HEATHER TANANA: So tribes, in order to exercise these water rights that are legal, have been legally acknowledged since 1908, you either have to go to the court and adjudicate your right, or you have to reach a settlement. And so that's what three tribes did: San Juan Southern Paiute, the Hopi Tribe, and Navajo Nation. These are outstanding rights that they've been trying to reach an agreement on for literally decades. So the next step is getting that congressional approval. And so it's been introduced twice. This is the second time, and I think we're all really crossing our fingers that'll make it over this final hurdle because they'll secure much needed water for Hopi, Navajo, and give reservation lands to the San Juan Southern Paiute.
KUNM: And what has been the central conflict holding this water settlement back?
TANANA: So we actually had a hearing just back in March before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and we heard testimony from all three of the tribal leaders about how important this settlement is to their communities and how necessary it is for their survival, again, economic growth and benefit. At the same time, we also had the Upper Basin states, so that includes New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, who submitted these letters to the Senate committee, and they all kind of said the same thing. They said, you know, we recognize tribes have water rights. It's important to settle and to quantify those, but as Upper Basin states, we have concerns – concerns that their water would be impacted, and that it's doing something that hadn't been done before. This exchange of inner basin tribe water in the upper or lower, and vice versa, and they're concerned that that would create some kind of negative precedent, and just being able to account for, as I mentioned before, in this broader Colorado River governance, and so that seems to be the primary hangup .
KUNM: And the Upper Basin states say that the Navajo Nation's ability to lease the water could create a precedent for other tribes to do the same. How realistic is this, and what would be the issue if it does?
TANANA: It gets a little disingenuous when we're talking about the law of the river and the original 1922 compact that made this division of the upper and lower. Well, Navajo is right there in the middle. They cross the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin, and this is exactly what Navajo President Buu Nygren said in his testimony. It's a unique situation. Navajo is the only tribe to cross the basins, and so does it really set up a precedent when it can't happen again because we don't have a tribe that again crosses that border, the imaginary line between the Upper and Lower Basin, and it's really important to remember that in the 1922 compact, and really until the last five years or so, tribes have not been involved in Colorado River governance at all. The 1922 compact actually includes a provision that says nothing in this compact shall be construed as affecting the obligations of the United States to the Indian tribes. So they weren't included in the law, and to try and use the law of the river now as a way to prevent them from exercising these legally recognized tribal water rights, I think, is a little problematic.
KUNM: And Heather, can you walk me through the process of what tribes typically have to do in order to get access from the federal government?
TANANA: What we are really able to achieve through settlements that you can't if you go through the courts are infrastructure projects. And so I think you know again in recognition of the federal treaty and trust responsibilities to tribes, right? That they gave up millions and millions of acres of land to be restricted on reservations, often in arid areas, that the government has a duty to protect them and to ensure their survival. And so, again, going back, water is life. Water is necessary for everything. And so, even if you get, you know, quantification on paper, the tribe can't put that to use, they need those infrastructure projects to bring in the water to provide services, and so that's again another big component about this settlement is it includes some large infrastructure projects that will be life changing for Navajo and Hopi.
KUNM: How are tribal members on the Navajo Nation currently finding and sourcing water?
TANANA: It's a struggle. I mean, it's a daily struggle. If you're Diné, right? You or your someone close to you and your family is hauling water right now. Just the average American today uses 100 gallons. If you took a really quick five-minute shower today, you probably used about 12.5 gallons of water. That is more than the average Navajo water hauler who uses seven gallons a day. Some even have to confine down to two. So I encourage you think about your water usage today. How in the world are you going to meet all of your needs on seven gallons a day? We have Navajo families where their children are going to bed thirsty because they have to conserve that water. It's just more costly. Aside from the public health challenges, It's wearing to go and haul water from these source points takes time out of your day to do it. Really, really challenging.
KUNM: So, if this bill were to pass, how would that impact people living on the Navajo Reservation?
TANANA: It's infrastructure projects that are going to bring water into the community, so help facilitate more connections, cut down the number of haulers who are out there, help support economic development in these communities. Right? Again, it's just so necessary for them to thrive. Let alone the cultural kind of component end as well. The way that we've managed water in the United States following the Western Law of Prior Appropriation, it's all about use for consumption and economic gain, and that's you know you need water to support all industries, but for many of our tribal communities, including Navajo, Hopi, San Juan Southern Piute, there's also that relational aspect as well. And by quantifying their rights, they can govern their water with their traditional fundamental laws and recognize and honor that relation as well.
KUNM: So, with all that said, why has it taken this long to propose and to agree on a settlement?
TANANA: I mean, that's such a good question, but I think, quite frankly, it's because there's powerful interests at play. If we look at again the basin, it's overallocated. We do not have enough water to meet all of the needs, and so, as a practical matter, the water that these tribes are going to utilize, it's gonna cut off someone else who is already using that water, and I think that creates tensions. But we have to go back to again, kind of this recognition that the tribes, they’re sovereigns. This isn't like a charity project. This is a legal obligation that's owed to them, and it's something that others have been taking advantage of. We've had tribal water being used by other non-tribal users for free. And just think of how much we paid under the bipartisan infrastructure law, Inflation Reduction Act. All these farmers and other users got money to help stabilize the system. This is really just kind of allowing tribes to be on an equal foot as other users.
You can hear the full segment on New Mexico in Focus Friday at 7 pm. Support for this coverage comes from Thornburg Foundation.
