Vivian Mellon Snyder

Mni Wiconi 1 : A Discussion of Tribal Lands, Media Representation of Native Peoples, and Federal Environmental Policy

Vivian Mellon Snyder

“T he Standing Rock Sioux, the Cherokee, the Sayisi Dene, the Navajo, the Crow, the Cocopah…”

Federal environmental policy, however broad that term may be, has very specific implications for the many tribal nations located throughout the United States. These sovereign nations are distinct in their interactions with the federal government, in the land on which they are located, and in the ways which they are connected to the land. To acknowledge the sovereignty and diversity of Native American peoples, I shall structure this paper around the effects of federal water policy on each tribe, rather than to divide this paper into environmental topics such as climate change, wildfire, and irrigation.

Necessarily, this paper addresses only a few of the countless environmental injustices faced by Indigenous Nations. Rather than serving as an explanation of legislative bills, statutes, and warrants for reparation, then, this piece serves to introduce a discussion of those policies as they affect the sovereignty and cultures of those who live within Indian Nation. Vital documents, such as the Clean Water Act, are introduced in the context of the living history of Indian Nation. To preface the arguments made hereafter, however, I will establish the significance of three legal concepts which are necessary to understand the complicated legal interactions between the United States Government and sovereign Indian nations: tribal territorial sovereignty, the plenary power doctrine, and the trust relationship. In tandem, these three concepts reveal the pervasive momentum of legal ideologies which had themselves formed before the United States Government formally existed. Today, they continue to serve as the foundation of the federal government’s intervention in tribal sovereignty.

Tribal territorial sovereignty might be loosely defined as the notion of a tribe’s right to self government. The same legislation which grants “state’s’ rights” under the United States Constitution grants rights these rights to Indigenous nations. Legally, then, Indian Nations could fun

1 “Water is Life.” This is the rally of the Standing Rock Sioux, who today fight in federal courts for their right to clean water. damentally be considered as States. Territorial sovereignty, however, mandates the acquisition of territory. These territories are legally defined by borders, and the political rights of sovereignty and jurisdiction are confined within that state’s territory.

Territorial acquisition occurs through terra nullius, a notion which traces its roots to Roman law. Land that has not been previously owned, or land which has been exchanged from one state to another, is considered to be eligible for acquisition. Borders might be defined through two broad processes: original acquisition (occupation) and derivative acquisition (prescription, cession, and conquest & annexation).

Original acquisition, or occupation, is the process of claiming land which is not owned by another state. Occupation typically occurs when land has either been abandoned, or has been newly discovered. Prescription is the second means of land acquisition, denoted by the establishment of a state’s right to land through time. Over period of use, a territory may be said to have been peacefully acquired through a de facto exchange. Cession, alternatively, is the willing exchange of land from one state to another, often through an agreement that benefits both parties in some manner. Land may be sold, borders willingly redrawn, or exchanged through treaties. Cession may also occur as a result of active compulsion, following or under threat of war. Conquest is the final means of acquisition. Through the defeat of another state in war, the exchange of a territory is forced. The land must first be occupied by military forces, and thereafter annexed, for a state to have legal claim to it (Abdulrahim).

The legal process of land acquisition is critical to the definition of a state. The present ownership of land creates socially constructed terms of sovereignty. Today, the Indian Commerce Clause of the Constitution (Article I, 8, Clause 3) largely determines how the federal government and Indian nations interact with one another. In 1824, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that Congress should be held responsible for determining the federal government’s role in intervention with tribal law. The Supreme Court reviews the actions of the executive and legislative bodies of government, as they impact the sovereignty of Indian nations.

