{ "id": "R44148", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "R", "number": "R44148", "active": true, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov, EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "title": "Indian Water Rights Settlements", "retrieved": "2023-11-09T04:03:23.559584", "id": "R44148_29_2023-10-13", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2023-10-13_R44148_484455ebfa7c8ed0adaa46edc345560aad25d28c.pdf", "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44148/29", "sha1": "484455ebfa7c8ed0adaa46edc345560aad25d28c" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2023-10-13_R44148_484455ebfa7c8ed0adaa46edc345560aad25d28c.html" } ], "date": "2023-10-13", "summary": null, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "typeId": "R", "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R44148", "type": "CRS Report" }, { "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "title": "Indian Water Rights Settlements", "retrieved": "2023-11-09T04:03:23.558640", "id": "R44148_28_2023-03-28", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2023-03-28_R44148_59567402c3efa6e0cdc5c811037c098768b10d50.pdf", "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44148/28", "sha1": "59567402c3efa6e0cdc5c811037c098768b10d50" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2023-03-28_R44148_59567402c3efa6e0cdc5c811037c098768b10d50.html" } ], "date": "2023-03-28", "summary": null, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "typeId": "R", "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R44148", "type": "CRS Report" }, { "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "title": "Indian Water Rights Settlements", "retrieved": "2023-11-09T04:03:23.557276", "id": "R44148_26_2022-01-18", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2022-01-18_R44148_01f456e72ef9adf7882da262a8b817365a39cc47.pdf", "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44148/26", "sha1": "01f456e72ef9adf7882da262a8b817365a39cc47" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2022-01-18_R44148_01f456e72ef9adf7882da262a8b817365a39cc47.html" } ], "date": "2022-01-18", "summary": null, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "typeId": "R", "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R44148", "type": "CRS Report" }, { "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "title": "Indian Water Rights Settlements", "retrieved": "2023-11-09T04:03:23.556502", "id": "R44148_25_2020-05-22", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2020-05-22_R44148_4088c8deeb1fa7d39ddcc78e411fe93cbfb5d96c.pdf", "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44148/25", "sha1": "4088c8deeb1fa7d39ddcc78e411fe93cbfb5d96c" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2020-05-22_R44148_4088c8deeb1fa7d39ddcc78e411fe93cbfb5d96c.html" } ], "date": "2020-05-22", "summary": null, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "typeId": "R", "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R44148", "type": "CRS Report" }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 612218, "date": "2019-12-26", "retrieved": "2020-01-02T13:31:38.786573", "title": "Indian Water Rights Settlements", "summary": "In the second half of the 19th century, the federal government pursued a policy of confining Indian tribes to reservations. These reservations were either a portion of a tribe\u2019s aboriginal land or an area of land taken out of the public domain and set aside for a tribe. The federal statutes and treaties reserving such land for Indian reservations typically did not address the water needs of these reservations, a fact that has given rise to questions and disputes regarding Indian reserved water rights. Dating to a 1908 Supreme Court ruling, courts generally have held that many tribes have a reserved right to water sufficient to fulfill the purpose of their reservations and that this right took effect on the date the reservations were established. This means that, in the context of a state water law system of prior appropriations, which is common in many U.S. western states, many tribes have water rights senior to those of non-Indian users with water rights and access established subsequent to the Indian reservations\u2019 creation. Although many Indian tribes hold senior water rights through their reservations, the quantification of these rights is undetermined in many cases. \nTribes have pursued quantification of their water rights through both litigation and negotiated settlements. The settlements involve negotiation among tribes, the federal government, states, water districts, and private water users, and others. They aim to resolve conflict between rights holders and allow the parties to determine specific terms of water allocation and use with certainty. Over the last 50 years, negotiated settlements have been the preferred course for most tribes because they are often less lengthy and costly than litigation. Additionally, many stakeholders have noted that these negotiated agreements are more likely to allow tribes not only to quantify their water rights on paper but also to procure access to these resources in the form of infrastructure and other related expenses, at least in some cases.