Secretarial Order #3206: American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) | January 24th, 2006

This Order is issued by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce (Secretaries) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531, as amend

This Order is issued by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce (Secretaries) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531, as amended (the Act), the federal-tribal trust relationship, and other federal law. Specifically, this Order clarifies the responsibilities of the component agencies, bureaus and offices of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce (Departments), when actions taken under authority of the Act and associated implementing regulations affect, or may affect, Indian lands, tribal trust resources, or the exercise of American Indian tribal rights, as defined in this Order. This Order further acknowledges the trust responsibility and treaty obligations of the United States toward Indian tribes and tribal members and its government-to-government relationship in dealing with tribes. Accordingly, the Departments will carry out their responsibilities under the Act in a manner that harmonizes the Federal trust responsibility to tribes, tribal sovereignty, and statutory missions of the Departments, and that strives to ensure that Indian tribes do not bear a disproportionate burden for the conservation of listed species, so as to avoid or minimize the potential for conflict and confrontation.

Small Water Systems and Rural Communities Drought and Water Shortage Contingency Planning and Risk Assessment, Part 1

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | March 25th, 2021

This report is submitted pursuant to California Water Code (CWC) Section 10609.42, which directs the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to identify small wate

This report is submitted pursuant to California Water Code (CWC) Section 10609.42, which directs the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to identify small water suppliers and rural communities that may be at risk of drought and water shortage vulnerability, and to propose recommendations and information in support of improving their drought preparedness. The report is published in two parts: Part 1 deals with drought and water shortage contingency planning recommendations, and Part 2 presents a methodology of drought and water shortage vulnerability assessment and risk scoring. Additionally, below are links for Part 1 appendices. Appendix 1: Literature Review Appendix 2: Proposed Water Shortage Contingency Plan Components for Small Water Systems Serving 1,000 to 2,999 Service Connections Appendix 3: Proposed Umbrella Water Shortage Contingency Plan Components Appendix 4: Indian Health Service Template for a Drought Contingency Plan for a Tribal Public Water System Appendix 5: County Drought Advisory Group General Funding and Financing Issues

Small Water Systems and Rural Communities Drought and Water Shortage Contingency Planning and Risk Assessment, Part 2

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | March 25th, 2021

This report is submitted pursuant to California Water Code (CWC) Section 10609.42 which directs California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to identify small water sup

This report is submitted pursuant to California Water Code (CWC) Section 10609.42 which directs California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to identify small water suppliers and rural communities that may be at risk of drought and water shortage vulnerability and propose recommendations and information in support of improving the drought preparedness of small water suppliers and rural communities. The report is published in two parts: Part 1 dealing with drought and water shortage contingency planning recommendations, and Part 2 presenting a methodology and results of drought and water shortage vulnerability assessment and risk scoring. Additionally, below are links for Part 2 appendices. Appendix 1: Drought and Water Shortage Risk Scoring: California’s Small Water Supplier and Self-Supplied Communities Appendix 2: Drought and Water Shortage Risk Scoring: Risk Score Results of Small Water Suppliers Appendix 3: Drought and Water Shortage Risk Scoring: Risk Score Results of Self-Supplied Communities

Summary of the Proposed Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Agreement for Public Discussion Purposes

Navajo Nation Water Rights Commission | May 22nd, 2024

Supreme Court Declines to Review Ninth Circuit Decision Applying Federal Reserved Water Rights Doctrine to Groundwater

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | December 21st, 2017

The 2012-2016 drought in California and parts of other western states may have ended, but availability of water will continue to present issues for Cong

