Indian Water Rights Settlements
Updated January 18, 2022
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R44148

Indian Water Rights Settlements

Summary
In the second half of the 19th century, the federal government pursued a policy of confining Indian
tribes to reservations. These reservations were either a portion of a tribe’s aboriginal land or an
area of land taken out of the public domain and set aside for a tribe. The federal statutes and
treaties reserving such land for Indian reservations typically did not address the water needs of
these reservations, a fact that has given rise to questions and disputes regarding Indian reserved
water rights. Dating to a 1908 Supreme Court ruling, courts generally have held that many tribes
have a reserved right to water sufficient to fulfill the purpose of their reservations and that this
right took effect on the date the reservations were established. This means that, in the context of a
state water law system of prior appropriations, which is common in many U.S. western states,
many tribes have water rights senior to those of non-Indian users with water rights and access
established subsequent to the Indian reservations’ creation. Although many Indian tribes hold
senior water rights through their reservations, the quantification of these rights is undetermined in
many cases.
Since 1990, the Department of the Interior’s policy has been that Indian water rights should be
resolved through negotiated settlements rather than litigation. These agreements allow tribes to
quantify their water rights on paper, while also procuring access to water through infrastructure
and other related expenses. In addition to tribes and federal government representatives,
settlement negotiations may involve states, water districts, and private water users, among others.
Approval and implementation of Indian water rights settlements typically requires federal
action—often in the form of congressional approval. As of 2021, 38 Indian water rights
settlements had been federally approved, with total estimated costs in excess of $8.0 billion. Of
these, 34 settlements were approved and enacted by Congress (4 were administratively approved
by the U.S. Departments of Justice and the Interior). After congressional approval, federal
projects associated with approved Indian water rights settlements generally have been
implemented by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA),
pursuant to congressional directions.
Historically, federal funding for settlements has been provided through discretionary
appropriations; however, Congress also has approved mandatory funding for some settlements.
The Reclamation Water Settlements Fund was enacted in 2009 under P.L. 111-11 as a means to
provide a source of additional funding for existing and future settlements. It is scheduled to
provide $120 million per year in mandatory funding for settlements through FY2029, with the
availability of these funds currently expiring in FY2034. More recently, Congress approved and
appropriated $2.5 billion for another Indian water rights fund, the Indian Water Rights Settlement
Completion Fund, in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (P.L. 117-58).
Three settlements were approved or amended in the 116th Congress, and other new and amended
settlements have been proposed in the 117th Congress. One of the primary challenges facing new
settlements is competition for federal funds (and the type of funding used), as well as the related
question of cost shares by state, local, and tribal governments.
At issue for Congress is under what circumstances new Indian water rights settlements should be
considered, approved, and amended and to what extent Congress should fund existing
settlements. Some argue that resolution of Indian water rights settlements is a mutually beneficial
means to resolve long-standing legal issues, provide certainty of water deliveries, and reduce the
federal government’s liability. Although there is little opposition to generally stated principles
that preference negotiated settlements to litigation, individual settlements (or elements thereof)
are in some cases opposed by the executive branch and/or by other water users.
Congressional Research Service

Indian Water Rights Settlements

Introduction
Indian water rights settlements are a means of resolving ongoing disputes related to Indian water
rights among tribes, federal and state governments, and other parties (e.g., water rights holders).
The federal government is involved in these settlements pursuant to its tribal trust responsibilities.
Since 1978, the federal government has entered into 38 water rights settlements with Indian tribes
and other users, and 34 of these settlements have been congressionally approved. Negotiation of
other settlements is ongoing.
Congressionally authorized settlements typically authorize funding, and in some cases provide
direct/mandatory funding, for projects that allow tribes to access and develop their water
resources. At issue for Congress is not only whether to enact new settlements with completed
negotiations but also questions related to the current process for negotiating and recommending
settlements for authorization. Some of the challenges raised by these settlements pertain to the
provision of federal funding and cost shares associated with individual settlements, over-arching
principles and expectations guiding ongoing and future settlements, and opposition to some
settlements or specific parts of settlements by some groups.
This report provides background on Indian water rights settlements and an overview of the
settlement process, and summarizes enacted and potential settlements to date. It also analyzes
issues related to Indian water rights, with a focus on the role of the federal government and
challenges faced in negotiating and implementing Indian water rights settlements. Finally, it
focuses on settlements in a legislative context, including enacted and proposed legislation.
Background
Indian water rights are vested property rights and resources for which the United States has a trust
responsibility. The federal trust responsibility is a legal obligation of the United States dictating
that the federal government must protect Indian resources and assets and manage them in the
Indians’ best interest. Historically, the United States has addressed its trust responsibility by
acting as trustee in managing reserved lands, waters, resources, and assets for Indian tribes and by
providing legal counsel and representation to Indians in the courts to protect such rights,
resources, and assets.1 Specifically in regard to Indian water rights settlements, the United States
has fulfilled its trust responsibility to Indian tribes by assisting tribes with their claims to reserved
water rights through litigation, negotiations, and/or implementation of settlements.
The specifics of Indian water rights claims vary, but typically these claims arise out of the right of
many tribes to water resources dating to the establishment of their reservations.2 Indian reserved
water rights were first recognized by the Supreme Court in Winters v. United States in 1908.3
Under the Winters doctrine, when Congress reserves land (i.e., for an Indian reservation), it
implicitly reserves water sufficient to fulfill the purpose of the reservation.4

1 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11944, Tribal Lands: An Overview, by Tana Fitzpatrick.
2 Separately, some tribes also have time immemorial rights to water resources based on tribal water uses that preceded
the establishment of reservations. These rights are commonly referred to as aboriginal water rights.
3 Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564, 575-77 (1908).
4 Historically, Winters doctrine has been applied mostly for surface waters, and the Supreme Court has not declared
outright that groundwater is subject to the Winters doctrine. However, recent court cases have focused on the question
of whether there is a federally reserved right to the groundwater resource for some tribes. For more information, see
CRS Insight IN10857, Federal Reserved Water Rights and Groundwater: Quantity, Quality, and Pore Space, by Peter
Folger.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 19 Indian Water Rights Settlements

