want to legally define the amount of water they are entitled to so they have certainty and the necessary resources to live on their homeland for generations to come. “The tribe can’t sell the reservation. We don’t have the luxury of picking up and moving,” he said.
Some homeowners who are nervous about losing some of their water have formed groups to share legal fees and hire attorneys. The Anza-Aguanga Citizens for Water Rights already counts 1,700 members. The rural areas near the tribal reservations depend solely on local water supplies for drinking and to irrigate crops, and don’t have the infrastructure to import supplies like most urban areas.
“More than anything else, there is this honest fear they have their life savings in their home and they’ll be left without water,” said Jackie Spanley, who used to be an Anza Valley Municipal Advisory Council member and is organizing another citizens group.
Read the rest of this story from Riverside’s Press-Enterprise by clicking here.
Navajo water rights bill heads to the full Senate
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on May 8, 2008 at 8:14 amFrom the Las Cruces Sun:
The bill that would settle the Navajo Nation’s water rights claims in the San Juan River Basin cleared its first hurdle Wednesday with approval of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The measure, sponsored by Sens. Pete Domenici and Jeff Bingaman, now heads to the full Senate.
The legislation would authorize a pipeline to serve the Gallup and Navajo communities and create a water rights settlement fund in the federal treasury to pay for it and future American Indian water agreements.
New Mexico’s U.S. senators acknowledge the cost of a water rights settlement is what’s stalling the bill. And while they say they’ve tweaked it to address concerns of the Bush administration, the price remains the same—nearly $900 million. “This is what it costs to do,” said Jude McCartin, a spokeswoman for Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. “And they certainly were happy to spend more than this in other states to settle other water claims.”
McCartin points out that the administration has spent almost $2.5 billion to settle other water rights claims in the West in recent years. In addition, $1.6 billion has gone to addressing water issues in developing countries and the U.S. spent $2.3 billion on water infrastructure and management in Iraq.
“It’s our turn,” she said.
Aqua Blog Maven’s crystal ball says this is the beginning of many such settlements which will occur in the upcoming years. Native Americans were promised water for their reservations by the federal government, and this was upheld by a 1908 Supreme Court decision. The 1922 Colorado River Compact essentially punted the issue into the future, and let’s just say the ball has finally landed. There are now several Native American tribes who are beginning to assert their long-held but unused water rights to the Colorado River, and Native American water rights were listed as one of the top concerns a a recent Western Governor’s Association meeting.
Critics say the Navajo Nation would receive a large amount of water to serve a small population.
But Navajo President Joe Shirley Jr. said his people have been without water for too long. “It’s been going on for decades,” he said. “You like to do a lot of things … for the people, the communities, for the elderly, but without water, there’s a limited amount of things you could do.”
Read more on this story from the Las Cruces Sun by clicking here. Read about what life is like for the Native Americans who live on remote reservations without running water in this in-depth article from High Country News - click here. You can also read more about this issue under the “Indian Water Rights” category on Aquafornia.
Navajo Water Settlement & San Joaquin River Settlement advance to full Senate
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on May 7, 2008 at 12:30 pmBusy day for the Senate Energy & Natural Resources committee in Washington today, apparently. From John Fleck at Inkstain:
The bill, S.1171, would guarantee 600,000 acre feet per year of water rights to the Navajo Nation, and also fund a water pipeline that would run across the Navajo Nation from the San Juan River in northwestern New Mexico down to Gallup. The trick has always been figuring out a way to pay for it.
Yeah, isn’t that always the case …. find out more by taking the link from John Fleck’s blog - click here.
And from Stockton’s Record:
The [San Joaquin River restoration] legislation, which still must pass the full House and Senate, would implement a legal settlement that would return water to a dry 60-mile stretch of the San Joaquin River by 2009 and bring back Chinook salmon three years later.
Read the full text of this article from Stockton’s Record by clicking here.
Federal government’s commitment to Indian water rights settlements questioned
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on April 27, 2008 at 7:59 amThe next big thing to affect Colorado River usage. In 1908, a Supreme Court decision guaranteed adequate water to tribal lands; however, when the Colorado River Compact was drawn up in 1922, Native Americans were simply left out of the deal. At a recent Western Governor’s Association meeting, Indian water rights were listed as a major concern.