The Plenary Power Doctrine actively restricts the sovereignty of tribal nations. Plenary, or complete and unabridged, power was formally assigned to the United States government through the landmark cases of Gibbons v. Ogden, Lonewolf v. Hitchcock, and United States v. Kagama. The Dawes Severalty or General Allotment Act of 1887 authorized the president to, through federal authority, allot land to tribal governments as Congress deems fit. (Indian Land Tenure Foundation). Since these lands are granted, owned by the Federal government but under the temporary jurisdiction of tribal nations, territorial sovereignty within American Indian reservations might be yielded void. This is because the land has never been formally acquisitioned by tribal governments, despite modern consensus of rights by original occupation. As discussed later, the coerced or forced relocation of tribes exchanged the land rights to the United States government, and under treaty, cession had occurred.

The Trust Relationship, or Trust Doctrine, serves as the legal basis of tribes’ right to contest the actions of the federal government. When the United States government’s acts as to violate the Trust Relationship, by physically or culturally threatening tribes, the trust doctrine offers a form of protection. In 1968, the notion of a trust agreement protected the hunting and fishing rights of Menominee tribe. Later, in United States v. Sioux Nation (1980), the trust doctrine secured Sioux tribal property rights. The trust relationship originated through the legal proceedings of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. In 1831, Chief Justice Marshall ruled that the Cherokee Nation did not qualify as a sovereign state, but rather as a ward to the authority of the United States. Referencing the government’s right to intervention, as previously established in the Hopewell Treaties, Marshal described the Cherokee Nation as “a distinct political society ...capable of managing its own affairs and governing itself” (Marshall). Although Marshall argued that the Cherokee Nation would not be granted the authority of a foreign state, a year later in Worcester v. Georgia (1831), he established that they and other Indian nations were effectively sovereign entities, with whom solely the federal government had the right to negotiate. Thus, the Cherokee Nation-- and by that argument, the rest of Indian nation-- and its citizens became the trustees of the United States government (Ezra).

The Standing Rock, Cherokee, Sayisi Dene, Navajo, Crow, and Cocopah are not connected to one another geographically, yet they are connected by the idea of water. To each of these tribes, mni wiconi. Water is life. Legislative and corporate abuse has polluted the water on which these nations depend. Mainstream media has allowed waters to dry, turning a blind eye to tribes’ silenced plight for environmental justice. Each day, the American public is complacent to the political and cultural murder of Native nations.

The Cannonball and Missouri Rivers meet in southernmost North Dakota. In the late summer and early fall of 2016, thousands of protesters gathered together to resist the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, which, upon its completion, will barrage through a total of 1,825 kilometers in North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, until it reaches its final destination in Illinois (Luger). From here, it will connect to the preexisting Bakken Pipeline in Patoka (Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.). As plans stand now, the DAPL will cut through some 50 counties. The pipeline, by technicality, does not fall within the federally recognized borders of the reservation; but the Standing Rock Sioux insist that its construction will threaten their people’s health, culture, and by that right, their dignity.

The organization responsible for the pipeline’s construction, Dakota Access LLC, is a company of Energy Transfer Partners (ETP). The corporation purports that land affected by the pipeline is requisitioned freely. ETP’s own website soothes notions of taken land, speaking to the ethicacy of construction in light of the voluntary land surveys which they are federally required to perform. The surveys, which are described as assessing the civil, environmental and cultural impacts of the pipeline, are undergone following a formal request for voluntary entry onto private land. While ETP assures that agreeing to the survey does not in itself commit landowners to accepting easement, further reading reveals that the refusal to accept the company’s voluntary survey is not without risk of consequence. The ETP Outlines that “In the event that survey permission is denied, laws in each state we propose to operate may require the project to obtain the court’s permission to survey property. In those occurrences where a court order is required for survey, the landowner may be responsible for legal fees related to the proceeding, should the court mandate such payment.”(Energy Transfer FAQ) While is is offered that “landowners are able to provide direct comments to the company regarding the routing,” (Energy Transfer FAQ) the company fails to address to what degree those comments would be considered, if at all. The protests of the Standing Rock Sioux validate this concern of the unsaid, in light of requests for surveys which had gone unanswered.