In the years since the Winters decision, disputes have arisen between non-Indian water users and
Indians attempting to assert their water rights, particularly in the western United States. In that
region, the establishment of Indian reservations (and, therefore, of Indian water rights) generally
predated settlement by non-Indians and the related large-scale development by the federal
government of water resources for non-Indian users. In most western states, water rights are
awarded under a system of prior appropriation in which water is allocated to users based on the
order in which water rights were acquired. Under this system, the Winters water rights of tribes
are often senior to those of non-Indian water rights holders because they date to the creation of
the reservation (i.e., prior to the awarding of most state water rights). However, most tribal water
rights were not quantified when reservations were established, meaning that they must often be
adjudicated under protracted processes pursuant to state water law. There is also disagreement in
many cases over the quantification of tribal water rights and at whose expense water reallocations
should be made. These and other disputes have typically been addressed through litigation or,
more recently, resolved by negotiated settlements.
Litigation of Indian water rights is a costly process that may take several decades to complete.
Even then, Indian water rights holders may not see tangible water resources and may be awarded
only “paper water”—that is, they may be awarded a legal claim to water but lack the financial
capital to develop those water resources. This situation occurs because, unlike Congress, the
courts cannot provide tangible “wet water” by authorizing new water projects and/or water-
transfer infrastructure (including funding for project development) that would allow the tribes to
exploit their rights.
As a result, negotiated settlements have recently been the preferred means of resolving many
Indian water rights disputes. Negotiated settlements afford tribes and other interested stakeholders
an opportunity to discuss and come to terms on quantification of and access to tribal water
allocations, among other things. These settlements are often attractive because they include terms
and conditions that resolve long-standing uncertainty and put an end to conflict by avoiding
litigation.5 However, there remains disagreement among some as to whether litigation or
settlements are most appropriate for resolving Indian water rights disputes.6
Settlement Structure and Process
The primary issue regarding settlement for Indian reserved water rights is quantification—
identifying the amount of water to which users hold rights within the existing systems of water
allocation in various areas in the West. However, quantification alone is often not sufficient to
secure resources for tribes. Thus, the negotiation process frequently also involves provisions to
construct water infrastructure that increases access to newly quantified resources. In addition to
providing access to wet water, some negotiated settlements have provided other benefits and legal
rights aligned with tribal values. For instance, some tribal settlements have included provisions
for environmental protection and restoration.7

5 In many cases, the function of congressionally enacted settlements is to ratify and implement terms and conditions
that are detailed more thoroughly in agreements and compacts between stakeholders or in a tribal water code.
6 See “Debate over the “Certainty” of Settlements,” below.
7 For example, the Snake River Water Rights Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-447) included a salmon management and habitat
restoration program. In another instance, the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Act (P.L. 101-618)
established a fish recovery program under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act, consistent with the tribe’s
historic use and reliance on two fish, the cui-ui and the Lahontan trout. For more information, see U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Pyramid
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 6 link to page 6 Indian Water Rights Settlements

The federal government’s involvement in the Indian water rights settlement process is guided by
a 1990 policy statement established during the George H. W. Bush Administration, “Criteria and
Procedures for the Participation of the Federal Government in Negotiations for the Settlement of
Indian Water Rights Claims” by the Working Group on Indian Water Settlements (Working
Group) from the Department of the Interior (DOI).8 DOI adopted the criteria and procedures in
1990 to establish a framework to inform the Indian water rights settlement process and expressed
the position that negotiated settlements, rather than litigation, are the preferred method of
addressing Indian water rights. As discussed in the below section “Steps in Settlement Process,”
the primary federal entities tasked with prenegotiation, negotiation, and implementation duties for
Indian water rights settlements are DOI, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
DOI has the majority of responsibilities related to participating in and approving Indian water
rights settlements. Within DOI, two entities coordinate Indian water settlement policy. First, the
Working Group, established administratively in 1989 and comprised of all Assistant Secretaries
and the Solicitor (and typically chaired by a counselor to the Secretary or Deputy Secretary), is
responsible for making recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior regarding water rights
settlements, including overarching policy guidance for settlements. Second, the Secretary of the
Interior’s Indian Water Rights Office (SIWRO) is responsible for oversight and coordination of
Indian water rights settlements, including interfacing with negotiation and implementation teams
for individual settlements, as well as tribes and other stakeholders. The SIWRO is led by a
director who reports to the chair of the Working Group.9
DOI also appoints teams to work on individual Indian water rights settlements during the various
stages of the settlement process (see below section, “Steps in Settlement Process”). Each team
includes a chair who is designated by the chair of the Working Group (i.e., the counselor to the
Secretary) and who represents the Secretary in all settlement activities. Federal teams are
typically composed of representatives from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of the Solicitor, and DOJ. The
teams explain general federal policies on settlement and, when possible, help to develop the
parameters of a particular settlement.
Steps in Settlement Process
Broadly speaking, there are four steps associated with Indian water rights settlements:
prenegotiation, negotiation, settlement, and implementation. The time between negotiation,
settlement, and implementation can take several years. Each step, including relevant federal
involvement, is discussed below.
Prenegotiation
Prenegotiation includes any of the steps before formal settlement negotiations begin. This stage
includes, in some cases, litigation and water rights adjudications that tribes have taken part in

Lake/Truckee-Carson Water Rights Settlement, at https://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/PYRAMID.HTML.
8 Department of the Interior, “Criteria and Procedures for the Participation of the Federal Government in Negotiations
for the Settlement of Indian Water Rights Groups,” 55 Federal Register 9223, March 12, 1990. Hereinafter “Criteria
and Procedures.”
9 For specific information related to the Secretary of the Interior’s Indian Water Rights Office public mission and
personnel, see http://www.doi.gov//siwro/index.cfm.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 7 Indian Water Rights Settlements

before deciding to pursue negotiated settlements. For instance, one of the longest-running cases in
Indian water rights history, New Mexico v. Aamodt, was first filed in 1966; multiparty
negotiations began in 2000 and took more than a decade to complete.10
The federal government also has its own prenegotiation framework that may involve a number of
phases, such as fact-finding, assessment, and briefings. More information on these roles (based on
DOI’s “Criteria and Procedures” statement) is provided below.11
Federal Process for Prenegotiation
The fact-finding phase of the federal prenegotiation process is prompted by a formal request for
negotiations with the Secretary of the Interior by Indian tribes and nonfederal parties. During this
time, consultations take place between DOI and DOJ, which examine the legal considerations of
forming a negotiation team. If the Secretary decides to establish a team, OMB is notified with a
rationale for potential negotiations (based on potential litigation and background information of
the claim). No later than nine months after notification, the team submits a fact-finding report
containing background information, a summary and evaluation of the claims, and an analysis of
the issues of the potential settlement to the relevant federal entities (DOI, DOJ, and OMB).
During the second phase, the negotiating team works with DOJ to assess the positions of all
parties and develops a recommended federal negotiating position. The assessment should quantify
all costs for each potential outcome, including settlement and no settlement. These costs can
range from the costs for litigation to the value of the water claim itself.
During the third phase, the Working Group presents a recommended negotiating position to the
Secretary. In addition to submitting a position, the Working Group recommends the funding
contribution of the federal government, puts forth a strategy for funding the contribution, presents
any views of DOJ and OMB, and outlines positions on major issues expected during the
settlement process.
The actual negotiations process (see “Negotiation,” below) is the next phase for the Working
Group, in which OMB and DOJ are updated periodically. If there are proposed changes to the
settlement, such as in cost or conditions, the negotiating position is revised following the
procedures of the previous phases.
Negotiation
The negotiation phase may take years to resolve.12 During this process, the federal negotiation
team works with the parties to reach a settlement. The process is generally overseen by the
aforementioned DOI offices, as well as by the BIA’s Branch of Water Resources and Water
Rights Negotiation/Litigation Program, which provide technical and factual work in support of