\nAfter being negotiated, approval and implementation of Indian water rights settlements require federal action. As of 2019, 36 Indian water rights settlements had been federally approved, with total estimated costs in excess of $5.8 billion. Of these, 32 settlements were approved and enacted by Congress and 4 were administratively approved by the U.S. Departments of Justice and the Interior. After being congressionally authorized, federal projects associated with approved Indian water rights settlements generally have been implemented by the Bureau of Reclamation or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (both within the Department of the Interior), pursuant to congressional directions. Congress has appropriated discretionary and mandatory funding (and, in some cases, both) for these activities, including in recent appropriations bills. In the 116th Congress, H.R. 1904 proposes to extend in perpetuity the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund, which is currently scheduled to provide $120 million per year in mandatory funds for these settlements through FY2029. \nSeveral individual Indian water rights settlements have recently been considered and approved by Congress, including three that were enacted during the 114th Congress. In addition to opposition to some proposed settlements, one of the primary challenges facing new settlements is the availability of federal funds and the related question of cost-shares among federal, state, local, and tribal interests.\nAt issue is under what circumstances (if any) Congress should approve new Indian water rights settlements and whether Congress should fund (and in some cases amend) existing settlements. Some argue that resolution of Indian water rights settlements is a mutually beneficial means to resolve long-standing legal issues, provide certainty of water deliveries, and reduce the federal government\u2019s liability. Others argue against authorization and funding of new settlements, either on general principle or with regard to specific individual settlements and activities.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44148", "sha1": "a2cd091421bac2635fb02b4cb0a8b66bc0ae2a87", "filename": "files/20191226_R44148_a2cd091421bac2635fb02b4cb0a8b66bc0ae2a87.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44148", "sha1": "e55967e0c70e9342601ed14636a427232aec4f40", "filename": "files/20191226_R44148_e55967e0c70e9342601ed14636a427232aec4f40.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4753, "name": "Indian Affairs" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4909, "name": "Water Resource Management" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 596479, "date": "2019-04-16", "retrieved": "2019-04-17T13:40:23.038669", "title": "Indian Water Rights Settlements", "summary": "In the second half of the 19th century, the federal government pursued a policy of confining Indian tribes to reservations. These reservations were either a portion of a tribe\u2019s aboriginal land or an area of land taken out of the public domain and set aside for a tribe. The federal statutes and treaties reserving such land for Indian reservations typically did not address the water needs of these reservations, a fact that has given rise to questions and disputes regarding Indian reserved water rights. Dating to a 1908 Supreme Court ruling, courts generally have held that many tribes have a reserved right to water sufficient to fulfill the purpose of their reservations and that this right took effect on the date the reservations were established. This means that, in the context of a state water law system of prior appropriations, which is common in many U.S. western states, many tribes have water rights senior to those of non-Indian users with water rights and access established subsequent to the Indian reservations\u2019 creation. Although many Indian tribes hold senior water rights through their reservations, the quantification of these rights is undetermined in many cases. \nTribes have pursued quantification of their water rights through both litigation and negotiated settlements. The settlements involve negotiation between tribes, the federal government, states, water districts, and private water users, among others. They aim to resolve conflict between rights holders and allow the parties to determine specific terms of water allocation and use with certainty. Over the last 50 years, negotiated settlements have been the preferred course for most tribes because they are often less lengthy and costly than litigation. Additionally, many stakeholders have noted that these negotiated agreements are more likely to allow tribes not only to quantify their water rights on paper but also to procure access to these resources in the form of infrastructure and other related expenses, at least in some cases.\nAfter being negotiated, approval and implementation of Indian water rights settlements require federal action. As of 2019, 36 Indian water rights settlements had been federally approved, with total costs in excess of $5.8 billion. Of these, 32 settlements were approved and enacted by Congress and 4 were administratively approved by the U.S. Departments of Justice and the Interior. After being congressionally authorized, federal projects associated with approved Indian water rights settlements generally have been implemented by the Bureau of Reclamation or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (both within the Department of the Interior), pursuant to congressional directions. Congress has appropriated discretionary and mandatory funding (and, in some cases, both) for these activities, including in recent appropriations bills. In the 116th Congress, H.R. 1904 proposes to extend certain mandatory funds for these settlements in perpetuity (the funding currently expires in FY2029). \nSeveral individual Indian water rights settlements recently have been considered and enacted, including three that were enacted during the 114th Congress. A primary challenge facing new settlements is the availability of federal funds to implement ongoing and future agreements. Indian water rights settlements often involve the construction of major new water infrastructure to allow tribal communities to access water they hold rights to, and obtaining federal funding for these projects can be difficult. As a result, some settlements have been renegotiated to reduce their federal costs.