On February 12, 2013, a representative of the USACE wrote to the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (NATHPO), inquiring as to whether the association had any concerns regarding upcoming borehole testing to be conducted within the Standing Rock Reservation. The Corps has since claimed that the preliminary section 106 process had been concluded, as of January 18, 2015. The Tribe’s requests for a Class III archaeological survey had gone unanswered in the months between.The Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) all later corresponded with ACE-- as late as March, 2016-- in order to address concerns of environmental damage and threats to sites of cultural significance. Despite the written concerns of threats to culturally significant sites, the Corps finalized plans for construction as planned previously in

section 106. On July 25, 2016, the USACE issued Permit 12 and construction proceeded.Later that month, on July 27, 2016, The Standing Sioux Tribe filed a lawsuit against the US Army Corps of Engineers, citing violations of various federal statutes: the Clean Water Act (CWA), Rivers and Harbours Act (RHA), and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (Standing Rock Sioux Tribe vs. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).

The protests gained attention around September 4th, and the number of google searches for “Standing Rock Indian Reservation” and “Dakota Pipeline Protest” reached a maximum shortly thereafter, on September 9th. But the resistance against the pipeline has been active much longer, even well before an official lawsuit was filed. On February 13, 2012, the Nationwide Permit 12 was signed (NWP 12) into action by Major General Michael J. Walsh. In Section 1.4 of NWP 12, commenters respond to the Federal Register notice, raising concerns as to whether substances other than dredged or fill materials would be authorized for release into public waters. Officials state that “The activities authorized by this NWP are not limited to discharges of dredged or fill material. This NWP also authorizes structures or work in navigable waters of the United States that require authorization under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. We do not agree that discharges should be prohibited in open waters, below the ordinary highwater mark. Such activities often result in minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment and qualify for general permit authorization.” (Nationwide Permit 12 6).

On August 4th, 2016, acting on behalf of the Standing Rock Sioux, Earthjustice filed an injunction requesting that the Army Corps of Engineers withdraw the permit (Brave Bull Allard). Later that month, on the 22nd, the Standing Rock Sioux head a peaceful protest against the Corps, blocking construction sites on the Cannonball in a group that police estimated to be as large as 1,500. In response, Greg Wilz organized the removal of water tanks and air-conditioned trailers, which had earlier been brought by the North Dakota Department of Health at the request of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. “Based on the scenario down there, we don’t believe that equipment is secure.” In doing so, he threatened the health of protesters as temperatures reached into the 90’s (Homeland Security Cuts Water Supply...).

This events bring us to what may appear to be the climax of resistance: Energy Transfer Partners’ bulldozers tear a 3.3 kilometer trail onto land that the tribe has contested as sacred, while still awaiting legal consensus. As protests continue into November, 2016, over 40 individuals have been arrested for interfering with construction. Many, including a child, were bitten by police dogs.

President Obama brought a partial and temporary peace by relenting to protests-- halting construction 20 miles east and west of Lake Oahe. But the environmental injustices faced by Indian Nation will continue to be perpetuated, unless the policies which had allowed Judge James Boasberg to rule in Energy Transfer Partners’ favor are reformed entirely. As they stand, current United States environmental legislation fails to protect Native Americans from corporate aggression.

The swell of media coverage of the pipeline had granted a legislative momentum; a movement has occurred amidst an otherwise silent crisis in Indian Nation. While protests had occurred long before they were picked up by mainstream American media, a lack of outward pressure on the federal government had perpetrated legislative inaction. Bringing similar attention to the environmental injustices faced by the Navajo, Crow, and Cocopah nations bears one prospect for reconsideration of United States environmental policies and protection of tribal nations from corporate abuse.

The protests of the Standing Rock Sioux have introduced to mainstream American media one image of the many environmental injustices faced by Native American peoples; but the nation’s majority is otherwise unfamiliar with the ongoing struggles of Indigenous peoples who fight for their right to clean water and sustainable land. The explosion of media coverage has died down as quickly it rose, as most major news sites refer to Obama’s intervention as if it were a resolution. But these issues of land are wide in scope; America’s indigenous people continue each day-- in the absence of media representation-- to be increasingly affected by industrial pollution and the devastating consequences of a changing climate.

