Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Sharing Colorado River Water: History, Public Policy and the Colorado River Compact <br /> <br /> <br />Page 8 of 15 <br /> <br />Indian Water Rights <br /> <br />Drafters of the Colorado River Compact were not unduly concerned with Indian wate <br />rights. Article VII, the compact's token acknowledgement ofIndian water rights, was <br />inserted at the insistence of Herbert Hoover. Article VII simply states, "Nothing in thj <br />compact shall be construed as affecting the obligations of the United States of Ameri< <br />to Indian Tribes." <br /> <br />It was not that Indian water rights was a nonissue at the time. The 1908 Supreme Cou <br />decision Winters v. United States recognized Indian water rights regardless of whet he <br />tribe had used the water or not, with rights established at the time reservations were <br />created. Further, the decision stated that the state in which a reservation is located mu <br />fulfill the tribal water right. Indian water rights then was a looming question, not one <br />be left hanging. <br /> <br />The neglected issue was to return with a vengeance in the 1963 Supreme Court decisi <br />Arizona v. California. Along with determining the Colorado River rights of Arizona, <br />Nevada and California, the decision also quantified federal reserved rights of the five <br />Indian reservations along the lower Colorado River: Chemehuevi, Cocopah, Coloradc <br />River, Fort Mohave and Quechan (Fort Yuma). <br /> <br />The court granted the reservations enough water to irrigate all practica-bly irrigable <br />acreage within their boundaries. The water was to come from the Lower Basin states' <br />Colorado River apportionments. Under this standard, five Indian reservations with a <br />total population of about 10,000 were granted approximately 900,000 af of water. The <br />lower Colorado River reservations presently are using about 80 to 90 percent of their <br />entitlement. <br /> <br />Because of this landmark case these tribes have the best water rights along the Lower <br />Colorado River. From neglected interests or parties, Indians became major players. <br /> <br />Indians of the Upper Basin states do not have a comparable court case to define their <br />water rights. Through federal legislation and court cases, however, the Upper Basin <br />tribes have acquired about one mat: <br /> <br />Along with the above-mentioned tribes, other Arizona tribes have potential claims to <br />Colorado River water. Walapai and Havasupai claim to have rights, although neither] <br />taken any legal action. About 180 miles of the Havasupai reservation borders on the <br />Colorado River. <br /> <br />StilI unquantified and conceded to be potentially huge, the Navajo Tribe's water right: <br />claim could cut into the Colorado River apportionment of four states: Arizona in the <br />Lower Basin and New Mexico, Colorado and Utah in the Upper Basin, with the majo <br />burden on Arizona. The reservation is 25,000 square miles and is located entirely witl <br />the Colorado River basin. Its western boundary is the mainstem of the Colorado Rive: <br />and two tributaries, the San Juan and the Little Colorado rivers, flow through tribal la <br /> <br />Some officials have speculated on what the Navajo claim might be. Noting two such <br />publicized figures, about two maf and five maf, Stanley Pollack, special counsel for tJ <br />Navajo Tribe, remarked at the conference that he is unable to figure a claim under fiv <br /> <br />http://ag.arizona.edu! AZW A TERlarroyo/1 0 1 comm.html <br /> <br />9/12/2006 <br />