One Small Step for Native American Water Rights
The Colorado River Indian Tribes have just won a victory—but there are a lot more controls that need to be lifted.

In early January, the unthinkable happened for hundreds of households in the Rio Verde suburb of Phoenix: Their water was cut off. Families in the cactus-pocked desert foothills were forced to skip showers, use paper plates, and haul laundry elsewhere. The nearby city of Scottsdale had supplied water deliveries to the community for years, but officials there decided they had to conserve more water to serve their own residents.
Amid historic western water shortages and a 20-year drought, for years some have expressed interest in helping meet demand for water where there is not enough to go around: Native American tribes. The reality, however, is that outdated federal law prevents many tribes from leasing their water off reservation.
Earlier this month, President Joe Biden signed legislation backed by Sens. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz) that grants the Colorado River Indian Tribes authority to do something that many other Americans can: lease their water rights to others. While the law is welcome progress, Congress should act now to give all western tribes full authority over their water rights. Native Americans deserve that authority on principle. More practically speaking, it would allow them to realize the full value of their rights while helping off-reservation water users who would be willing to bargain for more of the increasingly scarce resource.
Forty million people across seven states rely on the Colorado River to drink, bathe, wash, irrigate, and use water generally. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that reservation treaties nominally granted Native Americans some of the oldest rights to the river's water. But treaties did not quantify or codify those rights, leaving them unclear and unenforceable for decades. Some tribes have successfully used courts and subsequent negotiations between the federal government, states, and other water users—a process that takes 22 years on average—to quantify and gain meaningful access to their rights.
Today, western tribes collectively hold "paper rights" to roughly a quarter of the Colorado River's annual flow. Those rights, however, remain severely limited. For one thing, many tribes lack the proper infrastructure to divert and harness the water that is rightfully theirs, meaning that it is effectively lost to them, used up by others downstream. Moreover, most tribes are still barred from leasing water off reservation—to a thirsty urban area in the arid West, for instance. So while many other westerners can strike deals to lease their allotments elsewhere, many Native Americans lack this basic aspect of property rights.
In Southern California, for example, the water supplier for Los Angeles and other cities has paid nearby farmers $180 million for water since 2005. The farmers voluntarily cut back on their irrigation, temporarily fallowing some of their cropland, and city users happily stump up with payments that keep residential taps flowing freely. Water goes to its highest-valued use in the region because markets are allowed to function, producing win-win trades.
Notably, some Native Americans object to trading water due to religious or cultural beliefs. But it's long past time for the government to give tribes the option to decide for themselves whether to pursue the economic benefits that leasing could yield. A Property and Environment Research Center report by water researcher Leslie Sanchez found that tribes in the Colorado River Basin "may be forgoing $563 million to $1.3 billion annually, or between $3,200 and $7,300 per person" living on those tribes' reservations.
The other major objection to allowing tribes to lease their water comes from an obvious source: people who are worried they'll have to pay more for water that currently flows downstream to them because tribes cannot put it to use. But there is no valid reason that, absent one-off congressional approval, tribes are prohibited from leasing their water in the same sort of manner that some western farmers do.
The recent legislation pushed by Arizona's senators allows the Colorado River Indian Tribes, a group of four tribes on a single reservation, to lease its water to others. The group holds some of the most senior and significant rights to Colorado River water. "Since time immemorial," Chairwoman of the Colorado River Indian Tribes Amelia Flores told a U.S. House subcommittee in 2021, "the river has sustained us. I am here today to tell you that we are committed to helping to support the river that has provided for us, and we have water to offer for this effort." But, as Flores noted at the time, "We lack the authority to lease water because of the prohibitions in the 300-year-old Indian Trade and Intercourse Act. Without the right to lease our water, we can do little to directly assist communities in Arizona or our neighbors on the river, who may face drastic water shortages in the coming years."
