The Unfinished Justice: Tribal Sovereignty and the Colorado River Crisis

The Current Landscape of Colorado River Management

The Colorado River, the lifeblood of the American West, faces an unprecedented crisis that threatens the water security of millions across seven states. As the February 14 deadline approaches for states to reach a new water sharing agreement, a critical voice has been systematically excluded from these negotiations: the sovereign tribal nations who hold senior water rights and have demonstrated extraordinary leadership in conservation efforts.

Tribes across the Colorado River basin have consistently stepped up during critical droughts, working with states to protect the river and conserve enough water to raise elevations in Lakes Powell and Mead. The Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe’s agreement to conserve 13,000 acre-feet of water significantly contributed to California reaching its conservation goals a year ahead of schedule. The Jicarilla Apache Nation’s innovative 10-year water-sharing agreement with New Mexico and The Nature Conservancy represents exactly the kind of creative solutions needed in this crisis.

Yet despite these contributions, tribes find themselves fighting for a seat at the table where their future is being decided. The Ute Indian Tribe alone holds 500,000 acre-feet in the Green River basin, but faces the heartbreaking reality of watching their unused water flow downstream uncompensated due to lack of infrastructure and funding. This isn’t just a resource management issue—it’s a fundamental question of justice and sovereignty.

The Historical Context of Exclusion

The exclusion of tribal voices from Colorado River management represents a continuation of historical patterns that have marginalized indigenous communities for generations. When the original Colorado River Compact was negotiated in 1922, tribal nations were not consulted, despite their deep historical connection to these waters and their legally recognized water rights. This pattern persists today, with interstate commissions and negotiating tables remaining largely closed to the very people who have the most at stake.

Mike Natchees of the Ute Indian Tribe Business Committee articulated this frustration perfectly: “It’s high time that tribes begin to really begin to flex their sovereignty.” His words underscore a fundamental truth—sovereignty isn’t something granted by states or the federal government; it’s an inherent right that tribes are now rightfully asserting.

The Innovation Gap and Infrastructure Challenges

What makes this exclusion particularly egregious is that tribes have consistently demonstrated innovative approaches to water management that states would do well to emulate. The Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe’s canal lining project to reduce seepage and improve delivery efficiency represents exactly the kind of infrastructure investment needed across the basin. The Jicarilla Apache Nation’s water leasing program shows how creative partnerships can benefit both environmental conservation and water security.

Yet as Jenny Dumas, water attorney for the Jicarilla Apache Nation, correctly notes, not every tribe can replicate such agreements. Each tribe has unique needs and circumstances that must be considered in any comprehensive water sharing agreement. The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe’s Bow and Arrow Farm, a major economic driver, cannot simply reduce crops for payment like some California tribes. They need flexible tools that allow water to be set aside in good years while contributing to additional releases in dry years.

The Fundamental Injustice of Uncompensated Resources

Perhaps the most striking injustice lies in the fact that tribes watch their water—their legally recognized property—flow downstream uncompensated while states debate how to allocate these very resources. As Natchees stated with justified frustration: “It just continues to flow downstream. We are uncompensated for it. It is undeveloped. And again, that is unacceptable for the Ute Indian Tribe.”

This isn’t merely an economic issue—it’s a moral one. The principle that property owners should benefit from their resources is fundamental to American values of liberty and economic freedom. When tribes are denied the ability to develop and benefit from their water rights, we’re witnessing a violation of both their sovereignty and basic economic justice.

The Path Forward: Inclusion, Recognition, and Respect

The solution to this crisis requires more than just technical water management agreements—it demands a fundamental shift in how we conceptualize tribal sovereignty and inclusion. As Jonathan E. Koteen, President of the Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe, powerfully stated: “Tribal inclusion must be formal, meaningful and permanent. Tribes are not new participants. We are original stewards of the river, and our voices must be part of shaping the future family.”

This means permanent seats for tribal representatives on the Upper Colorado River Commission and other governing bodies. It means recognizing that tribes aren’t stakeholders to be consulted—they are sovereign governments with equal standing in these negotiations. It means acknowledging that their water rights are not bargaining chips but fundamental property rights that must be respected and compensated.

The recent proclamation signed by the Colorado River Indian Tribes, the Gila River Indian Community, and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District represents a hopeful step toward this future. As Chairwoman Amelia Flores beautifully articulated: “All of us who live in Arizona, native and non-native alike, are connected by water, for without water, there is no life. And it is that common thread that binds us, which has us here today, pledging to work together for the greater good of all who live in Arizona.”

Conclusion: A Test of American Principles

The Colorado River crisis represents more than just a water management challenge—it’s a test of whether America will live up to its founding principles of justice, liberty, and respect for sovereign rights. The exclusion of tribal nations from these critical negotiations isn’t just bad policy; it’s a betrayal of the very values we claim to uphold as a nation.

As we approach the February deadline, states and federal officials have a choice: continue the patterns of exclusion that have characterized water policy for a century, or embrace a new era of true partnership and respect for tribal sovereignty. The conservation efforts and innovative solutions demonstrated by tribes prove they’re not just equal partners—they’re leaders who have much to teach us about sustainable water management.

Our nation’s commitment to democracy and liberty means nothing if it doesn’t extend to all sovereign peoples within our borders. The time for half-measures and token consultation is over. What’s needed now is formal, meaningful, and permanent inclusion that recognizes tribes as the sovereign nations they are—and the original stewards who have protected these waters long before states existed to debate their allocation.