PUB00021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

28 with the tribes' large and senior rights to the river and that leasing arrangements would help to address this inequity (Checchio and Colby 1993:25). Currently, non-Native American land owners are con- fronted with the possibility that the water they have been using, and to which they believe they have a legit- imate entitlement, was in fact reserved for Native American tribes. Some observers (Checchio and Colby 1993:1-3) have calculated that the water entitlements of Arizona tribes, many of which remain to be quantified, will easily surpass the state's surface water supplies; most of which presently are used by other parties. Therefore, the quantification of water rights for the many Native American tribes that have a claim to the Colorado River waters may dramatically effect the cur- rent heavily appropriated distribution of those waters. The real issue is how will Tribes, as sovereign govern- ments, have their water concerns integrated into the broader management of the Colorado River Basin; inspite of existing water compacts, agreements, and appropriations that do not represent Native American tribal water rights, sovereignty or participation. For example, if tribal water rights had been quantified in the Colorado River, the amount of revenue generated through the use of tribal water for hydropower genera- tion would have been enormous and the tribes would have benefited directly from the use of their water. This issue raises important questions regarding the basis for tribal water rights quantification in an over-appropriat- ed basin and may provide important economic oppor- tunities for tribes in the future (Vandemoer 1996:4). This issue is difficult to answer but it remains central to the consideration of a basin wide management plan. Due to the high costs and the inflexibility in judicial quantification of reserved water, many states and tribes are beginning to negotiate rather than litigate the extent of reserved rights and then petition Congress or the courts to approve their agreements (Getches et al 1993:775). However, negotiated paper water alloca- tions do not always mean that the Native American reservation will see "wet" water. Compounding this issue, is that courts in different states have dispensed conflicting rulings on whether tribes possess instream, noncomsumptive rights for fisheries and religious pur- poses (Getches et al1993: 775). Another important and as yet unresolved question is whether tribes or states control non-Native American use of water within Native American reservations. Several tribes have established their own water admin- istration agencies, and tribal water codes that include comprehensive water management schemes which are coming into conflict with state water laws (Getches et aI1993:775). Another issue concerning Native American water rights, within the context of discussing management issues in relation to the broader Colorado River Basin, is whether they extend to groundwater as well as surface waters. As stated above, Winters rights extend to streams, lakes, and springs which arise upon, border, or traverse the reservation (Getches et al1993: 787). The United States Supreme Court has not ruled on whether the Winters rights also extend to groundwater that underlie the reservation. In Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128 (1976), the Supreme Court for the first time extended federal reserved rights to groundwater whenever a "hydrological connection" between surface and ground- waters can be shown (Burton 1989:159). Therefore, development and/or resource procurement activities (e.g., mining) by Federal agencies, state agencies, private industry, within the Colorado River Basin, could have a potential effect on the Winters Doctrine rights of tribes