Stephanie Safdi on Tribal Water Governance Beyond Indian Country

Stephanie Safdi has posted “Indigenous Water Governance and the Clean Water Act” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Cultural lifeways for many Indigenous communities in the United States are intimately tied to water. Nationally, the Clean Water Act of 1972 is the principal framework for regulation of water quality. The core purpose of the Act is to ensure water quality—and, by extension, water quantity—sufficient to protect designated uses, including but extending beyond familiar fishable, swimmable, and drinkable uses. Though uses protected under the Act can be seen as expressions of social and ecological values, the cultural dimensions of these water uses have generally been underappreciated.

This paper excavates requirements and possibilities for Indigenous water governance under the Clean Water Act, centering on the work of the Act’s water quality standards provisions. Previous scholarship in this area has focused on Indigenous water governance within Tribal territorial jurisdiction—particularly through Tribal promulgation of on-reservation water quality standards under Treatment-as-a-State authority or federal gap-filling standards for Indian country. This paper extends this scholarship by looking to Indigenous water governance beyond Indian country. Doing so is imperative, as Tribal cultural, ceremonial, and subsistence practices involving water remain rooted in ancestral territories over which Tribes often do not exercise formal regulatory governance and which are increasingly imperiled by conflicts over water allocation under conditions of mounting scarcity. The failure to formally recognize Tribal cultural uses of ancestral waterways, both practically and in the law, continues to marginalize Tribes and Tribal water uses in decision-making over the nation’s waterways.

In this paper, I posit that the Clean Water Act contains important mechanisms to advance the exercise of Indigenous cultural sovereignty over ancestral waterways beyond the jurisdictional bounds of Indian country. These mechanisms include calibration of water quality standards to protect Tribes’ off-reservation reserved rights to aquatic resources and designation of Tribal cultural uses as uses to be protected through state and federal water quality standards for Tribes’ ancestral waterways, including through instream flow standards and other functional flow controls. Though these mechanisms are underappreciated aspects of Clean Water Act administration, there are strong arguments that protecting Tribal reserved rights and cultural uses is legally required in water quality standard-setting, as well as ethically and ecologically imperative. These also function as much-needed pathways toward meaningful co-governance of water resources and exercise of Traditional Ecological Knowledge in regulation of ancestral waterways in furtherance of cultural and ecological continuity.

Louisiana Federal Court Declines to Allow Nonmember Tribal Court Defendant to Remove Case to Federal Court

Here are the materials in Avoyelles Water Commission v. Ward 3 Avoyelles Waterworks District (W.D. La.):

Ute Water Rights Trust Breach Suit Moves Forward

Here are the materials on remand in Ute Indian Tribe v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

65 Second Amended Complaint

72 Motion to Dismiss

73 Response

76 Reply

78 CFC Opinion

Prior post here.

Klamath Tribes Challenge Orders Based on Secret Agreement Between Irrigator Group and State

On November 19, 2025, the Klamath Tribes filed a motion to amend their petition in the Circuit Court of Klamath County. The amended petition seeks to reverse recent illegal orders that replaced a long-time administrative law judge in the Klamath Basin Adjudication (KBA) on the heels of a secret deal cut between the Oregon State Office of Administrative Hearings and certain water users in the Upper Klamath Basin. Here is the amended petition:

The KBA is a several-decades-old lawsuit pending in the Circuit Court of Klamath County. It is quantifying the federal reserved water rights of the Klamath Tribes in the Klamath River Basin. The KBA involves administrative hearings conducted by the Office of Administrative Hearings, which made initial determinations on the Tribes’ water rights claims. Extensive proceedings were conducted at the Office from 2006 to 2012, and the Klamath County Circuit Court recently returned cases there for additional proceedings.

Robison on Native Nations and Water Compacts

Jason Robison has posted “Beyond Binary Co-Sovereignty: Native Nations & Water Compacts,” forthcoming in the Yale Law Journal, on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter and former Harvard Law School Dean James Landis published in 1925 the seminal work on the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause. The article was, by definition, about co-sovereignty within the United States, though only in a binary sense. While shaping indelibly interstate and federal-state relations, North America’s original sovereigns, Native nations, were not visible within the influential piece. So, too, with the approximately two dozen compacts later formed to apportion water from rivers running across and along state lines, compacts acknowledging Native nations and their water (property) rights only at the margins, if at all. Revisiting Frankfurter and Landis’s seminal work exactly one century later, this Article advocates for moving beyond the binary conception of co-sovereignty apparent in that piece and entrenched in the suite of compacts created in its wake. Tracking Native nations’ growing calls for inclusion in transboundary water management, the Article advocates for these co-sovereigns to be respected as just that—sovereigns—and afforded opportunities for direct representation on compact commissions beside their state and federal counterparts. Food for thought is offered about potential forms and processes for this indigenization, all of which aim at the Article’s ultimate goal: further socializing and institutionalizing tripartite co-sovereignty.

D.C. Circuit Affirms Rejection of Crow Allottees Challenge to Water Rights Settlement

Here is the opinion in Crow v. Dept. of the Interior.

Briefs here.

Ninth Circuit Reverses Gila River/San Carlos Apache Water Rights Victory

Here is the opinion in Gila River Indian Community v. Schoubroek.

Here are available briefs:

Lower court materials here.

Agua Caliente Water Rights Settlement

Here:

More details here.

Jason Robison on Arizona v. Navajo Nation

Jason Robison has published “Relational River: Arizona v. Navajo Nation & the Colorado” in the UCLA Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

It is not every day the U.S. Supreme Court adjudicates a case about the water needs and rights of one of the Colorado River Basin’s thirty tribal nations and the trust relationship shared by that sovereign with the United States. Yet just that happened in Arizona v. Navajo Nation in June 2023. As explored in this Article, the Colorado is a relational river relied upon by roughly forty million people, reeling from climate change for nearly a quarter century, and subject to management rules expiring and requiring extensive, politically charged renegotiation by 2027. Along this relational river, Arizona v. Navajo Nation was a milestone, illuminating water colonialism and environmental injustice on the country’s largest Native American reservation, and posing pressing questions about what exactly the trust relationship entails vis-à-vis the essence of life. Placing Arizona v. Navajo Nation in historical context, the Article synthesizes the case with an eye toward the future. Moving forward along the relational river, the trust relationship should be understood and honored for what it is, a sovereign trust, and fulfilled within the policy sphere through a host of measures tied, directly and indirectly, to the post-2026 management rules. Further, if judicial enforcement of the trust relationship is necessary, tribal sovereigns in the basin (and elsewhere) should not view the Court’s 5–4 decision as the death knell for water-related breach of trust claims, but rather as a guide for bringing cognizable future claims and reorienting breach of trust analysis.