The Navajo’s right to sufficient water for a healthy permanent homeland, which includes water from the Colorado River adjacent to the northwest corner of the reservation in Arizona, was tried and ruled in the U.S. Supreme Court this year. be done. To the federal, state, irrigation and water districts involved in the river, the reservation is a 27,325-square-mile elephant, and they are not inviting you to drink. The federal government, which has authority over both the tribes and rivers, has never allowed the Navajo to negotiate for water from the rivers. has become Between 30 and 40 percent of his homes on the reservation have no running water, and many spend hours each week to remote uncontaminated wells to get water for themselves and their livestock.

a case called Arizona vs Navajo Nation, but Arizona is joined by the Federal Government, the States of Nevada and Colorado, the Central Arizona Conservation District, the Arizona Power Authority, the Salt River Agricultural Improvement and Power District, the Salt River Valley Water Users Association, and the Imperial Irrigation District. . , Southern California Metropolitan Water District, Coachella Valley Water District, Nevada Colorado River Commission, Southern Nevada Water Authority.

This is the situation that has been brewing since the debate and litigation over Colorado River water rights began in the early 20’s.^th century. Through many decisions on these rights, including Indian rights (the legal term courts use for Native Americans), the federal government has barred Navajo participation. But by his 1900, before Arizona or New Mexico became his states in 1912, the Navajo Nation Reservation had expanded westward from the original Four Corners to the banks of the Colorado River. rice field. The reservation is on the Colorado Plateau and has suffered severe drought since 2000, except last winter.

Competition for water on the Colorado River is fierce, and tribes have the oldest rights according to the guiding law principle of antecedent rights, so proper quotas are required. In fact, they are not, and the worst is the Navajo, whose average per capita water consumption is 7 to 10 gallons per day, compared with the national average of 88, New Mexico’s average of 81, and Utah’s average of 169. By comparison, Arizona at 146 gallons per day, according to DigDeep Right to Water Project’s Amicus brief.

Elephants on the banks of the Colorado River are not an Indian reservation right to water per se. Ten other tribes on or near the river were assessed entitlements by the federal government for a total of more than 20% of the estimated river flow. The Navajo, who live on the eastern side of the reservation, also reached an agreement with Gallup NM for the use of water from the San Juan River. But a Navajo petition asking the government to assess the water needs of the western half of the reservation has made its way through federal courts and into the Supreme Court for 20 years. The petition sends ripples of unrest from Lake Havasu on the California-Arizona border to Lake Matthews in Los Angeles County to the end of the Coachella Valley waters and the end of the 242-mile-long Colorado River Aqueduct. Canals of La Quinta.

Imperial Valley alfalfa growers use up to 10 acre feet of Colorado River water per crop and fear losing lucrative livestock feed export deals to Saudi Arabia, Japan and other countries. increase. Arizona is particularly nervous. That’s because for years he’s fought delegations from the California legislature to sabotage plans to build the Central Arizona project. Until we agreed to cut not only California’s quota but California’s allotment in dry years. Similarly, Nevada does not want new competitors overallocated in the Lower Colorado River Basin.

In fact, there is flexibility in how the federal government manages assessment and access. For example, water rights holders on other rivers in the country often sell their quotas for the long or short term. But the management of these Indian water rights in Colorado seems to be almost endlessly divided. You have the right to draw water if you have the means, but you don’t.

Looking at the federal and Arizona claims, a prominent theme is government malice, more politely known as “lack of political will.” There is as much animosity in the government’s treatment of the Navajo Nation as uranium from abandoned mines ended up in the reservation’s groundwater. This malice has sought justification in a multitude of unrelated issues, each claiming to the death, to cover up the injustice that is being done. This ties in with another aspect of elephants. An ancient Indian tale describes how a blind man feels about an elephant. his nose is a snake His feet are wood. His ears are fans. His sides are walls and so on.

The government argues that the Navajo are ineligible to sue the federal government because the trust relationship between the government and the state does not extend to water rights. – Funds for water development. In other words, the treaty that promised the Navajo a permanent home on the reservation in 1868 does not include water rights. So in reality there are no elephants.

Arizona, in turn, claims that the Department of the Interior had no authority to distribute water from the Colorado River. Arizona vs California (1952) established that only the United States Supreme Court has that power. In addition, Arizona and the federal government have not identified a specific law stipulating the government’s fiduciary duty to provide the water it needs, so the Navajo Nation claims there are no cases of breach of trust.

The Arizona federal district court has dismissed the Navajo lawsuit in agreement with the federal government and the state of Arizona. However, the 9th District Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Navajo had a valid petition and overturned the lower court’s decision. Arizona etc. appealed to the Supreme Court.

State attorneys argue that: Winters v United States (1908), Indian reservations had the right to sufficient water to create a viable and permanent homeland for the tribe, and this right was denied by the Navajo. Arizona vs California In the case the government refused to present their water needs. Second, we are not asking for a water quota on the Colorado River, but rather an assessment of the reservation’s water needs, which the government has already done for other tribes with reservations adjacent to the Colorado River. Third, the treaties between the State and the United States of 1849 and 1868 clearly establish a workable relationship of trust, and the Federal Administrative Procedure Act 702 and/or misconduct if the petitioner seeks review of agency action under Article 10.

The legacy of bad faith legal opinions is another ivory aspect of this case. That malice has created a legal “problem” that looks like a drunken monk crawling over the elephant’s body in the above print. Officials will give weight to all these opinions in an attempt to erase the simple reality of the promise of a homeland without enough water (Winters) is not a sincere promise and should be corrected.

There are several opposing forces involved in this case. global warming. Pressing Congress to reopen uranium mines on the Colorado Plateau, which increases the risk of contamination of the aquifer. Ever-conflicting water rights to Colorado, collectively known as the “Law of the River”. Finally, the lawsuit will affect the entirety of Native American property rights, especially water law.

It is worth remembering that 60 years ago the government was pushing a plan to remove as many Indians from the reservation as possible. This plan led to the formation of the American Indian Movement, the occupation of Alcatraz, and hostilities on the Lakota Reservation. South Dakota.

If the federal government chooses to assert its authority as water manager of the lower Colorado River, despite the demands and political pressure of learned water attorneys in the three states and their phalanxes, the federal government will have flexibility. There is a nature. The Law of the River, enacted in 1922, was enacted to the great benefit of the state of California, written on stone tablets by St. Hebert Hoover, and found in the suburbs of Yuma. is not. It may seem unacceptably absurd and unjust for a Supreme Court judge to make a decision ordering the federal government to assess water needs in the Navajo He Nation alone in 2023. But there don’t seem to be many in the legitimate press, betting that the elephant in the room will eventually be invited for a drink. Provides ample shelter for cowards.