10 The final settlement was signed by all stakeholders in March 2013, following congressional approval in the
enactment of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-11), 124 Stat. 3064, 3134-3156, the
Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act.
11 In some cases, “Criteria and Procedures” may be viewed as a general guide to the prenegotiation process. The actual
structure and nature of the process may vary depending on the background of the settlement and the stakeholders
involved.
12 The negotiation process takes on average five years; however, settlements are negotiated on a case-specific basis, the
negotiation duration may be highly variable. Testimony of Jay Weiner, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs, Addressing the Needs of Native Communities through Indian Water Rights Settlements, hearings, 114th
Congress, 1st sess., May 20, 2015. Hereinafter Weiner, 2015.
Congressional Research Service

4

Indian Water Rights Settlements

Indian water rights claims and financial support for the federal government to defend and assert
Indian water rights.13 Reclamation’s Native American Affairs Program also facilitates the
negotiation of water rights settlements by providing technical support and other assistance.14 In
2016, OMB issued guidance that it be more involved in the negotiation process, and it has laid
out a set of requirements for DOI and DOJ to provide regular written updates on individual
settlements.15
Settlement
Once the negotiation phase has been completed and parties have agreed to specific terms, the
settlement is typically presented for congressional authorization (as applicable).16 In these cases,
Congress must enact the settlement for it to become law and for projects outlined under the
settlement to be eligible for federal funding. If Congress is not required to approve the settlement,
the settlements may generally be approved administratively by the Secretary of the Interior or the
U.S. Attorney General or judicially by judicial decree.
Implementation
Once a settlement is approved (either administratively or by Congress), the SIWRO oversees its
implementation through federal implementation teams. Federal implementation teams function
much like federal negotiation teams, only with a focus on helping the Indian tribe(s) and other
parties implement the settlement.
For settlements that began through litigation or adjudication, the settlement parties must
reconvene to reconcile the original agreement with the settlement, along with any additional
changes. After the Secretary of the Interior signs the revised agreement, the adjudication court
conducts an inter se process in which it hears objections from any party. Once the court approves
the settlement, it enters a final decree and judgment. The actual implementation is usually carried
out by one or more federal agencies (typically Reclamation or BIA, based on terms of the
agreement) that act as project manager.
Altogether, the “Criteria and Procedures” statement stresses that the cost of settlement should not
exceed the sum of calculable legal exposure and any additional costs related to federal trust
responsibility and should promote comity, economic efficiency, and tribal self-sufficiency.
Funding for the settlement itself is typically provided through Reclamation and/or BIA. However,
in some cases other agencies contribute based on the particular terms of a settlement.17

13 Testimony of Michael L. Connor, Commissioner, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee
on Indian Affairs, Addressing the Needs of Native Communities through Indian Water Rights Settlements, hearings,
114th Congress, 1st sess., May 20, 2015. Hereinafter Connor, 2015.
14 Ibid.
15 Memo from John Pasquantino, Deputy Associate Director, Energy, Science and Water Division, Office of
Management and Budget, and Janet Irwin, Deputy Associate Director, Natural Resources Division, Office of
Management and Budget to Letty Belin, Senior Counselor to the Deputy Secretary, Department of the Interior, June 23,
2016.
16 The executive branch typically refrains from submitting formal legislative proposals for settlements to Congress and
instead comments on its support or opposition to individual settlements in testimony and/or letters of Administration
position.
17 In the past, such agencies have included FWS and Bureau of Land Management.
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 10 link to page 12 Indian Water Rights Settlements

Status of Individual Indian Water
Rights Settlements
The federal government has been involved with Indian water rights settlements through
assessment, negotiation, and implementation teams (for enacted settlements). As of early 2021,
there were 21 negotiation teams working on pending settlements and 19 implementation teams
carrying out approved settlements. Overall, the federal government has entered into 38
settlements since 1978, and Congress approved 34 of these settlements in enacted legislation. The
remaining settlements were approved administratively by the Secretary of the Interior or the U.S.
Attorney General or by judicial decree. Table 1 lists enacted settlements, and Table 2 lists
negotiation teams as of early 2021.
Congressional Research Service

6

Indian Water Rights Settlements

Table 1. Enacted Indian Water Rights Settlements
(settlements by state and tribe)
Total
Acre-
Authorized
Feet
Federal Cost
Awarded (nominal $ in
Year
Settlement and Legislation
State
Tribes
per Year
millions)
1978
Ak-Chin Indian Water Rights
AZ
Ak-Chin Indian Community
85,000
$101.1
(1984,
Settlement Act, P.L. 95-328 (P.L. 98-
of Papago Indians of the
1992,
530, P.L. 102-497, P.L. 106-285)
Maricopa
2000)
1982
Southern Arizona Water Rights
AZ
San Xavier and Schuk Toak
66,000
$39.8
(1992) Settlement Act, P.L. 97-293 (P.L.
Districts, Tohono
102-497)
O’Odham Nation
1987
Seminole Indian Land Claims
FL
Seminole Tribe of Florida
NA
NA
Settlement Act of 1987, P.L. 100-
228
1988
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
AZ
Salt River Pima-Maricopa
122,400
$47.5
Community Water Rights
Indian Community of the
Settlement Act of 1988, P.L. 100-
Salt River Reservation
512
1988
Colorado Ute Water Rights
CO
Southern Ute, Ute
70,000
$49.5
(2000) Settlement of 1988, P.L. 100-585
Mountain Ute Tribes (and
(P.L. 106-554)
Navajo Nation)
1988
San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights
CA
La Jol a, San Pasquale,
NA
$30.0
(2016) Settlement Act of 1988, P.L. 100-
Pauma, Pala Bands of
675 (P.L. 114-322)
Mission Indians
1990
Fort Hall Indian Water Rights Act of
ID
Fort Hall Shoshone-
581,331
$22.0
1990, P.L. 101-602
Bannock Tribes
1990
Fallon Paiute Shoshone Indian
NV
Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of
10,588
$43.0
Water Rights Settlement Act of
the Fallon Reservation and
1990, P.L. 101-618
Colony
1990
Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake
NV/CA Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe
NA
$65.0
Water Rights Act, P.L. 101-618
1990
Fort McDowell Indian Community
AZ
Fort McDowell Indian
36,350
$23.0
(2006) Water Rights Settlement Act of
Community
1990, P.L. 101-628 (P.L. 109-373)
1992
Northern Cheyenne Indian
MT
Northern Cheyenne Indian
83,830
$73.0
Reserved Water Rights Settlement
Tribe
Act of 1992, P.L. 102-374
1992
Jicaril a Apache Tribe Water
NM
Jicaril a Apache Indian
40,000
$6.0
(1998) Settlement Act of 1992, P.L. 102-
Tribe
441 (P.L. 105-256)
1992
San Carlos Apache Tribe Water
AZ
San Carlos Apache Indian
67,965
$41.4
(1994,
Rights Settlement Act, P.L. 102-575
Tribe
1997,
(P.L. 103-435, P.L. 105-18, P.L. 108-
2004)
451)
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 12 Indian Water Rights Settlements

