Navajo Nation loses Colorado River water rights case in Supreme Court ruling

45

In a ruling delivered on Thursday, the Supreme Court sided against the Navajo Nation in a dispute over water rights in the drought-affected Colorado River.

The states of Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado, along with water districts in California, had appealed to the court to decide in their favor, which resulted in a 5-4 ruling against the Navajo Nation. Colorado argued that supporting the tribe would disrupt existing agreements and the river’s management.

The Biden administration expressed concern that a ruling in favor of the Navajo Nation could lead to lawsuits from other tribes.

The Navajo Nation’s lawyers described their request as modest, seeking an evaluation of the tribe’s water requirements and a plan to meet them.

The case revolves around treaties signed between the tribe and the federal government in 1849 and 1868. The latter treaty established the reservation as the tribe’s “permanent home,” which the Navajo Nation contends includes access to an adequate water supply. In 2003, the tribe sued the federal government, claiming it had failed to consider or protect their water rights in the lower portion of the Colorado River.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority composed of conservative justices, explained that the treaty did not oblige the United States to take affirmative action to secure water for the Navajo Nation, such as assessing water needs or constructing infrastructure.

Kavanaugh acknowledged the complexity of water allocation in arid regions and emphasized that decisions regarding water legislation should be left to Congress and the President.

Initially, a federal trial court dismissed the lawsuit, but an appeals court allowed it to proceed. The Supreme Court’s ruling overturns the appeals court decision.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch argued that the case should have been allowed to continue and described the Navajo’s position as a simple request for clarification.

Gorsuch, a conservative justice and native of Colorado, who has shown support for Native rights, was joined in dissent by three liberal justices: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

During the case’s arguments, Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that the Navajo Nation’s original reservation was located far from the section of the Colorado River they sought water from.

Presently, the Colorado River runs along the northwestern border of the tribe’s reservation, extending into New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona. However, approximately one-third of the reservation’s 175,000 residents lack access to running water.

The government claimed to have assisted the tribe in obtaining water from the Colorado River’s tributaries and provided funds for infrastructure development. However, it contended that no law or treaty obligated the government to evaluate and address the tribe’s general water needs. The states involved in the case argued that the Navajo Nation was attempting to circumvent a Supreme Court decree that allocated water in the Lower Basin of the Colorado River.

Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren expressed disappointment with the ruling and stated that the tribe’s lawyers would analyze the opinion’s implications for the lawsuit. Nygren emphasized the importance of secure water rights to the Lower Basin of the Colorado River in safeguarding the Navajo people, land, and future.

Rita McGuire, a lawyer representing the states opposing the tribe’s claims, expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about water rights dispute

More about water rights dispute

• Supreme Court rules against Navajo Nation in Colorado River water rights case – NPR
• Supreme Court ruling preserves law that aims to keep Native American children with tribal families – NBC News
• Supreme Court won’t review North Carolina’s decision to nix license plates with Confederate flag – CNN
• Supreme Court rules in favor of Black Alabama voters in unexpected defense of Voting Rights Act – The Washington Post