\nAt issue is under what circumstances (if any) Congress should approve new Indian water rights settlements and whether Congress should fund (and in some cases amend) existing settlements. Some argue that resolution of Indian water rights settlements is a mutually beneficial means to resolve long-standing legal issues, provide certainty of water deliveries, and reduce the federal government\u2019s liability. Others argue against authorization and funding of new settlements, either on general principle or with regard to specific individual settlements and activities.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44148", "sha1": "67839a9de0c709c2c8df195eb4c9d4ce27f52fad", "filename": "files/20190416_R44148_67839a9de0c709c2c8df195eb4c9d4ce27f52fad.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44148", "sha1": "22b48f9eba10cf0734b8ef4694619fa217bb2d04", "filename": "files/20190416_R44148_22b48f9eba10cf0734b8ef4694619fa217bb2d04.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4753, "name": "Indian Affairs" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4909, "name": "Water Resource Management" } ] }, { "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "title": "Indian Water Rights Settlements", "retrieved": "2023-11-09T04:03:23.551203", "id": "R44148_19_2019-03-29", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2019-03-29_R44148_51c76cf300fdea1fa47677bff640fdda7f9dd467.pdf", "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44148/19", "sha1": "51c76cf300fdea1fa47677bff640fdda7f9dd467" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2019-03-29_R44148_51c76cf300fdea1fa47677bff640fdda7f9dd467.html" } ], "date": "2019-03-29", "summary": null, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "typeId": "R", "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R44148", "type": "CRS Report" }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 582914, "date": "2018-07-17", "retrieved": "2018-07-19T13:41:17.984925", "title": "Indian Water Rights Settlements", "summary": "In the second half of the 19th century, the federal government pursued a policy of confining Indian tribes to reservations. These reservations were either a portion of a tribe\u2019s aboriginal land or an area of land taken out of the public domain and set aside for a tribe. The federal statutes and treaties reserving such land for Indian reservations typically did not address the water needs of these reservations, a fact that has given rise to questions and disputes regarding Indian reserved water rights. Dating to a 1908 Supreme Court ruling, courts generally have held that many tribes have a reserved right to water sufficient to fulfill the purpose of their reservations and that this right took effect on the date the reservations were established. This means that, in the context of a state water law system of prior appropriations, which is common in many U.S. western states, many tribes have water rights senior to those of non-Indian users with water rights and access established subsequent to the Indian reservations\u2019 creation. Although many Indian tribes hold senior water rights through their reservations, the quantification of these rights is undetermined in many cases. \nTribes have pursued quantification of their water rights through both litigation and negotiated settlements. The settlements involve negotiation between tribes, the federal government, states, water districts, and private water users, among others. They aim to resolve conflict between rights holders and allow the parties to determine specific terms of water allocation and use with certainty. Over the last 50 years, negotiated settlements have been the preferred course for most tribes because they are often less lengthy and costly than litigation. Additionally, many stakeholders have noted that these negotiated agreements are more likely to allow tribes not only to quantify their water rights on paper but also to procure access to these resources in the form of infrastructure and other related expenses, at least in some cases.\nAfter being negotiated, approval and implementation of Indian water rights settlements require federal action. As of 2018, 36 Indian water rights settlements had been federally approved, with total costs in excess of $5.8 billion. Of these, 32 settlements were approved and enacted by Congress and 4 were administratively approved by the U.S. Departments of Justice and the Interior. After being congressionally authorized, federal projects associated with approved Indian water rights settlements generally have been implemented by the Bureau of Reclamation or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (both within the Department of the Interior), pursuant to congressional directions. Congress has appropriated discretionary and mandatory funding (and, in some cases, both) for these activities, including in recent appropriations bills. In the 115th Congress, S. 3168 proposes to extend certain mandatory funds for these settlements in perpetuity (the funding currently expires in FY2029). \nSeveral individual Indian water rights settlements recently have been considered and enacted, including three that were enacted during the 114th Congress. Three settlements had been introduced in the 115th Congress as of July 2018. A primary challenge facing new settlements is the availability of federal funds to implement ongoing and future agreements. Indian water rights settlements often involve the construction of major new water infrastructure to allow tribal communities to access water they hold rights to, and obtaining federal funding for these projects can be difficult. As a result, some settlements have been renegotiated to reduce their federal costs.