Evaluating the hydrologic effects of the 2021–2022 Scott and Shasta irrigation curtailments using remote sensing and streamflow gages

Klamath Tribal Water Quality Consortium | September 11th, 2023

Key Points • Satellite remote sensing data indicated that curtailment orders in 2022 reduced consumptive water use (evapotranspiration, ETa) on agricultural lands i

Key Points • Satellite remote sensing data indicated that curtailment orders in 2022 reduced consumptive water use (evapotranspiration, ETa) on agricultural lands in Shasta Valley, but not Scott Valley. • Streamflow gage data indicate that flows in the Shasta River and some Scott River tributaries (Shackleford and French creeks) were substantially higher in summer 2022 than 2020 or 2021, but similar increases did not occur in the mainstem Scott River. • A likely major reason for the lack of Scott River flow increases was that groundwater use was allowed to continue under Local Cooperative Solutions (LCS) agreements in which water users agreed to reduce pumping by 30% from a prior year baseline. Despite abundant worldwide evidence that reducing consumptive use (i.e., evapotranspiration) is key to increasing environmental water, all LCS cropping and irrigation practices were given equal weight toward the 30% reduction, regardless of the effects on consumptive use. Pumping was not measured and compliance was primarily self-reported, with limited independent verification.

Federal Reserved Water Rights and Groundwater: Quantity, Quality, and Pore Space

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | February 8th, 2018

Tribal rights to groundwater have not been legally established to the same extent as rights to other natural resources (e.g., surface water, timber, minerals). A March 2

Tribal rights to groundwater have not been legally established to the same extent as rights to other natural resources (e.g., surface water, timber, minerals). A March 2017 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the rights of a California Indian tribe (the Agua Caliente band of Cahuilla Indians) to groundwater beneath the tribe's reservation in the Coachella Valley. In November 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the decision; the case now proceeds to other phases that may partially shape this ruling's significance. This is the first case in which an appellate court has held that a tribe's "reserved" rights under the Winters doctrine apply to groundwater. Pursuant to Winters, when Congress reserves land for a reservation, it also reserves a right to water necessary to accomplish the purposes for which the reservation was created. For decades, tribal reserved rights for surface water have been established and have required settlements between the federal government (as authorized by Congress), tribes, and nonfederal users. Thus, some have raised concerns about the implications of interpreting Winters rights to include groundwater. This Insight explores three aspects of groundwater relevant to Agua Caliente: quantity, quality, and "pore space." The legal outcome may affect how groundwater is allocated among tribal and nontribal interests and may influence groundwater allocations at other federal reservations. The Supreme Court has not declared outright that groundwater is subject to the Winters doctrine, but declining to review the Ninth Circuit decision essentially upheld phase one of the three-phase case: a federally reserved right to the groundwater resource for the tribe. Phase two will address whether the tribe has the right to receive groundwater of a certain quality from the aquifer and whether it owns the pore space beneath tribal lands. Phase three will determine the quantity of groundwater to which the tribe is entitled, pursuant to its reserved rights. The outcome of phases two and three could have implications for expanding the scope of federal preemption of state water law. It also could affect how much groundwater is available for nontribal water agencies and water districts and those entities' ability to store water in an aquifer beneath federally reserved lands. Congress has authority over federal water law and could influence this legal framework.

Fixing the Flawed Colorado River Compact

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | June 16th, 2023

Guidance Document for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater Engagement with Tribal Governments June 2017 (Draft)

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | June 1st, 2017

The objective of this guidance document is to convey information, as provided by California’s Tribal governments, by which local agencies can engage Tribal gove

The objective of this guidance document is to convey information, as provided by California’s Tribal governments, by which local agencies can engage Tribal governments as part of an effort to identify interested persons, and consider the interests of beneficial users of groundwater; including those users on Tribal lands not subject to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). This guidance document can also be used to help local agencies engage with a Tribal government in the planning, financing, and management of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), or help with the development and implementation of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) pursuant to SGMA.