Total
Acre-
Authorized
Feet
Federal Cost
Awarded (nominal $ in
Year
Settlement and Legislation
State
Tribes
per Year
millions)
1992
Ute Indian Rights Settlement Act of
UT
Northern Ute Indian Tribe;
481,035
$198.5
1992, P.L. 102-575
Ute Indian Tribe of the
Uintah and Ouray
Reservation
1994
Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Water
AZ
Yavapai-Prescott Indian
1,550
$0.2
(1996) Rights Settlement Act of 1994, P.L.
Tribe
103-434 (P.L. 104-91)
1999
Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky
MT
Chippewa Cree Indian
20,000
$46.0
Boy’s Reservation Indian Reserved
Tribe
Water Rights Settlement Act of
1999, P.L. 106-163
2000
Shivwits Band of the Paiute Indian
UT
Shivwits Band of Paiute
4,000
$24.0
Tribe of Utah Water Rights
Indians
Settlement Act, P.L. 106-263
2003
Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights
AZ
Zuni Indian Tribe
10,600
$19.3
Settlement Act of 2003, P.L. 108-34
2004
Snake River Water Rights Act of
ID
Nez Perce Tribe
50,000
$121.3
2004, P.L. 108-447
2004
Arizona Water Settlements Act of
AZ
Gila River Indian
653,500
$2,328.3a
2004, P.L. 108-451
Community, Tohono
O’odham Nation
2008
Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
CA
Soboba Band of Luiseño
9,000
$21.0
Settlement Act, P.L. 110-297
Indians
2009
Northwestern New Mexico Rural
NM
Navajo Nation
535,330
$984.1
Water Projects Act (Navajo-Gallup
Water Supply Project/Navajo
Nation Water Rights), P.L. 111-11
2009
Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck
ID/ NV Shoshone and Paiute Tribe
114,082
$60.0
Valley Water Rights Settlement Act,
of Duck Valley
P.L. 111-11
2010
White Mountain Apache Tribe
AZ
White Mountain Apache
99,000
$327.2
Water Rights Quantification Act of
Tribe
2010, P.L. 111-291
2010
Crow Tribe Water Rights
MT
Crow Tribe
697,000
$461.0
Settlement Act of 2010, P.L. 111-
291
2010
Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act,
NM
Nambé, Pojoaque, San
6,467
$174.3
P.L. 111-291 (P.L. 116-260)
Ildefonso, and Tesuque
Pueblos
2010
Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights
NM
Taos Pueblo Tribe
9,628
$124.0
Settlement Act, P.L. 111-291
2014
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe–Fish
NV
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe
NA
NA
Springs Ranch Settlement Act, P.L.
113-169
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 17 Indian Water Rights Settlements

Total
Acre-
Authorized
Feet
Federal Cost
Awarded (nominal $ in
Year
Settlement and Legislation
State
Tribes
per Year
millions)
2014
Bil Wil iams River Water Rights
AZ
Hualapai Tribe
NA
NA
Settlement Act of 2014, P.L. 113-
223
2016
Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission
CA
Pechanga Band of Luiseño
4,994
$28.5
Indians Water Rights Settlement
Mission Indians
Act, P.L. 114-322
2016
Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and
OK
Choctaw Nation of
NA
NA
the Chickasaw Nation Water
Oklahoma and Chickasaw
Settlement, P.L. 114-322
Nation
2016
Blackfeet Water Rights Settlement
MT
Blackfeet Tribe
50,000
$420
Act, P.L. 114-322
2020
Montana Water Rights Protection
MT
Confederated Salish-
90,000b
$1,900
Act, P.L. 116-260
Kootenai Tribe
2020
Navajo-Utah Water Rights
UT
Navajo Nation
81,500
$210.4
Settlement, P.L. 116-260
Sources: Congressional Research Service (CRS), with information from the Department of the Interior (DOI)
and the Secretary’s Indian Water Rights Office (SIWRO); Attachments to Testimony of Steven C. Moore, in U.S.
Congress, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, hearings, Addressing the Needs of Native Communities through Indian
Water Rights Settlements, 114th Congress, 1st sess., May 20, 2015; Bonnie G. Colby, John E. Thorson, and Sarah
Britton, Negotiating Tribal Water Rights: Fulfilling Promises in the Arid West, 1st ed. (Tucson: University of Arizona
Press, 2005), pp. 171-176. CRS accessed additional information and documents through the Native American
Water Rights Settlement Project (NAWRS), University of New Mexico, NM.
Notes: NA = Not applicable. Multiple public laws listed in the table signify amendments to laws, with
amendments and corresponding years in parentheses. The federal cost of settlements is an estimate based on the
amounts specifically authorized in enacted laws, though some settlements have unknown or unidentified sources
of funding and these costs are not reflected in the chart. The column showing acre-feet awarded is based on
amounts approved through congressionally enacted settlements and reflects total amounts as detailed in
settlement agreements between stakeholders and interstate tribal compacts as well in federal legislation. These
amounts are generally subject to specific conditions and allocations per use and tribe. For more information, see
NAWRS at http://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nawrs/.
a. The Congressional Budget Office originally estimated that the 10-year cost of the legislation from FY2005
to FY2014 would be $445 mil ion. However, the total costs of the bil beyond the 10-year window are
considerably more than this amount and depend centrally on available balances in the Lower Colorado
River Basin Development Fund. Based on information from the Bureau of Reclamation in January 2017, CRS
estimated that approximately $2.328 bil ion was expected to be made available from the fund through
FY2046. For more information, see below section, “Redirection of Existing Receipt Accounts.”
b. Reflects federal storage allocation from Hungry Horse Reservoir. Does not reflect any additional on- or off-
reservation water rights under the settlement.
Table 2. Indian Water Rights Settlements with Negotiation Teams Appointed
(negotiation teams as of early 2021)
Common Name of
State
Negotiation Team
Tribe(s)
Abousleman
NM
Pueblos of Jemez, Pueblo of Santa Ana, Pueblo of Zia
Agua Caliente
CA
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuila Indians
Coeur d’Alene
ID
Coeur d’Alene Tribe
Congressional Research Service