The Colorado River Indian Tribes can now help supply water in this time of shortages, which appears to be a new normal. But three centuries is far too long for Congress to wait to fix paternalistic federal laws that continue to strip numerous other Native Americans of their rights.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
A watershed moment
I don't know what to think. Where is Dr. Faucet when we need him?
He’s all washed up.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,500 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link——————————->>> http://Www.SmartJob1.Com
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.NETPAYFAST.COM
He runs hot or cold, and needs a warm-up period
That's all mixed up.
or
Attends DC mixers, eh?
I've made 64,000 Dollars so far this year working online and I'm a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do. 🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
More information→→→→→ https://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. ???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
https://WWW.APPRICHS.com
Dates back to colonial times, eh?
I knew it! Those fucking Redcoats again!
The Intercourse Act fucked them from being Indian givers.
Axe and ye shall receive.
Was that part of a blanket agreement?
And How!
I am making $92 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $16,000 a month by working on a laptop, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website. http://Www.workstar24.com
Perhaps it was a proclamation by the Viceroy of New Spain? Or the legislature of Colonial Georgia trying to take advantage of the original charter's grant of a strip of land from the Atlantic to the Pacific? No, can't be; that charter was only granted 291 years ago.
Coming soon to an Indian casino near you: slots that pay off in barrels of water.
Just for the record:
Those "native americans" lost a war, and that cost them all of their rights.
It is probably racist to define "native americans" as only the tribes that happened to be 'on site' as it were, when the English arrived. They were the victors in the last wars fought against each other instead of against the English.
Better idea -
Disband BIA. Give them the reservations, to do with what they wish. Use it, sell it, preserve it, whatever.
In exchange they give up all special protections, form representative governments, and are subject to the laws of their state.
The reservations have been in place and under federal control for over 170 years. Native Americans are not infants. They can run their own lives.
Native Americans should have the same rights as any other citizens. No more, no less.
Water goes to its highest-valued use in the region because markets are allowed to function, producing win-win trades
Los Angeles is NOT part of the Colorado River region. For that matter, growing alfalfa and lettuce (two high-water usage crops) in the Imperial Valley (part of the Colorado River region) and exporting that water to the Central Valley, China, Saudi Arabia, rest of the US, (NOT part of the Colorado River region) can not by any stretch of the imagination be called 'market functional' unless prices actually incorporate economic/scarcity information re transfers of water into and out of region (which they don't).
Even if water in the West (and for that matter land/resources anywhere) can lead to a near perfect Hayekian pricing/allocation solution, that same topic proves that a laissez-faire legal structure to get there leads to nothing but cronyism, corruption and oversimplified cant re some economic religion based on faith. The combo there is pretty much the history of the American West.
Really? What "principle" is that? Why do we have ethno-nationalist states inside the US that are run like communist dictatorships and discriminate and exclude people based on race?
You mean like New York, California, and DC?
It goes clear back to the origins of the USA (think Mayflower era) which granted existing Native Tribes independently governed land ownership.. (i.e. We did conquer the Indians for the land but we didn't just take it all.)
95% of “Native Americans” died from disease; the land they left was unowned. And about 4% of the continental US are now reservations.
Furthermore, “Native American” would be free to discriminate if they wanted to exist as fully self-governing, independent nations.
But since those original agreements, these reservations have become integrated into the US, they receive massive amounts of federal funding, and their inhabitants have been granted automatic US citizenship.
Given this situation, they ought to be forced to comply with the US Constitution, like all other entities that are part of the US, which means treating all people equally, having a republican form of government, and protecting private property.
One interesting note on that 95%. The book “1491”, I think, noted two indirect proofs of how depopulated North America was by European diseases. One early Spanish conquistador traveled from the Gulf coast or from Florida up into Arkansas and back down to Texas or New Mexico; where he crossed the Mississippi, he noted the tremendous number of villages wherever one looked. A century later, the Frenchman La Salle (I think) came down the Mississippi, and where his path crossed the earlier conquistador’s path, he saw no Indians at all. That’s in the middle of the continent where very few Europeans ever visited, and sounds like at least a 90% depopulation.
