WSP05306

• File Number: 8200.700
• Description: Colorado River
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 1/1/3000
• Author: Getches and Meyers
• Title: The River of Controversy - Persistent Issues
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

",

the tribes' entitlements. Federal assistanc" Ln developing the means to

,.
f'
II
I!
'I
If
,I
II
II
~
:1
i

irrigate Indian land has been lacking whiLe the government has provided

copi~us aid to the tribes' competito~s for water from the same sources-

This situation was forcefully criticized by the National Water Cornmis-

sion. National Water Commission, ~ cit., pp. 474-75.

52. The 1982 Master's Report in Arizona v. California showed that many of

the lands considered to be "practicably irrigable" could barely be

profitable when used for agriculture, even under the most favorable

:~1
p
-:.!
)..

assumptions. Tuttle, ~ cit., pp. 192 et 'set.

53. Arizona v. California 439 U.S. 419, 422 (1979) (Indian water rights that

were quantified based on irrigable acreage need not be confined to

agricultural uses); Rifkind, ~ cit., pp. 2b5-00.

,~

54. Navajo claims alone could range as high as 5U million acre-feet, far

- 41 -

more than the entire river produces annually. A modest estimate of what

a court might award the Navajos solely based on the practicably irriga-

ble acreage formula would be 2 million acre-feet. (Arizona's compact

share is only 2.8 million acre-feet.) See William D. Back & Jeffery S.

Taylor, "Navajo Water Rights: Pulling the Plug on the Colorado River?",

Natural Resources Journal, Vol. 20 (1980), pp. 71, 74n.12. The tribe

may claim more water for purposes other than irrigation, consistent with

the broad purposes of the reservation.

55. Several bills have been introduced that would lead to quantification of

reserved rights. They generally have avoided dealing with Indian re-