\nAt issue is under what circumstances (if any) Congress should approve new Indian water rights settlements and whether Congress should fund (and in some cases amend) existing settlements. Some argue that resolution of Indian water rights settlements is a mutually beneficial means to resolve long-standing legal issues, provide certainty of water deliveries, and reduce the federal government\u2019s liability. Others argue against authorization and funding of new settlements, either on general principle or with regard to specific individual settlements and activities. \nThis report provides an overview of Indian water rights settlements. It analyzes issues surrounding water rights settlements and the negotiation process, as well as implementation challenges and related issues for Congress.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44148", "sha1": "83e8762a973e55219981c7e587d70845c2cd8f69", "filename": "files/20180717_R44148_83e8762a973e55219981c7e587d70845c2cd8f69.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44148_files&id=/0.png": "files/20180717_R44148_images_2980d6e02dd9521d130cdf3723b596534cbdd8b8.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44148", "sha1": "168d07de1f4df8e7a23e05432005811449be14b7", "filename": "files/20180717_R44148_168d07de1f4df8e7a23e05432005811449be14b7.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4753, "name": "Indian Affairs" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4909, "name": "Water Resource Management" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 575972, "date": "2017-11-27", "retrieved": "2017-12-05T14:01:28.394418", "title": "Indian Water Rights Settlements", "summary": "In the second half of the 19th century, the federal government pursued a policy of confining Indian tribes to reservations. These reservations were either a portion of a tribe\u2019s aboriginal land or an area of land taken out of the public domain and set aside for a tribe. The federal statutes and treaties reserving such land for Indian reservations typically did not address the water needs of these reservations, a fact that has given rise to questions and disputes regarding Indian reserved water rights. Dating to a 1908 Supreme Court ruling, courts generally have held that many tribes have a reserved right to water sufficient to fulfill the purpose of their reservations and that this right took effect on the date the reservations were established. This means that, in the context of a state water law system of prior appropriations, which is common in many U.S. western states, many tribes have water rights senior to those of non-Indian users with water rights and access established subsequent to the Indian reservations\u2019 creation. Although many Indian tribes hold senior water rights through their reservations, the quantification of these rights is undetermined in many cases. \nTribes have pursued quantification of their water rights through both litigation and negotiated settlements. The settlements involve negotiation between tribes, the federal government, states, water districts, and private water users, among others. They aim to resolve conflict between rights holders and allow the parties to determine specific terms of water allocation and use with certainty. Over the last 50 years, negotiated settlements have been the preferred course for most tribes because they are often less lengthy and costly than litigation. Additionally, many stakeholders have noted that these negotiated agreements are more likely to allow tribes not only to quantify their water rights on paper but also to procure access to these resources in the form of infrastructure and other related expenses, at least in some cases.\nAfter being negotiated, approval and implementation of Indian water rights settlements require federal action. As of 2017, 36 Indian water rights settlements had been federally approved. Of these, 32 settlements were approved and enacted by Congress and 4 were administratively approved by the U.S. Departments of Justice and the Interior. After being congressionally authorized, federal projects associated with approved Indian water rights settlements generally have been implemented by the Bureau of Reclamation or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (both within the Department of the Interior), pursuant to congressional directions. Congress has appropriated discretionary and mandatory funding (and, in some cases, both) for these activities, including in recent appropriations bills.