9

Indian Water Rights Settlements

Common Name of
State
Negotiation Team
Tribe(s)
Cahuil a Band of Mission Indians, Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians,
Fallbrook
CA
Ramona Band
Fort Belknap
MT
Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes
Kerr McGee
NM
Pueblos of Acoma and Laguna and Navajo Nation
Kickapoo
KS
Kickapoo Tribe
Hualapai
AZ
Hualapai Tribe
Havasupai
AZ
Havasupai Tribe
Lummi
WA
Lummi Tribe and Nooksack Tribe
Navajo-Little Colorado
AZ
Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe
Ohkay Owingeh
NM
Ohkay Owingeh
Tohono O’odham
AZ
Tohono O’odham Nation
Tonto Apache
AZ
Tonto Apache Tribe
Tule River
CA
Tule River Indian Tribe
Upper Gila River/San
Carlos
AZ
San Carlos Apache Tribe and Gila River Indian Community
Umatil a
OR
Confederated Tribes of the Umatil a Indian
Walker River
NV
Walker River Paiute Indian Tribe, Bridgeport Indian Colony, Yerington
Paiute Tribe
Yavapai-Apache
AZ
Yavapai-Apache Nation
Zuni/Ramah Navajo
NM
Pueblo of Zuni and Ramah Navajo Nation
Source: Department of the Interior, Secretary’s Indian Water Rights Office.
Once the stakeholders have agreed to initiate negotiation of a settlement, a number of issues may
pose challenges to a successful negotiation and implementation of a settlement. Such challenges
may include finding a source of adequate funding for a settlement and contending with other
issues within settlements, such as compliance with environmental regulations and identification
of sources and conditions for water delivery. Each of these issues is discussed below in more
detail.
Funding Indian Water Rights Settlements
The delivery of wet water (as opposed to paper water) to tribes that have enacted settlement
agreements frequently requires significant financial resources and long-term investments by the
federal government, often in the form of new projects and infrastructure.18 For federal
policymakers, a widely recognized challenge is identifying and enacting federal funding to
implement settlements while also resulting in cost savings relative to litigation. In response to
concerns related to implementation costs, some settlements have been renegotiated over time to
decrease their estimated federal costs. For instance, legislation to authorize the Blackfeet
Compact was first introduced in 2010 and was subsequently renegotiated and revised, resulting in
a reduction to estimated federal costs in 2016 by approximately $230 million (nominal dollars)

18 These implementation costs are in addition to the costs associated with negotiating the settlements.
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 15 link to page 8 link to page 20 Indian Water Rights Settlements

compared to the earlier versions of this legislation.19 Partially in response to concerns related to
justifying the costs of proposed settlements, OMB issued a memo to DOI and DOJ on June 23,
2016, outlining new steps that would provide for greater involvement by OMB earlier in the
settlement negotiation process. OMB also stated that it would require, among other things, a
description and quantification of the costs and benefits of proposed settlements by DOI and DOJ
prior to a formal letter of Administration position.20
A related issue is the question of nonfederal cost shares, in particular cost-share requirements for
state governments and local (i.e., non-tribal) water users, as well as those for tribes (in some
cases). No overarching cost-sharing principles have been publicly identified by recent
Administrations outside of the desire for “appropriate” cost shares by beneficiaries.21 Instead,
individual settlements have had widely variable cost shares. The magnitude of these cost shares
appears to often be based on the type of activities involved in the settlement and the potential for
parties to benefit from these activities. For example, the Aamodt Settlement, enacted in 2010, has
one of the larger statutorily identified nonfederal cost shares ($116.9 million). However, these
costs are reflective of state and county shares for the construction of a County Distribution
component of a larger Regional Water System intended to supply both tribal and non-tribal
users.22 Other settlements have typically included nonfederal cost shares of a lower magnitude or
no nonfederal cost-share requirement at all.
After a preferred federal contribution is identified and agreed upon, other challenges include
identifying the source and structure of federal funding proposed for authorization.
Congressionally authorized Indian water rights settlements have been funded in various ways,
including through discretionary funding authorizations (i.e., authorizations that require annual
appropriations by Congress); direct or mandatory funding (i.e., spending authorizations that do
not require further appropriations); and combinations of both. In regard to mandatory funding,
some settlements have been funded individually and several others have been funded with
mandatory spending from a single account, the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund (see
“Mandatory Funding,” below). Additionally, some have tapped preexisting or related federal
receipt accounts as the source for mandatory funding. The timing of the release of funds has also
varied widely among settlements and may in some cases depend on expected future actions (e.g.,
contingent on completion of plans and/or certain nonfederal activities).
Selected examples of how Indian water rights settlements have been funded are discussed below.
These sections describe different structural approaches to funding Indian water rights settlements
that Congress has approved, including when and how the funding is expected to be released (if
applicable).
Discretionary Funding
Discretionary spending, or spending that is subject to appropriations, has historically been the
most common source of funding for congressionally approved Indian water rights settlements. In
many cases, Congress has authorized the appropriations of specific sums for individual

19 Testimony of John Bezdek, Senior Adviser to the Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, in U.S.
Congress, House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Legislative Hearing on Water
Settlements, 114th Congress, 2nd sess., May 24, 2016.
20 See footnote footnote 15.
21 See below section, “Recent Indian Water Rights Settlement Legislation.”
22 For more information, see “Frequently Asked Questions for the Pojoaque Basin Regional Water System EIS,”
available at https://sites.google.com/site/pbwatereis/frequently-asked-questions.
Congressional Research Service

11

Indian Water Rights Settlements

settlements, including individual funds within the settlement. For example, the Pechanga Band of
Luiseño Mission Indians Water Rights Settlement Act (P.L. 114-322, Title III, Subtitle D)
approved the Pechanga Water Rights Settlement. This legislation established the Pechanga
Settlement Fund and four accounts within it: (1) Pechanga Recycled Water Infrastructure account;
(2) Pechanga ESAA Delivery Capacity account; (3) Pechanga Water Fund account; and (4)
Pechanga Water Quality account. These accounts are authorized to receive future discretionary
appropriations from Congress totaling to $28.5 million, and the funds must be spent by April 30,
2030. Authorizations of federal discretionary funding for individual settlements, when they have
been provided, have varied widely.23 These costs have ranged from several hundred thousand
dollars for the Yavapai-Prescott Water Rights Settlement to $1 billion for the CSKT Settlement in
Montana.
Congress has also chosen to authorize discretionary appropriations of “such sums as may be
necessary” at times. For instance, the Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000 (Title
III, P.L. 106-554) authorized the implementation and the operations and maintenance of the
Animas-La Plata project and authorized Reclamation to construct these facilities using such sums
as may be necessary.24
Mandatory Funding
Congress also has authorized mandatory funding for Indian water rights settlements. In some
cases, these mandatory appropriations have been made in concert with discretionary funding
authorizations. Mandatory funding has generally been in the form of one of the following options:
(1) funding from the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund, a dedicated fund created in 2010 for
Indian water rights settlements; (2) mandatory funding for specific individual settlements; and (3)
redirection of existing receipt accounts. Each of these options is discussed below in more detail.
Reclamation Water Settlements Fund
Title X of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-11) authorized
mandatory spending for accounts with broadly designated purposes aligning with Indian water
rights settlements. It also included discretionary funding for a number of settlements. This
legislation created a new Treasury Fund, the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund, and scheduled
funds to be deposited and available in this account beginning in 2020. The act directed the
Secretary of the Treasury to deposit $120 million into the fund for each of FY2020-FY2029 (for a
total of $1.2 billion).25 The fund may be used to implement a water rights settlement agreement
approved by Congress that resolves, in whole or in part, litigation involving the United States,
and it may be used if the settlement agreement or implementing legislation requires Reclamation
to provide financial assistance for or to plan, design, or construct a water project.26 The act also
assigned tiers of priority to access these funds in the following order:

