Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OU1572 <br />928 <br /> <br />ECOLOGY LA W QUARTERLY <br /> <br />[Vol. 28 :903 <br /> <br />reservation's establishment. In practical terms., this means that <br />tribal water rights are senior to most users on the river.152 <br />Historically, the Lower Basin tribes have not used their full <br />apportionment, largely due to a lack of funding for tribal water <br />development. Between 1987 and 1993, the tribes diverted only <br />769,360 af per year for irrigation, out of a total allotment of <br />917,552 af.153 Most of this use occurred on the Colorado River <br />Indian Reservation (located along the bouildroy between Arizona <br />and California.l54 Most of this tribal water is currently used by <br />non-Indian farmers who lease tribal lands. 155 <br />Increasing support for tribal sovereignty and self- <br />determination, coupled with the desire of other water users to <br />quantify reserved rights (and thus decrease the uncertainty <br />associated with them) are changing tribal water rights from <br />theoretical "paper rights" into real, "wet" water in the form of <br />tangible water projects and economic development. In 1992, ten <br />tribes in the Upper and Lower Basins formed the Colorado River <br />Basin Ten Tribes Partnership to develop tribal resources and to <br />expand tribal water rights for on-reservation use. 156 The <br />Partnership is also seeking opportunities. to market tribal water <br />off-reservation to assist on-reservation economic development <br />while alleviating Lower Basin shortages.157 Due to this effort and <br />other economic development programs, tribal water use is <br />expected to increase significantly in the Lower Basin over the <br />next few decades. By 2050, tribal consumptive use (withdrawals <br />minus return flows) is expected to reach 1.3 maf - up from .763 <br />mafin 2000.158 <br />These changes are signillcantlyaffecting water allocation <br />throughout the Colorado River Basin. In Arizona, for example, a <br />recent settlement between BOR and the Central Arizona Water <br />Conservation District (CAWCD) would exchange tribal rights to <br />surface water for delive:ry rights to Central Arizona Project (CAP) <br />water.159 If approved, the related settlement legislation now <br />pending before Congress would satisfy the claims of the Gila <br /> <br />ft <br />I <br /> <br />L <br />l' <br />~ <br />j <br /> <br />152. See Abbott, supra note 68, at 1426. <br />153. See Garner & Ouelette, supranote 46, at 496. <br />154. See id. <br />155. Peter W. Sly, Urban. and Interstate Perspectives on OIfReservation Tribal <br />Water Leases, 10-WfR NAT. REsOURCES & ENV'T 43, 46 (1996). <br />156. See Garner & Ouellette, supra note 46. at 496. <br />157. See id. <br />158. SeeFINALEIS, supra note 1l,atAttachment g. <br />159. Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, Remarks at the Colorado River Water <br />Users Association Meeting (Dec. 14. 2000), avaUable at <br />http://crwua.mwd.dst.ca.us/news/babbitt2000.htm. <br />