\nSeveral Indian water rights settlements have been considered and enacted, including three that were enacted during the 114th Congress. In the 115th Congress, three settlements had been introduced as of November 2017. A primary challenge facing new settlements is the availability of federal funds to implement ongoing and future agreements. Indian water rights settlements often involve the construction of major new water infrastructure to allow tribal communities to access water they hold rights to, and obtaining federal funding for these projects can be difficult. As a result, some settlements have been renegotiated to reduce their federal costs.\nAt issue is under what circumstances (if any) Congress should approve new Indian water rights settlements and whether Congress should fund (and in some cases amend) existing settlements. Some argue that resolution of Indian water rights settlements is a mutually beneficial means to resolve long-standing legal issues, provide certainty of water deliveries, and reduce the federal government\u2019s liability. Others argue against authorization and funding of new settlements, either on general principle or with regard to specific individual settlements and activities. \nThis report provides an overview of Indian water rights settlements. It analyzes issues surrounding water rights settlements and the negotiation process, as well as implementation challenges and related issues for Congress.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44148", "sha1": "a0bbe846e5f3d4e01537f4d151d4292a88de532c", "filename": "files/20171127_R44148_a0bbe846e5f3d4e01537f4d151d4292a88de532c.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44148_files&id=/0.png": "files/20171127_R44148_images_2980d6e02dd9521d130cdf3723b596534cbdd8b8.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44148", "sha1": "c7005e3638d9dd0d1d64265b4423872844f0e926", "filename": "files/20171127_R44148_c7005e3638d9dd0d1d64265b4423872844f0e926.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4753, "name": "Indian Affairs" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4909, "name": "Water Resource Management" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 460047, "date": "2017-03-24", "retrieved": "2017-03-29T20:03:05.510933", "title": "Indian Water Rights Settlements", "summary": "In the second half of the 19th century, the federal government pursued a policy of confining Indian tribes to reservations. These reservations were either a portion of a tribe\u2019s aboriginal land or an area of land taken out of the public domain and set aside for a tribe. The federal statutes and treaties reserving such land for Indian reservations typically did not address the water needs of these reservations, a fact that has given rise to questions and disputes regarding Indian reserved water rights. Dating to a 1908 Supreme Court ruling, courts generally have held that many tribes have a reserved right to water sufficient to fulfill the purpose of their reservations and that this right took effect on the date the reservations were established. This means that, in the context of a state water law system of prior appropriations, which is common in many U.S. western states, many tribes have water rights senior to those of non-Indian users with water rights and access established subsequent to the Indian reservations\u2019 creation. Although many Indian tribes hold senior water rights through their reservations, the quantification of these rights is undetermined in many cases. \nTribes have pursued quantification of their water rights through both litigation and negotiated settlements. The settlements involve negotiation between tribes, the federal government, states, water districts, and private water users, among others. They aim to resolve conflict between rights holders and allow the parties to determine specific terms of water allocation and use with certainty. Over the last 50 years, negotiated settlements have been the preferred course for most tribes because they are often less lengthy and costly than litigation. Additionally, many stakeholders have noted that these negotiated agreements are more likely to allow tribes not only to quantify their water rights on paper but also to procure access to these resources in the form of infrastructure and other related expenses, at least in some cases.\nAfter being negotiated, approval and implementation of Indian water rights settlements require federal action. As of 2017, 36 Indian water rights settlements have been federally approved. Of these, 32 settlements were approved and enacted by Congress and 4 were administratively approved by the U.S. Departments of Justice and the Interior. After being congressionally authorized, federal projects associated with approved Indian water rights settlements generally have been implemented by the Bureau of Reclamation or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (both within the Department of the Interior), pursuant to congressional directions. Congress has appropriated discretionary and mandatory funding (and, in some cases, both) for these activities, including in recent appropriations bills.\nSeveral Indian water rights settlements have been considered and enacted, including three that were enacted in the 114th Congress. A primary challenge facing new settlements is the availability of federal funds to implement ongoing and future agreements. Indian water rights settlements often involve the construction of major new water infrastructure to allow tribal communities to access water they hold rights to, and obtaining federal funding for these projects can be difficult. As a result, some settlements have been renegotiated to reduce their federal costs.