This article offers a helpful discussion on the differences between quantified and unquantified rights, “paper water” and usable water, and the different positions of the Navajo Nation, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and Colorado River Indian Tribes.
Highly recommended. Any work, especially great work like this, that connects Indigenous philosophies to federal Indian law is valuable work.
Here is the abstract:
It is time for federal submerged lands law to face a day of reckoning. This reckoning is necessary because assumed state sovereignty of submerged lands lacks a legal basis in basic property law, the Constitution, the federal trust relationship, and Indigenous law. Instead, it stems from antiquated rulings formulated, in Justice Gorsuch’s words, within the “atmosphere” of colonialism. In many instances, the historical record reflects that Tribes had neither ceded aboriginal title to such beds when a particular state was created, nor had Congress clearly abolished such title, as the law requires.
Reckoning is a strong word, but so is the authority and opportunity that comes with sovereign bed ownership. For many tribes, their creation stories, ceremonies, food sources, economies, environmental health, and cultural touchstones center upon specific waters believed to be included within their homelands, hunting and fishing grounds, and gathering places. But reckoning is not the end of the story. In the spirit of reconciliation, this article provides a reassessment of Indigenous title to submerged lands and argues that these lands are spaces of common governance in which the three sovereigns—federal, tribal, and state—share authority to manage a vital resource on which all peoples depend.
Part I begins with a discussion of why submerged lands ownership is fundamental to tribal culture and sovereignty. Part II then confront the atmosphere of colonialism that has excluded tribes from water spaces. We summarize the flawed legal test from United States v. Holt State Bank—the case most often used to determine Indian title to the submerged lands of navigable waterways—and explain why the test is both unlawful and inadequate to fulfill the United States’ trust obligations to tribes. In Part III, we propose a reckoning—a legal test better aligning with the Court’s newer jurisprudence in cases like Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Bandof Chippewa Indians and Herrera v. Wyoming. Ultimately, we advocate for the joint sovereign enterprise of placekeeping—caretaking the cultural, historical, ecological, economic, and social well-being of these spaces that serve as lifeways for us all. Through a corrected legal test to submerged lands, we will begin rebuilding the waterway “bundle” as an integrated legal whole.
Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter and former Harvard Law School Dean James M. Landis published in 1925 the seminal work on the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause. Their article focused on cosovereignty within the United States, but only in a binary sense. While indelibly shaping interstate and federal-state relations, North America’s original sovereigns—Native nations—were not visible within this influential piece. So, too, with the approximately two dozen compacts later formed to apportion water from rivers running across and along state lines, agreements that acknowledged Native nations and their water rights only at the margins, if at all. Revisiting Frankfurter and Landis’s pivotal piece one century later, this Article urges advocates and scholars to look beyond the binary conception of cosovereignty 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 contends that these cosovereigns must be respected as what they are—sovereigns—and afforded opportunities for direct representation on compact commissions beside their state and federal counterparts. The Article outlines several ways to achieve this indigenization and, ultimately, move from binary to tripartite water cosovereignty.
On April 1, 2026, the Indian Peaks Band of the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah filed a Notice of Appeal and Petition for Stay with the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA), challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s March 2, 2026, approval of the Pine Valley Water Supply Project.
The filing seeks review of BLM’s decision authorizing a large‑scale groundwater extraction and pipeline project in southern Utah and asks the IBLA to stay the project approvals while the appeal is pending. The Band argues that the decision violates federal law, including the National Environmental Policy Act, and unlawfully threatens the Band’s federally reserved water rights and culturally significant resources.
(1) Is the United States’ promise to provide the Winnemucca Indian Colony, a federally recognized Tribe with lands held in trust established by an Executive Order and a separate legislative act, coupled with the government’s nearly exclusive statutory and regulatory control over the water on Indian lands, sufficient to entitle an Indian tribe to money damages when the United States breaches its fiduciary duty to protect the natural resources on those Indian lands?
(2) Did the Federal Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, err when it affirmed dismissal of the Winnemucca Indian Colony’s third claim for relief – Breach of Trust – Water?
(3) Can the Winnemucca Indian Colony state a cognizable claim for breach of trust against the United States in relation to BIA failure to prevent trespass and theft of natural resources by third parties, under the Winters doctrine and 25 C.F.R. § 152.22?
This Note explores the federal government’s evolving approach to its obligation to protect tribal reserved water rights through a case study of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2024 Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions to Protect Tribal Reserved Rights rule (the “WQS Rule”). It argues that while the WQS Rule represents a step forward in safeguarding tribal water rights, the legal challenge it faces underscores broader issues of federalism, administrative authority, and the country’s fluctuating commitment to tribal sovereignty. The Note examines the WQS Rule’s legal foundation, its potential challenges, and the implications for tribal self-determination, emphasizing the need for a more accountable and enforceable framework for tribal water protections.Additionally, this Note situates these legal developments within international human rights frameworks, suggesting that evolving global standards on Indigenous rights and water access could offer a more stable foundation for securing equitable water for reservations. Ultimately, this Note argues that regardless of the WQS Rule’s future, it is the underlying principle of the federal trust obligation and the need for lasting protections that must guide efforts to ensure Native Nations’ access to water.
You must be logged in to post a comment.