How Native Americans will Shape the Future of Water in the West

New Yorker | January 27th, 2023

As a child, Stephen Lewis heard stories about a river that, for the most part, no longer flowed. “How I grew up was that it was a theft, that it was stolen from us,”

As a child, Stephen Lewis heard stories about a river that, for the most part, no longer flowed. “How I grew up was that it was a theft, that it was stolen from us,” he told me late last year. “There was what we used to call the Mighty Gila River, and now it was just pretty much dry. There was no water.” Lewis is the governor of the Gila River Indian Community (gric), a group that has occupied land south of Phoenix for centuries. When I met him, in the dining room of the Whirlwind Golf Club, which the tribe owns, Lewis had recently returned from Santa Fe. There, he’d attended a celebration marking the centennial of the Colorado River Compact, an agreement that continues to shape water politics in the Southwest. In Santa Fe, Lewis took note of a black-and-white photograph of the compact’s signers—white men in dark jackets, gathered around a wooden desk.

Improving and Sustaining BLM-Tribal Relations (Handbook 1780-1)

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) | December 15th, 2016

Manual Section 1780 (MS-1780) and Handbook 1780-1 (H-1780-1) are being released simultaneously . H-1780-1 , I mproving and Sustaining BLM- Tribal Relations, rep

Manual Section 1780 (MS-1780) and Handbook 1780-1 (H-1780-1) are being released simultaneously . H-1780-1 , I mproving and Sustaining BLM- Tribal Relations, replaces H-8120-1 (Rel. 8-75, 12/03/04) . M S - 1780 , Tribal Relations, replaces MS-8120 (Rel. 8-74, 12/03/04). MS-8 120 and H-8120 - 1 were specific to implementation of historic preservation authorities only . Therefore, this new guidance is appropriately placed within the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 1700 series, which addresses relations with other governments, including State, local, and international relations . Developed in response to the finalization of 512 Departmental M anual (DM) Chapters 4 and 5, H-1780-1 with MS-1780 provides direction for all BLM programs for improving and sustaining tribal relations , including government-to-government consultation. We attempted to be inclusive; however, this handbook does not contain sections for every program area or discipline who should be involved in tribal relations. Updates and additional chapters will be added when they are available.

Indian Nations in the US

National Congress of American Indians | November 11th, 2003

Table of Contents: Understanding Contemporary Tribal Government Brief History of Federal Indian Policy Answers to Frequently Asked Questions About Indian Na

Table of Contents: Understanding Contemporary Tribal Government Brief History of Federal Indian Policy Answers to Frequently Asked Questions About Indian Nations Tribal Sovereignty Treaties The Trust Relationship Federal Recognition The Structure of Tribal Governments Tribal Lands Indian Country Facts Taxation Indian Gaming The Federal - Tribal Relationship Today State Tribal Relations Future of Federal Programs Towards Indian  Nations Contacting Tribal Governments Bibliography and Resources

Indian Reserved Water Rights Under the Winters Doctrine: An Overview

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | June 8th, 2011

Although the federal government has authority to regulate water, it typically defers to the states to allocate water resources within the state. The federal government ma

Although the federal government has authority to regulate water, it typically defers to the states to allocate water resources within the state. The federal government maintains certain federal water rights, though, which exist separate from state law. In particular, federal reserved water rights often arise in questions of water allocation related to federal lands, including Indian reservations. Indian reserved water rights were first recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Winters v. United States in 1908. Under the Winters doctrine, when Congress reserves land (i.e., for an Indian reservation), Congress also reserves water sufficient to fulfill the purpose of the reservation. As the need for water grows with the development of new industries and growing populations, the tension arising from the allocation of scarce water resources highlights the difficulties that often surround reserved water rights, particularly in the western states. Western states generally follow some form of the prior appropriation system of water allocation. The prior appropriation system allocates water to users based on the order in which water rights were properly acquired. Because Indian reserved water rights date back to the government’s reservation of the land for the Indians, these water rights often pre-date other water users’ claims. Although the prior appropriation system’s reliance on seniority provides a degree of certainty to water allocation, Indian reserved water rights may not have been quantified at the time of reservation. Because Winters did not dictate a formula to determine the quantity of water reserved, courts apply different standards to quantify tribal reserved water rights. As a result, other water users may not know whether, or the extent to which, Indian reserved water rights have priority. Because of these uncertainties, Indian reserved water rights are often litigated or negotiated in settlements and related legislation. This report will examine the creation of Indian reserved water rights under the Winters doctrine. It will analyze the scope of the doctrine, including the purposes for which the water right may be claimed and the sources from which the water may be drawn. It will also discuss various quantification standards that courts have used in attempting to clarify Indian reserved water rights. Finally, it will examine the effect of the McCarran Amendment, through which Congress extended jurisdiction to state courts to hear disputes involving Indian reserved water rights.