This morning, a story from the Gallup (New Mexico) Independent, questioning the feds commitment to settling Indian water rights:
Last year, U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman introduced H.R. 1970 — the Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects Act — which is currently pending in Congress and would authorize the settlement and the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project to provide safe drinking water to the Navajo Nation and Gallup. The Department of the Interior has testified against the bill, and the Office of Management and Budget has opposed funding despite the critical lack of drinking water infrastructure on the Navajo Nation. Gallup may run out of water in less than 10 years.
The federal government is expected to be an aggressive trustee of Indian water rights, according to Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr., however, Navajo is concerned that the feds’ current application of Criteria and Procedures in settlement negotiations creates incentives for the United States to oppose the interests of Indian tribes.
The Navajo Nation has considerable experience with water rights settlements. “We are currently involved in finalizing a settlement with the state of New Mexico, and we are in discussions with the states of Arizona and Utah to quantify our water rights through negotiated settlements, rather than through the litigation process,” Shirley said. The president explained how the United States has neglected the Navajo Nation’s water rights claims to the Colorado River, and has instead pursued a wide variety of activities concerning the management and allocation of the river without consideration of the needs of Navajo.
John Echohawk, executive director of the Native American Rights Fund of Boulder, Colo., has worked on Indian water issues for more than 38 years. In the last three decades, he said NARF has encountered one consistent challenge: the federal government’s inability to commit adequate financial and human resources to resolving tribal water rights claims.
“For centuries, the federal government has promoted and subsidized non-Indian water rights to the detriment of vested tribal water rights,” he said. “The lack of federal commitment to developing tribal water rights is especially troubling considering the conditions we see across Indian Country. It is not uncommon for tribal members to drive over 50 miles to haul water for their homes, many which still have no access to electricity. It is as if Native Americans fell through the web of the federal system that is charged with ensuring our well-being under the trust responsibility.”
The federal commitment to Indian water rights settlements remains inconsistent, and the lack of federal funding plagues the settlement process, Echohawk said.
Read the rest of this story from the Independent by clicking here. For more on Indian water rights, check out the Indian water rights category.
Landmark Indian water rights settlement fully implemented
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on March 19, 2008 at 1:27 pm
From the U. S. Department of the Interior:
Following approval by Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne, the largest Indian water rights settlement in U.S. history is now fully in effect, concluding more than three decades of extraordinary effort by federal, state and tribal leaders to resolve critical water use issues facing tribal communities and the State of Arizona.
“The Arizona Water Rights Settlements Act is a triumph of cooperation and consensus over conflict and litigation,” said Interior Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Carl Artman, who spoke on behalf of Secretary Kempthorne at an event celebrating the historic legislation. “This landmark agreement offers us a model of how states, Indian tribes, cities, farmers and the federal government – working together as neighbors and partners – can overcome deep-seated disputes with creative solutions that allow equitable benefits for all water users.”
The legislation, approved by Congress and signed by President Bush in 2004, was fully implemented after Secretary Kempthorne signed two Statements of Findings on Dec. 10, 2007, finishing all actions necessary to complete the Gila River Indian Community Water Rights Settlement and amend the Southern Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act of 1982, involving the Tohono O’odham Nation.
“The Settlement Act provides the Gila River Indian Community and the Tohono O’odham Nation access to assured water allocations and the financial resources necessary to develop their land and water resources, expand their economies and ensure a better quality of life for tribal members, their children and grandchildren,” Artman said. “Now that the legislation is fully and finally effective, all of the benefits promised can be delivered and these tribal water rights claims, among the largest in the West, can be put to rest.”
More information on Indian water rights (edited)
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on March 19, 2008 at 1:26 pmIndian water rights in the news lately (see above), and Aqua Blog Maven’s crystal ball says this is only the first of more to come.
If you’re looking for more information, here’s a link to a recent High Country News Article: click here, and click here for analysis from the astute Water Wired blog.
Also from Water Wired, a direct link to a film about the Navajo water situation called “The Water Haulers” - click here for the link and Michael’s analysis. Note: Michael has some second thoughts on the Water Hauler’s movie - click here.
The USA Today ran an article on the issue last month - click here.
For even more information, here is an article from the Universities Council on Water Resources on Indian water rights - click here.
Navajo Nation, left out of the Colorado River Compact, assert their water rights
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on March 13, 2008 at 10:39 pmFrom High Country News:
Navajos often speak of the cosmic geography of the Four Sacred Mountains, which mark the boundaries of their ancestral homeland. But the lives of many people here are shaped by a more pragmatic geography, centered on a coin-op water dispenser in a muddy turnaround behind a city maintenance building in downtown Gallup, N.M. A water pipe with a piece of yellow fire hose hanging off the end sticks out the back of the building. Navajos load water tanks and blue plastic 55-gallon drums into the beds of their pickups and come here for drinking water. On weekends, the line can stretch around the block.