23 Not all enacted settlements are associated with federal funding authorizations; some only require federal approval
and/or authorize specific federal activities.
24 P.L. 106-554, §303.
25 The funds were directed from the revenues that otherwise would be deposited into the Reclamation Water
Settlements Fund and were made available without any further appropriations.
26 43 U.S.C. §407.
Congressional Research Service

12

link to page 20 link to page 20 Indian Water Rights Settlements

 First-tier priority is assigned to the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project (a key
element of the Navajo Nation Water Rights Settlement), the Aamodt Settlement,
and the Abeyta Settlement;27 and
 Second-tier priority is assigned to the settlements for the Crow Tribe, the
Blackfeet Tribe, and the Tribes of the Fort Belknap reservation, as well as the
Navajo Nation in its water rights settlement over claims in the Lower Colorado
River basin.28
Under the legislation, if Congress failed to approve and authorize any of the individual
settlements with priority under the legislation by December 31, 2019, the amounts reserved for
those settlements were to become eligible for other authorized uses of the fund. Thus, if funding
remains after the authorized priority settlements are completed, and before the expiration of the
fund itself, those appropriations could be used for other authorized Indian water rights
settlements. While the last appropriations to the fund are currently to be made in FY2029, the
fund itself is scheduled to terminate on September 30, 2034, with unexpended balances to be
transferred to the Treasury at that time.29
Indian Water Settlements Completion Fund
In the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (IIJA; P.L. 117-58), Congress authorized a
new Treasury fund for Indian water rights settlements. In Division G, Section 70101, of the IIJA,
Congress established an Indian Water Rights Settlement Completion Fund and provided that on
the date of the IIJA’s enactment, the Secretary of the Treasury shall deposit $2.5 billion into this
fund, to remain available until expended. Subsection 70101(c) of the IIJA authorized the
Secretary of the Interior to use these funds, “for transfers to funds or accounts authorized to
receive discretionary appropriations, or to satisfy other obligations identified by the Secretary of
the Interior, under an Indian water settlement approved and authorized by an Act of Congress
before the date of enactment of this Act.”30 This provision authorized the Secretary of the Interior
to transfer resources from the new fund to any enacted Indian water rights settlement based on
secretarial determination, with the only limitation being that the settlement was enacted prior to
November 15, 2021. Thus, the fund appears to be available for use on any approved settlements,
regardless of their initial funding mechanism, so long as they are approved by the Secretary.
Mandatory Appropriations for Individual Settlements
Several individual settlements have received mandatory appropriations in recent years. For
example, provisions in the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-291) authorized and provided
direct/mandatory spending for four individual water rights settlements.31 P.L. 111-291 also
included discretionary funding for some of these settlements and additional mandatory funding
for the Navajo-Gallup project (authorized in P.L. 111-11). Among other things, P.L. 111-291
 authorized and appropriated approximately $82 million in mandatory funding for
the Aamodt Settlement in a newly created Aamodt Settlement Pueblos’ Fund and

27 Neither the Aamodt nor the Abeyta Settlements were authorized in P.L. 111-11; they were subsequently authorized
in P.L. 111-291.
28 Of these, the Navajo-Gallup, Aamodt, Abeyta, Blackfeet, and Crow Tribe Settlements have been approved.
29 For more information on the proposed extension of this fund, see below section, “Recent Indian Water Rights
Settlement Legislation.”
30 P.L. 117-58, §70101(c).
31 Some of these settlements were among the priorities laid out in P.L. 111-11.
Congressional Research Service

13

Indian Water Rights Settlements

authorized an additional $93 million in discretionary funding subject to
appropriations;
 authorized the Abeyta Settlement, appropriated $66 million in mandatory funds
for implementation of that agreement in a newly created Taos Pueblos’ Water
Development Fund, and authorized an additional $58 million in discretionary
funding subject to appropriations;
 authorized the Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement, appropriated $302 million in
mandatory funding for that agreement, and authorized an additional $158 million
in discretionary funding subject to appropriations;
 authorized the White Mountain Apache Tribe water rights quantification,
appropriated mandatory funding of approximately $203 million to multiple
sources to carry out that settlement, and authorized an additional $90 million in
discretionary appropriations; and
 authorized and appropriated a total of $180 million from FY2012 to FY2014 in
mandatory funding to the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund established under
P.L. 111-11 to carry out the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project authorized in
that same legislation.
More recently, the Montana Water Rights Protection Act, enacted in Division DD of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2021 (P.L. 116-260), approved the CSKT Water Rights
Compact. Congress authorized a total of $1.9 billion for this settlement, including $90 million per
year in mandatory funding from FY2021 to FY2030. Congress also stipulated that no funds from
the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund could be made available for this settlement until 10
years after the enactment of P.L. 116-260 and required that any withdrawals thereafter be limited
to no more than 50% of the fund’s balances.
Redirection of Existing Receipt Accounts
Other water rights settlements have been funded through additional mechanisms, including
redirection of funds accruing to existing federal receipt accounts. These funds may differ from
traditional mandatory funds in that they make available funding without further appropriations,
but they also depend on the amount of funding accruing to such an account. For example, the
Arizona Water Settlements Act (P.L. 108-451) authorized water rights settlements for the Gila
River Indian Community (GRIC) and the Tohono O’odham Nation, respectively. Both water
rights settlements required funding for infrastructure associated with water deliveries from the
Central Arizona Project (CAP). To fund these costs, P.L. 108-451 required that certain CAP
repayments and other receipts that accrue to the previously existing Lower Colorado River Basin
Development Fund (LCRBDF, which averages receipts of approximately $55 million per year) be
made available annually, without further appropriation (i.e., mandatory funding) for multiple
purposes related to the GRIC and Tohono O’odham settlements. For instance, the bill required
that after FY2010, deposits totaling $53 million be made into a newly established Gila River
Indian Community Operations Maintenance and Rehabilitation Trust Fund to assist in paying for
costs associated with the delivery of CAP water. In addition to a number of other settlement-
related spending provisions, the act stipulated that up to $250 million in LCRBDF receipts be
made available for future Indian water rights settlements in Arizona. If sufficient LCRBDF
Congressional Research Service