\nAt issue for Congress is under what circumstances (if any) to approve new Indian water rights settlements and whether to fund (and in some cases amend) new and ongoing settlements. Some argue that resolution of Indian water rights settlements is a mutually beneficial means to resolve long-standing legal issues, provide certainty of water deliveries, and reduce the federal government\u2019s liability. Others argue against authorization and funding of settlements, either in general or with regard to specific activities associated with individual settlements. \nThis report provides an overview of Indian water rights settlements. It analyzes issues surrounding water rights settlements and the negotiation process, as well as implementation challenges and related issues for Congress.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44148", "sha1": "e0026baf1d5473398ad790b133bdcda1289e9385", "filename": "files/20170324_R44148_e0026baf1d5473398ad790b133bdcda1289e9385.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44148", "sha1": "41f60057509a52885b69a0107e9338f596d8b833", "filename": "files/20170324_R44148_41f60057509a52885b69a0107e9338f596d8b833.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4753, "name": "Indian Affairs" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4909, "name": "Water Resource Management" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 454150, "date": "2016-07-08", "retrieved": "2016-11-28T21:56:58.378701", "title": "Indian Water Rights Settlements", "summary": "In the second half of the 19th century, the federal government pursued a policy of confining Indian tribes to reservations. These reservations were either a portion of a tribe\u2019s aboriginal land or an area of land taken out of the public domain and set aside for a tribe. The federal statutes and treaties reserving such land for Indian reservations typically did not address the water needs of these reservations, a fact that has given rise to questions and disputes regarding Indian reserved water rights. Dating to a 1908 Supreme Court ruling, courts generally have held that many tribes have a reserved right to water sufficient to fulfill the purpose of their reservations and that this right took effect on the date their reservations were established. This means that many tribes have water rights senior to those of non-Indian users with established water rights and access. Although many Indian reservations hold senior water rights, the quantification of these rights is undetermined in many cases. \nTribes have pursued quantification of their water rights through both litigation and negotiated settlements. The settlements involve negotiation between tribes, the federal government, states, water districts, and private water users, among others. They aim to resolve conflict between rights-holders and allow the parties to determine specific terms of water allocation and use with certainty. Over the last 50 years, negotiated settlements have been the preferred course for most tribes because they are often less lengthy and costly than litigation. Additionally, many stakeholders have noted that these agreements are more likely to allow tribes not only to quantify their water rights on paper but also to procure access to these resources in the form of infrastructure and other related expenses, at least in some cases.\nAfter being negotiated, approval and implementation of Indian water rights settlements require federal action. As of 2016, there have been 33 federally approved Indian water rights settlements. Twenty-nine of these settlements have been enacted by Congress, and four have been administratively approved by the U.S. Departments of Justice and the Interior. After they have been authorized, federal projects associated with approved Indian water rights settlements generally have been implemented by the Bureau of Reclamation or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (both within the Department of the Interior), pursuant to congressional directions. Congress has appropriated discretionary and mandatory funding (and, in some cases, both) for these activities, including in recent appropriations bills.\nSeveral Indian water rights settlements have been proposed in the 114th Congress. One of the primary challenges facing new settlements is the availability of federal funds to implement ongoing and future agreements. Indian water rights settlements often involve the construction of major new water infrastructure to allow tribal communities to access water they hold rights to, and obtaining federal funding for these projects can be difficult. As a result, some recent settlements have been renegotiated to reduce their federal costs and no major Indian water rights settlements have been enacted since 2010.\nAt issue for Congress is under what circumstances (if any) to approve new Indian water rights settlements and whether to fund (and in some cases amend) new and ongoing settlements. Some argue that resolution of Indian water rights settlements is a mutually beneficial means to resolve long-standing legal issues, provide certainty of water deliveries, and reduce the federal government\u2019s liability. Others argue against authorization and funding of settlements (either in general or with regard to specific activities associated with individual settlements). \nThis report provides an overview of Indian water rights settlements. It analyzes issues surrounding water rights settlements and the negotiation process, as well as implementation challenges and related issues for Congress.