But on a bitter-cold Friday afternoon, the whole operation was seriously dorked. Ernest Leslie, who had driven 22 miles from Tohatchi, couldn’t get any water because a quarter was jammed in the coin slot. He tried to coax another coin into the machine with the tip of his pocketknife, but it popped back out like a bad joke and landed in the mud at his feet. “Huh,” Leslie said. He looked down at the quarter. “Sometimes we have problems like this.”
Even as the Southwest’s cities have flourished with water from the Colorado River, the Navajo Tribe has stood on the sidelines, holding an empty bucket - and waiting. For decades, it seems, the tribe has been just one good plan away from prosperity. Now, however, the Navajo Nation is beginning to assert its right to claim water from the river. Many Navajos feel that the tribe could soon transform water from something that eats up their quarters at 50 gallons a pop to a virtual jackpot. But as tantalizing as the prospect of river water is, it is also opening painful rifts on the reservation.
The capital of the Navajo Nation is a town called Window Rock, on the eastern edge of the reservation in Arizona. It is a slow-paced place with a couple of gas stations, a supermarket, and a clutch of mom-and-pop storefronts that serve up squash soup and roast mutton.
Lena Fowler lives on the other side of the reservation, but came to town in February for a tribal council meeting. A member of the tribe’s water rights commission, she has a cool intensity and a vaguely sexy set of crow’s-feet at the corners of her eyes. Fowler began by explaining how the language of white-dominated water law, saddled with abstruse notions like “qui prior est in tempore, potior est in jure” - Latin for “first in time, first in right” - often defies translation into Navajo. Then she conceded that water may, in fact, be a language unto itself.
“And when you speak water,” she said, “people get real emotional.
“For us, for most of our Navajo people, they wake up in the morning (and) they go out and they pray. And once they’re done,” she said, “they turn around and have to figure out how much water they have: Is it safe to drink the water at the windmill? Or do I have to go buy Clorox to treat it with? That’s where we are today.”
Read the rest of this article from the High Country News by clicking here. Related editorial here. See also this recent article from the USA Today.
Backers of water storage projects seek support on Capitol Hill
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on February 29, 2008 at 6:34 amFrom the Fresno Bee:
Supporters of two water-storage projects proposed in the central San Joaquin Valley are looking for help this week on Capitol Hill.
The Tule River Tribe wants to gather water in a new reservoir. Madera County officials want to collect water underground. Both require congressional help, and both face Bush administration skepticism. The Porterville-based tribe’s proposed reservoir would pool water from the Tule River flowing from the Sierra Nevada. Ultimately, the proposed reservoir could cost roughly $150 million. For now, the tribe needs $3 million for a feasibility study.
The proposed Madera County water bank — a $90 million project — would percolate water into underground aquifers near Highway 99 and release it during dry years. “It is part of our plan to stop the over-drafting of ground water in our district,” Madera Irrigation District board president Carl Janzen told a Senate subcommittee Thursday.
The projects have different histories, but they face similar hurdles.
One of those hurdles:
So far, the Bush administration opposes the Tule River feasibility study, with Bureau of Reclamation official Robert Quint last year calling it “premature” and potentially costly. On Thursday, Quint was voicing similar reservations about the Madera County water bank project.
Indian water rights is a significant issue here in the Western U.S. In fact, western governors list Indian water rights as one of their major issues. Check out Water Wired’s analysis by clicking here, or check out the USA Today’s article by clicking here.
Indian tribes exercising their water rights
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on February 25, 2008 at 9:53 pmFrom USA Today:
For decades, ranchers and farmers across the West have tapped into rivers and streams on or near Indian reservations. Now, as drought conditions plague big parts of the region, they’re concerned their access to those sources could dry up.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court gave tribes the primary rights to streams on their reservations in 1908, until recently, 19 tribes in the West had not exercised those rights. This year, tribes in Montana, New Mexico, Idaho, Nevada and California are on the verge of securing their claims.
That could result in less water, or higher water prices, for non-Indian agricultural producers and communities downstream, according to Victor Marshall, an attorney who represents irrigators in New Mexico’s San Juan Valley.
Marshall acknowledges that Indian tribes have more water coming to them. But he argues the amounts they are seeking are more than they can realistically use on the reservation.
Get the rest of this story from the USA Today by clicking here.