Indian Water Rights Settlements

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

This report provides an overview of Indian water rights settlements. It analyzes issues surrounding water rights settlements and the negotiation process, as well as imple

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.

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.

Indigenous communities, groundwater opportunities

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) | August 3rd, 2018

Instead of managing fresh water as one integrated resource, laws frequently treat groundwater separately from more visible, monitored, and managed surface waters. One und

Instead of managing fresh water as one integrated resource, laws frequently treat groundwater separately from more visible, monitored, and managed surface waters. One under-recognized consequence of such legal fragmentation has been uncertainty about whether water rights for indigenous communities, which have been addressed in many countries to varying degrees for surface waters, apply to groundwater. In late 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court left standing a lower court ruling endorsing priority groundwater rights for Native American tribes by denying an appeal in Agua Caliente Band v. Coachella Valley Water District. This ruling establishes a new standard throughout nine western states within the lower court's jurisdiction and establishes persuasive, although nonbinding, legal precedent for the rest of the United States. To evaluate the ruling's broader potential impacts, we present new data cataloging existing Native American water rights and mapping unresolved tribal groundwater claims across the western United States. No court considered such a regional or national quantitative catalog or map. Drawing lessons from past U.S. experience, we then discuss how tribal rights may offer new opportunities to achieve sustainable groundwater management for society at large, with implications beyond the United States. *The full text of this paper is behind a Science Magazine pay wall at a single-issue cost of $15. It should be available for free through research portals at universities, and may be accessible through public libraries with Science Magazine subscriptions. A free summary is contained by the August 3, 2018 Stanford News report "Stanford study reveals the changing scope of Native American groundwater rights – and opportunities for better freshwater management."    

It is Time to Expand the Geography of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program

Utah State University | December 2nd, 2024

Law and Policies that Address Equitable, Climate-Resilient Water and Sanitation (Part 2)

Pacific Institute | October 21st, 2024

In the United States, federal, tribal, state, and local laws and policies exist to govern the provision of water and sanitation services to communities and homes. The law

In the United States, federal, tribal, state, and local laws and policies exist to govern the provision of water and sanitation services to communities and homes. The laws are designed to ensure the protection of public health and the environment; deliver sufficient, safe water for drinking, bathing, cooking, and other household needs; and remove and treat domestic (i.e., household) waste. People without complete plumbing or safe water live within the “water access gap.” As explored in the first report in this series, climate change—from extreme temperatures to droughts, floods, extreme storms, and wildfires—is making it hard to close this gap and keep it from growing. Water and sanitation systems in frontline communities already feel the disproportionate “first and worst” impacts of climate change to these systems and to their access to water and sanitation. Laws and policies should help anticipate and plan for the incremental and catastrophic impacts of climate change and protect those most harmed by the effects. Unfortunately, in most cases, the climate is changing faster than the law can respond, thereby leaving frontline communities’ water and sanitation systems vulnerable to damage or destruction. (Click here for Part 1)

Long-Term Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | July 26th, 2024

The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) prepared this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 2021 Endangered Species Act Reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation on t

The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) prepared this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 2021 Endangered Species Act Reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation on the Long-Term Operation of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP). This EIS is meant to inform the public and decision-makers on potential federal actions by examining a range of reasonable alternatives and the potential effect on the environment. Reclamation manages the Central Valley Project (CVP). The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) manages the State Water Project (SWP). Collectively, the operation of the CVP and SWP provides flood control and navigation, delivers water to 30 million people, supports 4 million acres of agriculture, maintains 19 wildlife refuges on the Pacific Flyway, protects numerous iconic and endemic species such as Chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, and smelt, generates 4.5 million megawatt hours of electricity, maintains water quality for beneficial uses in the California Bay-Delta, and supports recreation throughout Northern California. This summary provides a succinct overview of the development of alternatives in coordination with other agencies and the public, major conclusions for key environmental resource areas, the identification of avoidance and mitigation measures to address potential impacts, and issues that have been in dispute as raised by the public and other interested parties. This summary provides the material required by the Council on Environmental Quality’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Regulations regarding the contents of an EIS summary. Click here to read Maven's Notebook background article to the new DEIS.

Measuring Progress Toward Universal Access to Water and Sanitation in California: Defining Goals, Indicators, and Performance Measures

Pacific Institute | September 15th, 2018

In January 2018, over half a million Californians were served by water utilities that were out of compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The worst outbreak o

In January 2018, over half a million Californians were served by water utilities that were out of compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The worst outbreak of Hepatitis A in recent memory occurred in 2016-2018 due to open defecation and lack of handwashing facilities for persons experiencing homelessness. California’s tribes continue to face problems of poor housing and water and sanitation service, with two-thirds of tribal communities reporting inadequate home plumbing in 2015.1 And the cost of water has increased for many, particularly among small and medium size systems, with 39 community water systems in the state charging more than $100 a month for 12 CCF of water. In response to the problem, California enacted the Human Right to Water in 2012, declaring that “Every human being has the right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes.”

Mono Lake Kutzadika’a Tribe support for Emergency Action at Mono Lake Due to Low Lake Level

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | December 22nd, 2022

Moving Forward Effort: Phase 1 Report

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | May 1st, 2015

In 2012, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), in partnership with the seven Colorado River Basin States (Basin States) and in collaboration with a wide spectrum of

In 2012, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), in partnership with the seven Colorado River Basin States (Basin States) and in collaboration with a wide spectrum of Colorado River Basin (Basin) stakeholders, published the most comprehensive study of future Basin supply and demand ever undertaken. The Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study (Basin Study) confirmed that, in the absence of timely action, there are likely to be significant shortfalls between projected water supplies and demands in coming decades. The Basin Study also confirmed that a wide range of solutions are needed to mitigate and adapt to such shortfalls, which are likely to affect each sector (agricultural, municipal, energy, and environmental, for example) dependent on the Colorado River and its tributaries. In response to the findings of the Basin Study, in May 2013, Reclamation and the Basin States, in collaboration with the Ten Tribes Partnership and conservation organizations, initiated the Moving Forward effort to build on future considerations and next steps identified in the Basin Study. The Moving Forward effort builds upon and enhances the broad, inclusive stakeholder process demonstrated in the Basin Study with an ultimate goal of identifying actionable steps to address projected water supply and demand imbalances that have broad-based support and provide a wide-range of benefits. The Moving Forward effort is being conducted in a phased approach. Phase 1, which was funded by Reclamation and the Basin States, began with the formation of a Coordination Team and three multi-stakeholder workgroups that focus on water conservation, reuse, and environmental and recreational flows. The Phase 1 Report documents the activities and outcomes of the workgroups during this phase. Commenting on the information provided in the Phase 1 Report is encouraged. Written comments should be submitted within 90 days following the release of this report. The comments will be summarized and posted to the Moving Forward website and will be considered in future Moving Forward phases. Instructions for submitting comments are provided at [this link].

Multibenefit Land Repurposing Program Annual Report 2023

California Department of Conservation (CDoC) | April 9th, 2024

The Multibenefit Land Repurposing Program (MLRP) increases regional capacity for repurposing irrigated agricultural land to uses that reduce reliance on groundwat

The Multibenefit Land Repurposing Program (MLRP) increases regional capacity for repurposing irrigated agricultural land to uses that reduce reliance on groundwater while providing community health, economic well-being, water supply, habitat, renewable energy, and climate benefits. The program provides funding for regional block grants, tribal grants, and a Statewide Support Entity to provide technical assistance to block grantees and support progress toward program goals.