The 2012-2016 drought in California and parts of other western states may have ended, but availability of water will continue to present issues for Congress to consider. While state, rather than federal , law typically governs allocations of water resources within a state , there are exceptions where federal law does affect water allocation. Thefederal reserved water rights doctrine, for example, holds that when the federal government reserves federal lands for a particular purpose (such as for a tribal reservation or national monument ) , it impliedly reserves a right to water necessary to accomplish the purposes for which the reservation was created . Si nce 1908, when the Supreme Court established the doctrine in Winters v. United States, courts have applied it to surface waters; a March 2017 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) held, apparently for the first time, that the doctrine can encompass groundwater as well. On November 27, 2017, the Supreme Court declined to review this decision, which thus, for now, sets a potentially important precedent within the Ninth Circuit for other groundwater resource issues and disputes. The case Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water District originated w hen a tribe sued local water agencies in 2013 in federal district court in California, alleging that the water agencies were adversely affecting the quantity and quality of water available to them by over-drafting an aquifer. Among other claims, the tribe sought a declaration that it had a federally reserved right to the groundwater underlying the reservation , which was established in the 1870s. The United States intervened to defend its ownership, tribal trust, and sovereign interests in the water rights and the tribe’s reservation. In 2015, t he district court ruled in favor of the tribe and the United States on the threshold claim that the government impliedly reserved appurtenant water sources — including underlying groundwater — when it created the tribe’ s reservation . (Subsequent phases of the Agua Caliente Band case are still being litigated. They involve whether the tribe owns the “pore space” or “storage space” of the groundwater basin.

The doctrine of reserved water rights. What are federal and tribal reserved water rights?

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | January 1st, 2009

The doctrine of reserved water rights evolved to ensure that Indian reservations and public lands set aside by the federal government would have sufficient water to fulfi

The doctrine of reserved water rights evolved to ensure that Indian reservations and public lands set aside by the federal government would have sufficient water to fulfill the purposes for which they were established. Whereas most western water rights (state-based appropriative rights) have a priority date based on when water was first put to beneficial use, federal reserved water rights have a priority date that goes back at least as far as the date on which the lands were set aside. The reserved water rights doctrine is rooted in a number of judicial decisions, beginning with a U.S. Supreme Court decision that has come to be called the Winters Doctrine. The case of Winters vs United States involved a dispute between Native Americans of the Ft. Belknap Reservation and nonnative settlers over the use of the Milk River in Montana. When the water use of the settlers upstream from the reservation interfered with the Indians' water need for large Irrigation diversions, the U.S. government filed a lawsuit on the reservation's behalf. The Winters decision held that when Congress created the Ft. Belknap Reservation, sufficient water to make the Indians a "pastoral and civilized People" was implicitly set aside. Therefore, although the normative settlers had perfected their water rights under Montana state law, the water right of the Indians of Ft. Belknap was prior, or senior in use.

The Enduring Role of Tribes in the Colorado River Basin

Water and Tribes Initiative | July 1st, 2019

The purpose of this policy brief is to explain the origin, rationale, and purpose of the Water & Tribes Initiative in the Colorado River Basin. As explained more fully be

The purpose of this policy brief is to explain the origin, rationale, and purpose of the Water & Tribes Initiative in the Colorado River Basin. As explained more fully below, the long-term objectives of this Initiative are to: • Enhance the capacity of tribes to advance their needs and interests with respect to water management in the basin; and • Advance sustainable water management through collaborative decision-making.

The Federal-Tribal Trust Relationship: Its origin, nature, and scope

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | January 1st, 2009

The Klamath River’s dams are being removed. Inside the effort to restore a scarred watershed

Los Angeles Times | March 24th, 2024

HORNBROOK, Calif. — Near the California-Oregon border, reservoirs that once submerged valleys have been drained, revealing a stark landscape that had been underwater f

HORNBROOK, Calif. — Near the California-Oregon border, reservoirs that once submerged valleys have been drained, revealing a stark landscape that had been underwater for generations. A thick layer of muddy sediment covers the sloping ground, where workers have been scattering seeds and leaving meandering trails of footprints. In the cracked mud, seeds are sprouting and tiny green shoots are appearing. With water passing freely through tunnels in three dams, the Klamath River has returned to its ancient channel and is flowing unhindered for the first time in more than a century through miles of waterlogged lands.

The Status of Tribal Water Rights in the Colorado River Basin

Water and Tribes Initiative | April 9th, 2021

There are 30 federally recognized tribes in the Colorado River Basin. Twenty two of these tribes have recognized rights to use 3.2 million-acre feet (maf) of Colorado Riv

There are 30 federally recognized tribes in the Colorado River Basin. Twenty two of these tribes have recognized rights to use 3.2 million-acre feet (maf) of Colorado River system water annually, or approximately 22 to 26 percent of the Basin’s average annual water supply. In addition, 12 of the tribes have unresolved water rights claims, which will likely increase the overall volume of tribal water rights in the Basin. Under the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decree in Arizona v. California, all tribal water uses are counted against the apportionments made to the states. Tribes’ rights are generally senior to state law-based water rights.