In court filings, the Navajo said the mandate was part of a “simple proposal” from the 19th century, encouraging the government to “promise Navajo water” and start farming on the reservation. said he did.

“Because the government violated its obligation to provide adequate water, the Navajo Nation sued the government for breach of trust and issued an injunction requiring the government to assess the nation’s water needs and develop a plan to meet them. asked,” said the tribe.

However, the government claims it has long protected the tribe’s rights to water from the Colorado River tributaries of the Navajo Nation, including the Little Colorado River and the San Juan River. it said.

This is reflected in court filings by Arizona and several other states and water districts that sided with the federal government. They said, “In 60 years of litigation, the United States has never claimed a water reserve in her LBCR’s main stream (Lower Colorado River) for the Navajo Reservation.”

State officials declined to comment on the pending case, as did the Navajo Nation Water Resources Authority and the Navajo President’s Office. rice field.

But proponents said the case could determine whether Navajo officials will come to the table when it comes to allocating water rights, key to Navajo health and economic development potential. .

“Being able to develop industries, develop agriculture, and be able to lease cities is very important for tribes,” says Sarah Porter, director of the Kyl Center for Water at Arizona State University. says Mr. policy.

“It is one of the few ways a tribe can improve the lives of its people. ,” she said.

This debate has been around for at least a century, when in 1922 the Colorado River Compact divided the river’s waters into Upper and Lower Basin states. The tribes were not part of these or subsequent negotiations, but were instead represented by the federal government.

It wasn’t always in the tribe’s best interest, said Michael Lerma. Executive Director of the Dineh Policy Institute at Dineh CollegeThe federal government, despite its history of serving as guardians of Indian nations, has failed to fulfill its responsibility to uphold tribal best interests in public policy, he said.

“How do you (the federal government) make that decision in another room and not consider your quoted or unquoted ward?” Lerma said.

In the 1950s, Arizona sued California over its allocation of water in the Colorado River, which went directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Efforts by the Navajo and other tribes to join the case or represent the special assistant attorney general were rejected by the Department of the Interior, which said it would claim the right to water the basin on behalf of 25 tribes. However, he said only five of those tribes claimed ownership of the river itself, not including the Navajo.

In its 1964 order allocating rights to the waters of the Colorado River, the Supreme Court “excluded from its ruling the claims of the Little Colorado River and therefore the (Navajo) Nation,” according to a 2021 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court also stated in the 1964 Act that it retains jurisdiction over this case for future claims or changes.

After decades of legal disputes, the Navajo sued the federal government in 2003, alleging breach of trust. Tribe said he had lost twice in U.S. District Court, and Tribe’s complaint said he was amending a 1964 statute, something only the Supreme Court could do.

But the 9th Circuit Court disagreed, ruling last year that the tribe did not seek water allotments from the river. Instead, he said, the tribe is trying to make the government meet its mandate to determine the Navajo’s water needs and “develop a plan to secure the water we need.”

Rhett Larson, a professor and senior research fellow at ASU’s Kyl Center, said this is a challenge for the Home Office. He said the Navajo water rights have not currently been identified, so authorities cannot develop a plan to manage the Navajo water rights.

“Well, it’s not superficially asking for much,” Larson said. “But the federal response is, if we don’t know how much water we have, how can we plan to manage water?

“They[the government]worry, ‘Look, if the Navajo win and we make a plan, the plan won’t work. The Navajo will sue us for bad planning. “We’re going back to where we started,” said Larson.

Of the three Navajo Nation states, Arizona is the only state with unresolved water claims, Porter said. Larson said the Navajo tribe will face trial in state court this summer to resolve their claim to the Little Colorado River.

In addition to not having rights to mains water, Mr. Porter said, the Navajo currently lack the infrastructure to draw mains water and supply it to their widely dispersed homes and businesses on the reservation, leaving other sources of water untouched. said that it depends on

“That means that infrastructure costs, even in cities and towns where people live closer together, are much higher compared to a typical neighborhood,” says Porter.

But she said funding for infrastructure is likely to continue once tribes gain access to mains water.

At least one Ninth Circuit judge said the Navajo’s claimed water could be “used as an attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over the river” if not properly treated. acknowledged that there is And Larson believes that ultimately, the Supreme Court will need to determine and quantify the tribe’s Colorado River rights in order to create the plans the Navajo want.

Despite the complicated road to quantifying the Navajo’s water rights, Lerma said the Supreme Court’s victory would bring tribes one step closer to having power in water use debates.

“By allowing the Navajo Nation to sit at the planning table with other stakeholders, the state has a better chance of success than dividing the water and excluding the Navajo Nation entirely. I hope so,” Lerma said.

Lerma said he frequently sees Navajo families carrying water to their homes, adding to “depressive conditions with isolated pockets of prosperity.” He said it is essential that Navajo leaders participate in discussions on a myriad of issues, including access to Only then, he said, can they exercise leadership, or “naat’áanii.”

“That person has the responsibility to ensure that the lives of its citizens are maintained to the greatest extent possible and, if possible, expanded,” Lerma said. “It is at the heart of the idea that it is the Nataanyi people who are trying to push this idea forward in order to maintain the ability to make water available to future generations.”

Ed. Note: This article has been modified from the original to correct Michael Lerma’s title and refer to the tribe’s relationship with the federal government as “a quote-unquote ‘ward'”.