14

Indian Water Rights Settlements

balances are not available for all of the bill’s priorities, then funds are to be awarded according to
the order in which these priorities appear in the bill.32
Other Issues Common to the Consideration of
Indian Water Rights Settlements
Compliance with Environmental Laws
The environmental impact of settlements has been an issue for federal agencies, environmental
groups, and tribes, among others. In some cases, construction of settlement projects has been
challenged under federal environmental laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA; P.L. 91-190),33 the Clean Water Act (CWA; P.L. 92-500),34 the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (ESA; P.L. 93-205),35 and the Safe Drinking Water Act (P.L. 93-523).36 Because
some settlements involve construction of new water projects (such as reservoirs, dams, pipelines,
and related facilities), some have argued that settlements pose negative consequences for water
quality, endangered species, and sensitive habitats.
For example, the Animas-La Plata project,37 originally authorized in the Colorado River Basin
Project Act of 1968 (P.L. 84-485) and later incorporated into the Colorado Ute Water Rights
Settlement Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-585), faced opposition from several groups over the alleged
violation of various environmental laws.38 Additionally, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency raised concerns that the project would negatively affect water quality and wetlands in
New Mexico. These and other concerns stalled construction of the project for a decade.39 The
Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000 (P.L. 106-554) amended the original
settlement to address these concerns by significantly reducing the size and purposes of the project
and codifying compliance to NEPA, CWA, and ESA.40 Other enacted settlements that initially
encountered opposition stemming from environmental concerns include the Jicarilla Apache Tribe
Water Settlement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-441) and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Water Rights
Settlement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-434).

32 For additional background on this settlement, see CRS memo on the Arizona Water Settlements Act, available to
congressional clients from the author upon request.
33 42 U.S.C. §4321.
34 42 U.S.C. §7401.
35 16 U.S.C. §1531.
36 42 U.S.C. §300f.
37 The project, located in southwestern Colorado and northwestern New Mexico, consists of a 270-foot dam, a lake
with 123,000 acre-feet of storage, a pumping plant and pipeline to deliver water to the Navajo Nation, among other
things.
38 In 1990, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a draft biological opinion on the potential threat to the Colorado
pikeminnow, an endangered fish species. Similarly, the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund claimed that the Animas-La
Plata project would harm the Colorado pikeminnow as well as the razorback sucker.
39 During this time, Reclamation completed several supplemental environmental impact statements and made changes
to the project based on reasonable and prudent alternatives suggested by FWS. For more information, see Brian A.
Ellison, “Bureaucratic Politics, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Animas-La Plata Project,” Natural Resources
Journal, vol. 49, no. 2 (Spring 2009), pp. 381-389.
40 Jebediah S. Rogers and Andrew H. Gahan, Animas-La Plata Project, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, History of
Reclamation Projects, 2013, p. 21, at http://www.usbr.gov/history/ProjectHistories/
Animas_La_Plata%20D1%20%5B1%5D.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

15

link to page 19 Indian Water Rights Settlements

Water Supply Issues
In addition to the need to quantify reserved water rights, a key difficulty during the negotiation
process is identifying a water source to fulfill reserved water rights. Generally, this is done
through reallocating water from existing sources from non-tribal users to tribes, as was done for
selected tribes in Arizona and the Central Arizona Project under the Arizona Water Settlements
Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-451). In some cases, settlements have provided funds for tribes to acquire
water from willing sellers.41 In addition to identifying and quantifying a water source, settlements
can address the type of water (i.e., groundwater, surface water, effluent water, stored water) and
the types of uses that are held under reserved water rights (e.g., domestic, municipal, irrigation,
instream flows, fish and wildlife) as well as water quality issues.
Another common issue addressed within settlements is the question of whether to allow for the
marketing, leasing, or transfer of tribal water. This exchange of water can provide dual benefits of
better water reliability in areas of scarce supplies and economic incentives to tribes. At the same
time, some tribes and state users oppose any allowance for water marketing in settlements. Some
members within tribes object to the exchange of water on religious and cultural grounds, due to
the belief that water is fundamentally attached to tribal life and identity.42 Some non-Indians
oppose allowances for water marketing in these agreements when marketing has the potential to
increase the price of water that might otherwise be available for free to downstream water users
and thus could potentially harm regional economies.43 As such, negotiations about the right to
market, lease, or transfer water can be contentious and may result in restrictions on these
activities in order to mitigate potential impacts.
Debate over the “Certainty” of Settlements
The certainty of Indian water rights settlements is commonly cited as a multilateral benefit for the
stakeholders involved. Supporters regularly argue that mutual benefits accrue as a result of these
agreements: tribes secure certainty in the form of water resources and legal protection, local users
and water districts receive greater certainty and stability regarding their water supplies, and the
federal and state governments are cleared from the burden of potential liability.
Some tribal communities have objected to settlements based on these principles. They have
argued that the specific, permanent quantification of their water rights through settlements may
serve to limit the abilities of tribes to develop in the future.44 Similarly, some have argued against
settlements as they may limit tribes to a particular set of uses (e.g., agriculture) and prevent
potential opportunities for greater economic yields in the future.45 Some tribes contend that to
avoid use-based limitations, water rights settlements should focus on allowing water leasing and
marketing (see discussion in “Water Supply Issues,” above) so tribes can control and use their
water resources with greater flexibility. Still other tribes have spoken out against the idea of
negotiated settlements entirely, as they oppose negotiating their claims in exchange infrastructure

41 One such example of this is the Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act (P.L. 108-34), in which the Zuni
Indian Tribe Water Rights Development Fund was created for the tribe to purchase or acquire water rights rather than
realize its federal reserved water rights as is common for other settlements.
42 McCool, p. 170.
43 McCool, pp. 168-169.
44 McCool, pp. 81, 85.
45 Bonnie G. Colby, John E. Thorson, and Sarah Britton, Negotiating Tribal Water Rights: Fulfilling Promises in the
Arid West, 1st ed. (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2005), p. 13. Hereinafter Colby et al.
Congressional Research Service

