Indian Water Rights Summary

The Indian race was not supposed to own land in America but in regard they were concentrated in slums adjacent to the cities. Here they were exposed to poor housing, lack of clean water and poor man related work that ranged from fishing and hunting thus they were regarded as second class American citizens. In response to these social status inequalities, the Indians staged demonstrations against the vices and afterwards grated accessibility to land and its resources. The land given to them was of low quality the low quality that they were classified as marginal land s that could not support farming. This shows that the American government was in support of the discrimination against these Indians. In support of the racial discrimination strategy, the state even ensured that no white citizen became poor or bankruptcy by buying their land parcels. These lands were then subdivided to the Indians who were later to be killed by the Americans in their efforts to get the land for their mining activities. The sequence of events showed how discrimination was the main agenda of the

During the end of the nineteenth century, the United States had formed policies which reduced land allotted to Native Americans. By enforcing these laws as well as Anglo-American ideals, the United States compromised indigenous people’s culture and ability to thrive in its society.

Tribal sovereignty is a highly debated concept and an important aspect of Native American society. It refers to a tribe’s power to govern itself, manage its membership, and regulate tribal relations. As Joanna Barker stated, “Sovereignty carries the awful stench of colonization.” Tribal sovereignty must be traced to the beginning of colonization in North America. Colonizing nations asserted sovereignty over indigenous people and took away their independent status. The term “tribal sovereignty” carries with it multiples meanings and implications for tribal nations (Cobb, 2005).

On July 28th 2010, through Resolution 64/292, the United Nations General Assembly explicitly recognized the human right to water and sanitation. They acknowledged that clean drinking water and sanitation are essential to the realization of all human rights. The UN stated that water should be, “safe, sufficient, acceptable [taste, colour, odor], physically accessible, and affordable” (Knight and Hartl, 2003). Water is one of the most important elements to human life. In Canada we are host to about twenty percent of the world’s fresh water (Boyd, 2003). It has a square kilometer measurement large enough to cover both California and Nevada (Matsui, 2012, p. 1). While most Canadians who live in urban areas are free to enjoy safe drinking water, some First Nations communities living on reserves do not (White, Murphy, Spence, 2012). For instance, as of July 2010, 116 First Nation communities in Canada were under a drinking water advisory (Health Canada, 2010), with many of these communities living under advisories for prolonged periods of time. This issue is of vital importance to discuss and evaluate because clean, safe drinking water is a mandated human right. In Canada we have failed to ensure that water on reserves meets that standards set out by the UN.

Instead of the government respecting the right of the Indians to maintain their religious places, it invokes its power as the custodian of the public land by claiming that it has the mandate of utilizing any piece of public land for the benefit of the entire

In Chapter 6, Wilkins discusses how the disclaimer clauses. These clauses keep states from exercising authority on Indian land (180). They are an “important but often overlooked tool in the arsenal available to tribes to assert their own sovereignty against state threats” (177). A specific example of a disclaimer clause is Wisconsin’s territorial disclaimer of 1836 which prohibited territories or states from having any authority on Indian land (180). In Native American Church v. Navajo Tribal Council (1959) it was declared that Indian tribes actually have a higher status than states (179). This was a major victory for Indians in their fight for sovereignty. United States v. Rickert (1903) was also a win for sovereignty in that the Court prohibited South Dakota from taxing Indian land (185).After the verdict in Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996), the balance of power between state and federal government leaned towards the states. Before this, negotiations with tribes had been conducted at the federal level and not with states (187). This was against the idea of sovereignty because now the states had more power over the tribes and could abuse that power for personal gain.

Native Americans are entitled to the same Constitutional protections that guard other citizens from federal government infringement. Plenary power and the accompanying seizure and use of indigenous land bases have violated the rights of Native Americans and demonstrated the inability of the federal government to manage Indian affairs. The United States should give ownership and control of original, non-privately owned land bases back to tribes. This course of action would end treaty violation, compensate tribes for land takings, prevent bureaucrats from implementing policies that obstruct the ability of Native Americans to participate in their

In 1823, in the case of Johnson v. M'Instosh, the argument was between two men who both held titles to the same piece of land. M'Intosh's was sold to him by the government while Johnson's was sold to him by the Plankeshaw tribe. Chief Justice Marshall ruled the land did not belong to the tribe in the first place, so they did not have the right to sell it to Johnson. The law stated that the Native Americans did not actually own the land, only the rights to live on it, and that the discovering nation was the only one allowed to sell the land. This law is not only demeaning, but outrageously inconsiderate towards the Native American tribes who should have been given full rights to the land in the first place.

