Indian Water Rights Settlement Essay

be treated as equals, so he demanded rights for Indians. Land holdings were controlled by a

The State of Colorado has suffered from a water shortage in recent years; a difficult situation which is easily visible when viewing the quickly shortening length of the Colorado River. Lake Mead, for example, is roughly 130 feet lower than it once was, marked by the stained rock which towers above the current water level. “The river has become a perfect symbol of what happens when we ask too much of a limited resource: it disappears. In fact, the Colorado no longer regularly reaches the sea” (Zielinski, 2010). Legislation was implemented early on to address this issue, though the results were (perhaps not surprisingly) rather unanticipated, regarding

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.

A policy of self-governance would end treaty violation, justly compensate tribes for land, prevent bureaucrats from obstructing the ability of Native Americans to participate in their religion, and prevent the serious cultural loss that may occur if the government continues to use Native American land for self-interested purposes. Arguments that these objectives are unattainable and unfounded do not hold up to analysis. Therefore, to provide a remedy for the ongoing infringement of Native American constitutional rights, Congress should both return non-privately owned land taken in violation of treaties and abolish federal plenary power over tribes, permitting greater self-governance.

The continued lack of a settlement can be attributed to the conflicting priorities of the various constituencies who use the resource – water is used for consumption, waste disposal, crop irrigation, power generation, industry, recreation, wildlife protection and navigation. In the very near future, there simply won’t be enough Fig. 1. Area for Tri-State Water Compacts

For several hundred years people have sought answers to the Indian problems, who are the Indians, and what rights do they have? These questions may seem simple, but the answers themselves present a difficult number of further questions and answers. State and Federal governments have tried to provide some order with a number of laws and policies, sometimes resulting in state and federal conflicts. The Federal Government's attempt to deal with Indian tribes can be easily understood by following the history of Federal Indian Policy. Indians all over the United States fought policies which threatened to destroy their familial bonds and traditions. The Passamaquoddy Indian Tribe of Maine, resisted no less

Doing so will help citizens to expand their conceptions of the land and begin to appreciate it’s many resources. Which is equally significant when one considers the recent climate changes and negative effects of human pollution of the earth. Some opponents argue that intrusions of sacred Native American land and that harnessing natural resources from said land is irrelevant in today’s day and age. But it must be argued that this assertion is false and that current events such as the recent standoff at Standing Rock Reservation over crude oil pipelines in North Dakota have proven that this issue is still alive and well in American society.

In the year of 1827 the Cherokee Indians declared themselves a nation by drafting a constitution. “The discovery of gold was made just after the creation and passage of the original Cherokee Constitution” (“A Brief History of the Trail of Tears 1”). Aware that the native Indian land was in danger of being encroached upon by new settlers, the Indians went to the government to create an arrangement to protect their lands. “The Cherokees signed treaties ceding portions of their land to the United States” (Bjornlund 8).

The United States Supreme Court ruled all Native American tribes had full legal rights to internally govern themselves, manage their affairs, as well as to engage in political and legal relationships with the federal government in the 1830s. Currently the United States Constitution Article I, Section 8, guarantees sovereign rights to the 566 federally recognized Indian nations and federal government laws require that the individual states that have Native Tribes living

When Reclamation had purchased the local irrigation, the Irrigation Land Improvement Co had been fighting got the legal action. Since Irrigation Co have been wanting this they were suppose to go to the

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 American Indian Policy Review Commission's report on the health of Native Americans said it best when they stated,"the federal responsibility to provide health services to Indians has its roots in the unique moral, historical, and treaty obligations of the federal government, no court has ever ruled on the precise nature of that legal basis nor defined the specific legal rights for Indians created by those obligations" (DeFine 1997 p.4). Thus, the Indian Health Service has always worked in strange and ambiguous ways.

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

Personal statement: What leadership and service qualities do you have which you feel would make you an excellent addition to the University Marshals? How do you serve as a leader?