16

Indian Water Rights Settlements

funding. They view the process as akin to the “first treaty era,” when Indian tribes forfeited their
lands.46 They note that in the future, the courts may be more favorable to tribes and allow for
greater gains through litigation.
Non-tribal users may also raise their own concerns with Indian water rights settlements. Some
water users have complained that provisions in settlements have the potential to maintain or even
increase uncertainty associated with non-tribal water rights. For example, during consideration of
the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) Water Compact, some water users in
western Montana complained that the settlement recognized off-reservation water rights with the
potential to significantly curtail non-tribal water rights beyond those quantified in the CSKT
Compact.47
Executive Branch Opposition to Individual Settlements
Executive branch support for settlements in general, or for settling the water rights claims of
individual tribes, does not always translate into unqualified support for proposed settlement
legislation. In some cases, settlements have been presented to Congress before they have
undergone full Administration review and approval. In other cases, the executive branch may not
have participated in the legislative drafting process. This can result in situations in which the
executive branch supports approval of a bill that would resolve a tribe’s water rights, while also
opposing some of its specific legislative provisions. Common concerns along these lines include
unjustified funding levels for a settlement and/or authorization of activities that the executive
branch views as outside the scope of the federal role.
Recent Indian Water Rights Settlement Legislation
In recent years, Congress has regularly considered and enacted legislation approving Indian water
rights settlements. Since 2009, Congress has enacted 11 Indian water rights settlements in five
bills: P.L. 111-291 (The Claims Resolution Act of 2010); P.L. 113-169 (the Pyramid Lake Paiute-
Fish Springs Ranch Settlement Act); P.L. 113-223 (the Bill Williams River Water Rights
Settlement Act of 2014); P.L. 114-322 (the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation
Act); and P.L. 117-260 (Consolidated Appropriations, FY2021). Some of these settlements were
not associated with any new federal funding authorizations or appropriations. As the number of
settlements has increased over the years, amendments to existing settlements also have been
proposed.
The 116th Congress enacted two new settlements in P.L. 116-260: the Montana Water Rights
Protection Act (which approved a water rights compact with the Confederate-Salish Kootenai
Tribe in Montana) and the Navajo-Utah Settlement in Utah. The same legislation amended a
previously approved settlement (the Aamodt Settlement in New Mexico) and authorized
preliminary federal actions related to another proposed settlement (the Kickapoo Settlement in
Kansas). Other proposed settlements, such as the Hualapai Settlement in Arizona, were
considered but not enacted during the 116th Congress. These and other settlements may be
introduced in the 117th Congress.

46 McCool, p. 85.
47 See, for example, Al Olszewski, “Guest Opinion: Fight Against CSKT Water Compact,” Billings Gazette, November
26, 2019.
Congressional Research Service

17

Indian Water Rights Settlements

Proposed Legislation for New Settlements
In the 117th Congress, S. 1911 , the Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes of the Fort Belknap
Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 2021, would approve a settlement related to
the water rights claims of the Fort Belknap Indian Community in Montana and would authorize
“at least” $693 million in federal funds.48 The settlement would authorize infrastructure and
economic development activities and funding, including improvements to tribal water
infrastructure of the Reclamation Milk River Project, and would restore tribal management for
specified state and federal lands. The settlement would be funded through a combination of
mandatory and discretionary expenditures, with $30 million in mandatory funds deposited into
the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund exclusively for the settlement and an additional $326
million in mandatory funds deposited into settlement-specific accounts for various purposes, such
as water resources rehabilitation and expansion, economic development, and community water
supplies.
In October 2021 testimony before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, the Department of the
Interior raised a number of concerns with S. 1911.49 Among other things, the department was
concerned the enacting legislation would authorize open-ended funding for unclear purposes,
including potential amendments to the Tribes’ Comprehensive Water Development Plan and for
unknown mitigation of non-Indian water users.50
Changes to Existing Settlements
Other legislation in the 117th Congress would amend existing settlements. S. 648 would amend
the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation Water Rights Settlement Act, as
authorized in P.L. 111-11, to address a drafting issue in that legislation that prevents the
appropriation of approximately $5 million in interest that would have accrued between the
enactment of P.L. 111-11 and the settlement’s enforceability date of January 25, 2016.51 In 2021
testimony, the Department of the Interior supported this legislation and noted that four other
settlements enacted in P.L. 111-11 and P.L. 111-291 may require similar legislative fixes to
receive comparable interest revenue, which is estimated to total $11 million.52
Another bill in the 117th Congress, S. 3308, would authorize the Colorado River Indian Tribes
(CRIT) to enter into agreements with other water users for lease or exchange of CRIT waters that
were apportioned to the tribes by the Supreme Court of the United States in its decree after
deciding the Arizona v. California case.53 Currently, some tribes have the ability to lease their

48 Statement of Bryan Newland, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, United States Department of the Interior, in U.S.
Congress, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Legislative Hearing to Receive Testimony on S. 648 & S. 1911, 117th
Cong., 1st sess., October 6, 2021. Hereinafter, “Newland, October 2021 Senate Indian Affairs Committee Hearing.”
49 Newland, October 2021 Senate Indian Affairs Committee Hearing.
50 Newland, October 2021 Senate Indian Affairs Committee Hearing.
51 Statement of Brian Thomas, Chairman of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, in U.S.
Congress, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Legislative Hearing to Receive Testimony on S. 648 & S. 1911, 117th
Cong., 1st sess., October 6, 2021.
52 Newland, October 2021 Senate Indian Affairs Committee Hearing. The other noted settlements are the Crow Tribe
Water Rights Settlement Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-291); the Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act (P.L. 111-
291); the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act (P.L. 111-291); and the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project and Navajo
Nation Water Rights (P.L. 111-11).
53 547 U.S. 150 (2006). The 1964 Supreme Court decree for this case settled a number of issues in the Lower Colorado
River Basin, including interstate conflicts over Colorado River apportionments and the quantity of priority water rights
for several Native American reservations on the Colorado River. For more information on Colorado River water
Congressional Research Service

18

Indian Water Rights Settlements

water, whereas others (such as CRIT) do not. The legislation would limit leased waters to a
portion of the tribes’ historical consumptive use levels.
Reclamation Water Settlement Fund Extension
Recent Congresses also have considered the extension of mandatory appropriations for the
Reclamation Water Settlement Fund, which originally was enacted in 2009. In the 116th Congress,
some proposals would have extended mandatory appropriations to the fund in perpetuity and
others would have extended appropriations over a time-limited horizon (e.g., 10 additional years).
Some proposals also would have capped cumulative funding allocations for individual
settlements. Under most of these proposals, in the absence of funding allocations for settlements
previously prioritized in statute, funding would have been available for other settlement
agreements in accordance with broad eligibility criteria.
Conclusion
Long-standing disputes over water rights and use involving Indian tribes continue to be
negotiated and settled by the executive branch and are thus likely to be an ongoing issue for
Congress. This matter includes implementation of ongoing Indian water rights settlements,
negotiation of new settlements, and consideration of these settlements for potential enactment and
subsequent funding. Congress has enacted 34 settlements to date, and additional funding and
amendments for ongoing settlements and authorizations of and appropriations for new settlements
are likely to be requested in the future. In considering Indian water rights settlements, primary
issues for Congress may include the cost, contents, and sufficiency of federally authorized efforts
to settle tribal water rights claims, as well as the circumstances under which these settlements are
considered and approved by authorizing committees and others (e.g., whether the executive
branch formally supports all components of a proposed settlement). In addition, the preferred
extent of federal involvement in implementing settlements, including the question of nonfederal
cost shares and whether the federal government or tribes should take the lead in developing and
constructing projects, may be a central question Congress considers in regard to future
settlements.

Author Information

Charles V. Stern

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

allocations, see CRS Report R45546, Management of the Colorado River: Water Allocations, Drought, and the Federal
Role, by Charles V. Stern and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
Congressional Research Service

19

Indian Water Rights Settlements

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R44148 · VERSION 26 · UPDATED
20