The other was the New England coast. English and other Europeans had been fishing there since at least the 1580s, and had always been driven off the coast if they tried to beach their ships for repairs or get fresh water or food. That is how Squanto came to be kidnapped and taken back to England, where he learned English and took the first ship back to America which would take him, the Mayflower. When the Mayflower got there, the coast was almost entirely deserted, all having died, and not enough inland Indians to repopulate it. Squanto in fact teamed up with an old ancestral enemy Indian tribe because his own had all died out. And all this happened in just a couple of decades.
Another bit of evidence is that the early Pilgrims’ diaries and oral stories all mentioned how many Indians were nearby, even as deserted as things were, yet when colonials wrote about those times 100 years later, in the mid 1700s, they discounted all that talk of lots of Indians as gossip and exaggeration, because the very few left in their days were destitute beggars. All the rest had moved out past the Appalachians to get away from the Europeans.
And holding “Native Americans” to the principles isn’t motivated by having designs on “their land”, it’s that the current situation of ethno-national communist entities subsidized by US tax payers obviously is not working for the very people it’s supposed to help.
Another consideration is timing. In the southwest US, groups like the Navajo arrived just before the Spanish, and Apaches, about the same time. And those tribes did not "buy" land, they pretty much occupied where they could, and forcibly expelled other tribes. But noble savage harmony BS.
That goes back to when the white men were taking their land. They made promises then that don't look as good now. The white men got what they wanted and of course that looks less attractive today. Maybe just give all the land back and then renegotiate.
Yeah, that would work.
You are currently free to donate your real property to a tribe of your choice.
If the reservations want to be independent nations, that's fine: no dual citizenship, no federal aid, etc. Then they can discriminate as much as they want.
But as long as they are part of the US, their citizens are automatically US citizens, and they receive massive federal handouts, racial discrimination should not be tolerated.
The treaties (contracts) should be honored, no more and no less. If both parties agree to amend the contract, then all is good.
The treaties are silent on conformance with the US Constitution; arguably, that is implicit in acknowledging the protection of the United States. Furthermore, the treaties prohibit citizens of the United States from settling on Indian lands, which would include all Native Americans, since they are all US Citizens now.
From a practical point of view, the US could simply give Indians a choice: comply with the US Constitution OR lose US Citizenship, federal spending, and freedom of movement within the US; none of those were guaranteed under the treaties.
I'm not saying that to be mean, I'm saying that because the current status of reservations as ethno-national communist states is what keeps the people living there in such dire poverty. We are doing these people no favor by allowing that form of government within our borders.
Most of the tribes are corrupt as hell, much of that because a few elders get to decide who is a member of the tribe and who is not. There is no objective standard, and the federal Indian adoption laws make it even worse. Full-blooded Indians who live off the reservation have been denied membership when it comes to sharing casino profits, while 1/64 cronies get full shares. An orphan whose parents were part Indian and non-Indian has to be given to any Indian foster parent, regardless of tribe or relationship, even when non-Indian relatives who the orphan knows are available.
So, hyper-racist?
What the fuck is a 'full blooded indian'? Even a cursory scan of DNA stuff will quickly reveal US indians totally refuse to use any DNA to determine just what DNA is associated with indians and also refuse to provide samples to legit DNA research organizations. Truth be told there is really no such thing as a full blooded anything with tiny exceptions like the Sentinel Island population; every other place has been subject to so much DNA mixing that even Lizzy Warren has a tiny bit of indian blood.
It's funny. Where I live there was never a drought scare for half a century. Then the 'Feds' came in during the Obama Administration to save the fish and "better manage the water resources". Ever since then there's been a drought scare every year even the last year where more snow fall had occurred than any other year in the last half a century.
Seem completely plausible to say; the only CAUSE of droughts is 'Environmentalists' policy.
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.SALARYBEZ.COM