Power can be viewed as the ability to influence and/or control others. Another flaw about reservations is the fact that they are not totally governed by Native American representatives. The U.S. government actually has tight control over the majority, if not all, reservations (Perry, 2002, p 233). This tight control has left the Native American population powerless in terms of self- regulation. Despite the fact that Native American government do exist,

When the Cherokee Nation sued Georgia state they believed they were going to get justice. In some part during the ruling it was in their favor, they were named to be part of the United States and were Americans not Indians. The supreme court which was mostly ruled by Chief Justice John Marshall; had decided that they had no rights to any of their lands. They also denied them to self-govern because their lack of jurisdiction and they had no court power. Which the Cherokee people were against because they wanted to have full control of their land. It was their land they wanted to be able to do anything they wanted with it and set their own rules ruled. John Marshal disagreed with what they wanted to do and ruled his way. Which then led to Worcester V. Georgia. The verdict in this trial was that they could take away Cherokee land at any given time. They had made it clear that the land of Cherokee was not part of the United State; even though it should had been part of US territory. At the end, they could be forced to relocate and this

It seemed that most of the controversy in the water crisis was either about water rights issues or about the current water levels compared to the fish population, which in turn had effects on the endangered species of this area. Very rarely did anyone speak about the Native American’s wants or needs concerning the Klamath River water crisis. The Natives feel that they should have some say about what decisions are going to be made concerning the area since they have been in the Klamath are longer than any other group.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe currently fights to save its only water source from natural gas and oil contamination. This troubling current event has a somewhat forgotten historical analogue where very similar themes presented themselves. The Kinzua Dam Controversy, which took place in the 1950’s and early 1960’s, resulted in the displacement of over 600 Seneca Indian families and the acquisition of a large tract of traditional Seneca Land for dam building. Additionally, the acquisition of Seneca land represented a breach of “The Treaty with the Six Nations of 1794,” which explicated prevented such action by the US Government. The dam and its construction, which primarily benefitted Pittsburg, inspired a heated discourse concerning the ethics of native relocation.

American Indians and Alaskan Natives have a relationship with the federal government that is unique due to the “trust relationship” between the US and American Indians/Alaskan Natives (AI/ANs) who are entitled to health care services provided by the US government by virtue of their membership in sovereign Indian nations. In order to contextualize the complex nature of Indian health programs it is necessary to become versed in the political and legal status of Indian tribes. Through numerous constitutional, legislative, judicial, executive rulings, and orders that were largely associated with the succession of land and subsequent treaty rights; the health care of AI/ANs has been one of many responsibilities guaranteed by the federal government. The foundations of which can be traced back to the year 1787. The ceded land has been interpreted in courts to mean that healthcare and services were in a sense prepaid by AI/AN tribes and 400 million acres of land. The misconception of “free healthcare” and a conservative political disdain from so called entitlement programs have also led to misconceptions regarding the federal government’s responsibility to provide health care and services to AI/ANs. Rhoades (2000) has argued that tribal sovereignty is the overarching principle guiding Indian health care on a daily basis.1 This paper will examine the history surrounding federally mandated healthcare to AI/ANs, pertinent issues of sovereignty, as well as case studies in tribal

With the federal government’s support, many Native tribes have constructed Native Governments and Corporations where the rights to land and money are placed to their own responsibility. What this actually means is that the rights of the people’s land and monetary bonds are transferred from governmental trust to

This is important because the Native American nation’s self-governance remains deeply ingrained in America’s jurisprudence. In turn, this provides a crucial backdrop against which analysis of any state law can be contrasted. A wide difference of opinion exists about the costs and benefits among both Indians and non-Indians. However, gaming on reservations has grown rapidly since 1988 with experts stating that the trend will continue the same way for some time. This means that the sovereignty issue remains the greatest significance for Native American tribes and state governments. State governments will be affected due to the newly-empowered assertions of Native American sovereignty. A good example is the recent ratification by California Senate and Assembly of the new tribal gaming compact. This case that was between the state and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians was a great revelation on how good work can be accomplished through government-to-government negotiations (Evans, Topoleski,