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44148", "sha1": "98d7e085a971f115de650d151fb2c4e9522501c5", "filename": "files/20160708_R44148_98d7e085a971f115de650d151fb2c4e9522501c5.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44148", "sha1": "4594467431ad80571eb97632872644933b358598", "filename": "files/20160708_R44148_4594467431ad80571eb97632872644933b358598.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4753, "name": "Indian Affairs" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4909, "name": "Water Resource Management" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 446054, "date": "2015-09-18", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T18:21:27.625575", "title": "Indian Water Rights Settlements", "summary": "In the second half of the 19th century, the federal government pursued a policy of confining Indian tribes to reservations. These reservations were either a portion of a tribe\u2019s aboriginal land or an area of land taken out of the public domain and set aside for a tribe. The federal statutes and treaties reserving such land for Indian reservations typically did not address the water needs of these reservations, a fact that has given rise to questions and disputes regarding Indian reserved water rights. Dating to a 1908 Supreme Court ruling, courts generally have held that many tribes have a reserved right to water sufficient to fulfill the purpose of their reservations and that this right took effect on the date their reservations were established. This means that many tribes have water rights senior to those of non-Indian users with established water rights and access. However, although many Indian reservations hold senior water rights, the quantification of these rights is undetermined in many cases. \nTribes have pursued quantification of their water rights through both litigation and negotiated settlements. The settlements involve negotiation between tribes, the federal government, states, water districts, and private water users, among others. They aim to resolve conflict between rights-holders and allow the parties to determine specific terms of water allocation and use with certainty. Over the last 50 years, negotiated settlements have been the preferred course for most tribes because they are often less lengthy and costly than litigation. Additionally, many stakeholders have noted that these agreements are more likely to allow tribes not only to quantify their water rights on paper but also to procure access to these resources in the form of infrastructure and other related expenses, at least in some cases.\nAfter being negotiated, approval and implementation of Indian water rights settlements require federal action. As of 2015, there have been 33 federally approved Indian water rights settlements. Twenty-nine of these settlements have been enacted by Congress, and four have been approved by the U.S. Departments of Justice and the Interior. Federal projects associated with approved Indian water rights settlements generally have been implemented by the Bureau of Reclamation or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (both within the Department of the Interior), pursuant to congressional directions. Congress has appropriated discretionary and mandatory funding (and, in some cases, both) for these activities, including in recent appropriations bills.\nOne of the primary challenges facing Indian water rights settlements is the availability of federal funds to implement ongoing and future agreements. Indian water rights settlements often involve the construction of major new water infrastructure to allow tribal communities to access water they hold rights to, and obtaining scarce federal funding for these projects can be difficult. \nAt issue for Congress is under what circumstances (if any) to approve proposed new Indian water rights settlements and whether to fund new and ongoing settlements. Some argue that resolution of Indian water rights settlements is a mutually beneficial means to resolve long-standing legal issues, provide certainty of water deliveries, and reduce the federal government\u2019s liability. Others argue against authorization and funding of settlements (either in general or with regard to specific activities within settlements). \nThis report provides an overview of Indian water rights settlements. It analyzes issues surrounding water rights settlements and the negotiation process, as well as implementation challenges and related issues for Congress.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44148", "sha1": "5f087ca8a1f1e26a07d391d0d13c47c995206396", "filename": "files/20150918_R44148_5f087ca8a1f1e26a07d391d0d13c47c995206396.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44148", "sha1": "dd24e7125632b063ae6d8add5cc085e101192b49", "filename": "files/20150918_R44148_dd24e7125632b063ae6d8add5cc085e101192b49.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4425, "name": "Sustainability Law and Policy" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc807161/", "id": "R44148_2015Aug14", "date": "2015-08-14", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Indian Water Rights Settlements", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150814_R44148_1ce8c2481d1cc3c6868212b57cbd6ce42bd4f1bf.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150814_R44148_1ce8c2481d1cc3c6868212b57cbd6ce42bd4f1bf.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Energy Policy", "Environmental Policy" ] }