Indian Water Rights in the West

Western States Water Council | December 1st, 1983

Indian Water Rights Settlements

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | March 27th, 2017

In the second half of the 19th century, the federal government pursued a policy of confining Indian tribes to reservations. These reservations were either a portion of a

In the second half of the 19th century, the federal government pursued a policy of confining Indian tribes to reservations. These reservations were either a portion of a tribe’s aboriginal land or an area of land taken out of the public domain and set aside for a tribe. The federal statutes and treaties reserving such land for Indian reservations typically did not address the water needs of these reservations, a fact that has given rise to questions and disputes regarding Indian reserved water rights. Dating to a 1908 Supreme Court ruling, courts generally have held that many tribes have a reserved right to water sufficient to fulfill the purpose of their reservations and that this right took effect on the date the reservations were established. This means that, in the context of a state water law system of prior appropriations, which is common in many U.S. western states, many tribes have water rights senior to those of non-Indian users with water rights and access established subsequent to the Indian reservations’ creation. Although many Indian tribes hold senior water rights through their reservations, the quantification of these rights is undetermined in many cases. Tribes have pursued quantification of their water rights through both litigation and negotiated settlements. The settlements involve negotiation between tribes, the federal government, states, water districts, and private water users, among others. They aim to resolve conflict between rights holders and allow the parties to determine specific terms of water allocation and use with certainty. Over the last 50 years, negotiated settlements have been the preferred course for most tribes because they are often less lengthy and costly than litigation. Additionally, many stakeholders have noted that these negotiated agreements are more likely to allow tribes not only to quantify their water rights on paper but also to procure access to these resources in the form of infrastructure and other related expenses, at least in some cases. After being negotiated, approval and implementation of Indian water rights settlements require federal action. As of 2017, 36 Indian water rights settlements have been federally approved. Of these, 32 settlements were approved and enacted by Congress and 4 were administratively approved by the U.S. Departments of Justice and the Interior. After being congressionally authorized, federal projects associated with approved Indian water rights settlements generally have been implemented by the Bureau of Reclamation or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (both within the Department of the Interior), pursuant to congressional directions. Congress has appropriated discretionary and mandatory funding (and, in some cases, both) for these activities, including in recent appropriations bills. Several Indian water rights settlements have been considered and enacted, including three that were enacted in the 114th Congress. A primary challenge facing new settlements is the availability of federal funds to implement ongoing and future agreements. Indian water rights settlements often involve the construction of major new water infrastructure to allow tribal communities to access water they hold rights to, and obtaining federal funding for these projects can be difficult. As a result, some settlements have been renegotiated to reduce their federal costs. At issue for Congress is under what circumstances (if any) to approve new Indian water rights settlements and whether to fund (and in some cases amend) new and ongoing settlements. Some argue that resolution of Indian water rights settlements is a mutually beneficial means to resolve long-standing legal issues, provide certainty of water deliveries, and reduce the federal government’s liability. Others argue against authorization and funding of settlements, either in general or with regard to specific activities associated with individual settlements. This report provides an overview of Indian water rights settlements. It analyzes issues surrounding water rights settlements and the negotiation process, as well as implementation challenges and related issues for Congress.