To fully understand the severity and implications of a changing Indian country, one must first address the complicated issue of location. Native Peoples are, and (without reconsideration of federal environmental policy) will continue to be, those most vulnerable to environmental concerns. Historically, federal allocations of land have placed reservations on plots that are hardly sustainable. The relocation of Native American tribes have been coercive, forceful, and on many instances, undebatably violent in nature.

In the United States, perhaps the most frequently cited instance of removal is that of the Cherokee. The story of Andrew Jackson’s betrayal in 1830, and some distanced tale of the Trail of Tears, are often referenced in historical cannon. Removal is covered for a week, perhaps even less, and usually, naught spoken of again until America strives to conquer the Western Frontier. The documents and legislation surrounding the removal of the Cherokee, however, are revelatory of broader patterns of the United State’s abuse of the Trust Relationship.

In 1803, Thomas Jefferson wrote to William Henry Harrison (the governor of Indiana, at the time), describing his intention to indebt eastern tribes, and to forcefully relocate those tribes which chose to engage in war with the United States. The sovereignty of Indian Nations had already been loosely established in Federal courts, however, and removal would not take place without fair cause or treaty.

Figure 1.

The Hopewell Treaties and Northwest Ordinance reflect the United States government of Native American sovereignty, for fear of tribal military strength. The War of 1812 had demonstrated the collective force of tribal nations, and even in light of defeat, that Native Nations posed enough of a military threat that it would be tactically beneficial to the United States to seek cooperation.

When, however, Andrew Jackson became President, he asserted that the destiny of the United States lied in westward expansion, and that the Federal government’s pandering to tribal land claims was an obstacle to national growth. During the majority of his time in office, from 1817 to 1826, the civilized tribes (The Cherokees, Chickasaws, Choctaws, and Creeks) surrendered shares of land to the federal government. In 1827, amidst pressures from the Georgia State Government to surrender territory in exchange for land west of the Mississippi, the Cherokee Nation drafted a constitution. The Cherokee Nation had already been represented by twenty-four delegates from its eight districts, and for many years had an established government; yet, the constitution publicly asserted the tribe’s sovereignty and national identity. Monroe, then the president of the United States, advocated for treaty diplomacy with tribal governments.

The First Nations Sayisi Dene bear clearly the consequences of imposed resettlement. In 1956, the band was forcibly removed from their home at Little Duck Lake, Manitoba, on the Canadian territory’s assertion that their hunting practices were a threat to the Quaminjurak Caribou population. There was no evidence to support the removal of the Sayisi Dene. At the site of resettlement, just outside Churchill, poverty and lack of food resources forced many Dene to scavenge through dumpsters. The Manitoba government would bear the responsibility when, by 1973, approximately 117 of the original 250 Sayisi Dene’s lives were taken by extreme poverty and hate crime. (Malone).

The removal of the tribe was utterly devastating. Not only was there a lack of sufficient shelter, but without the caribou which the Sayisi Dene has traditionally hunted, there were no furs for winter clothing, and there was no meat to feed hunting dogs. Starvation and exposure to freezing Canadian winters posed an imminent threat to the band. In 1957, the director of the Department of Health and Public Welfare, Winnipeg, wrote a letter to an official of the Indian Health Services Department of National Health and Welfare. He wrote of his concerns regarding the threat to public health created by the presence of “Indian squatters” in Churchill, explaining that These people are particularly primitive in their ways and live under the most horrible sanitary conditions… As you know, Churchill’s townsite is very much in the mind of Government these days and there is evidence that the special circumstances which obtain there may be recognized so that the beginning of a community betterment program may be undertaken” (Night Spirits 56).

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police addressed some of these “primitive” sanitary concerns by executing the tribe’s remaining dogs, which the Sayisi Dene depended on for trapping.

