PUB00021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Amendment" to the Reclamation Act, this policy holds that whenever a state water rights commission or state court is engaged in a "general stream adjudication," a proceeding in which all the water rights claims in a given watershed are adjudicated simultaneously, the water rights of any federal property in that watershed must be determined in that forum (Burton 1989:161). The McCarran Amendment and related court rulings, however, does not mean that Winters rights are quanti- fied according to state law, but only that the extent of the federal reserved water rights can be determined in state courts (Checchio and Colby 1993:15). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, in 1976, maintained that the McCarren Amendment applied to Native American reservations, as well, in its Akins decision. In 1983, when the Navajos and San Carlos Apaches tried to get the Supreme Court to reconsider or at least nar- row the Akins ruling, the Court thoroughly rejected the Native Americans' arguments and reaffirmed its earlier decision (Burton 1989:161). In a 1963 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Arizona YS California, reaffirmed the Winters doctrine and established "practicably irrigable acreage" (PIA) as a standard for quantifying reserved water rights on a reservation set aside with the intent that its inhabi- tants pursue agriculture. This litigation was prompted by Arizona's need for a determination of its share of water from the Colorado River in order to obtain fed- eral appropriations for the Central Arizona Project. The United States intervened to assert, among other things, the reserved water rights for five Native American tribes, who had traditionally been farmers, and their respective reservations located on the lower portion of the Colorado River (Burton 1989:162). This was the first time the Supreme Court had set forth generalized criteria for the quantification of reserved Indian water rights. Under the PIA standard for quantification, tribes are legally entitled to the amount of water needed to irri- gate all practicably irrigable acreage within their reser- vation boundaries. This standard compels tribes to devote enormous resources to analyze the costs and benefits of new tribal irrigation development and detracts attention from a broader evaluation of the many potential beneficial uses of tribal water. Moreover, tribal land subjugation for agricultural pur- poses may disrupt wildlife habitat, archaeological sites, air and water quality, and other reservation resources (Checchio and Colby 1993:13). Further, the PIA stan- dard does not encourage tribes to examine other water uses that may yield higher economic returns, provide better employment opportunities, or are more compat- ible with tribal values and protection of the reservation environment. The Arizona v. California resulted in the quantification of the water rights of five lower basin tribes (Colorado River, Chemehuevi, Ft. Mojave, Quechan, and Cocopah Indian tribes). Four other tribes (Southern Ute, Ute Mountain Ute, Jicarilla Apache, and Northern Ute) have had their water rights, to the mainstem Colorado River, recognized through settlements enacted by Congress and one tribe, the Navajo Nation, possess statutory right to Colorado River water for the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project (Checchio and Colby 1993:25). These ten tribes formed the Colorado River Basin Tribes Partnership in 1992. This Partnership attempts to protect and develop tribal water resources, advance tribal influence over the numerous aspects of river management that affect tribal interests, and stim- ulate dialogue 'With states, federal agencies, and non- Native American water users on matters of concern to tribes. Moreover, the Partnership has observed that the economic benefits associated with the Colorado River are not going to the tribes in proportions consistent 27