The Sayisi Dene were widely absent from meetings concerning their removal, and Chief Artie Cheekie was most often referenced as being in agreement with Canadian government plans, despite his not being included in planning prior to or during the tribe’s relocation. In the United States as well as Canada, this is a common history for many indigenous peoples. The exclusion of Native peoples in policy making, the perpetual justification of “bettering” tribes status through purported integration, and the failure to consider customs of survival or cultural practices unfamiliar to bureaucratic governments, especially the collective practices of holding land, is decidedly destructive to peoples whose assimilation they strive for.

These circumstances are overwhelmingly familiar within Native memory. Throughout the Americas, nations have been forced to resettle in land with inadequate access to water, food resources, and in a more modern context, infrastructures which would provide even the most basic utilities-- such as heating, air conditioning, and electricity-- accessible to all. As long as these issues continue to be unaddressed by the federal government, the health, culture, and sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples will be critically threatened by industrial pollution and climate change.

The 1970’s saw the rise of a new wave of political activism in the United States. The movements pushed for civil liberties and environmental regulations, yet failed to include

within mainstream efforts any focus on Native American rights. The spiritualistic tropes applied to Native Peoples served to perpetuate the ignorance of a white majority rather than to combat the status of indigenous Americans in society. The trend continues, and today modern environmental movements still place focus on industry without acknowledging the very specific threats faced by Native Peoples. In exploring both past and ongoing environmental tragedies, and the policies-- or lack thereof-- that would have prevented them, an overwhelming pattern emerges: that both federal and private organizations address their aggressions against Native nations only after tragedies have occurred, rather than adhering to policies that would prevent harm to people and land in the first place. The mechanisms of these aggressions are evident in the corrupt legal proceedings which ended in the removal of the Cherokee, and in the misrepresentation of the Sayisi Dene lifestyle in popular media. These bipartite factors are present, as well, in the modern histories of the Navajo, Crow, and Cocopah.

On August 5th, 2015, the San Juan River flowed yellow when employees and contractors of the Environmental Protection Agency caused the release of 1.137*10 7 Liters of a mine’s overflow. The wastewater was heavily concentrated with numerous heavy metals, including cadmium, lead, and beryllium. The Navajo nation was especially affected by the disaster. Navajo farmers, who depend on the river’s water to irrigate fields and raise livestock, were left without access to potable water. Many fields in the arid desert of Arizona withered in the weeks without access to irrigation (Barrasso). A public apology from representatives of the EPA ensued quite rapidly. Meanwhile, promises of periodic water testing and environmental surveys were hurriedly made, in order to assure not just the tribe, but an otherwise skeptical American public, of the federal government’s willingness to take responsibility for grievances of the Navajo nation. $29 million dollars has since been allocated to the cleanup and continued water testing, but the nation seeks further compensation. On August 15, 2016, the Navajo nation filed a class-action lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency, demanding reparations for psychological and financial damages. John Hueston, the lead prosecutor of the lawsuit, has stated that: The U.S. EPA has yet to provide any meaningful recovery. Efforts to be made whole over the past year have been met with resistance, delays, and second-guessing. Unfortunately this is consistent with a long history of neglect and disregard for the well being of the Navajo (John Hueston)

Among the Navajo, fear remains as to whether trace amounts of heavy metals may have settled within soil, where they might be brought up through erosion and runoff in the future.

The EPA’s apology and subsequent millons-large compensation is reflective of a greater pattern of federal payouts;

Figure 2.

The U.S. government has historically fulfilled its obligation to tribes when issues become too publicised not to do so. The temporary change in color of the Colorado was obvious to a nation absorbed by headlines, while the statistically significant prevalence of birth defects in Navajo children goes widely ignored. To date, the impact of uranium mines dotting western Indian Nation goes insufficiently addressed by the government. No reparations are made for the silent crisis that sweep across Indian Nation.

The United States Public Health Service (PHS) began a study on uranium miners in 1950. The PHS did not inform the Navajo workers of the risks of radiation that were being studied. It was not until 1990 that the United States Congress addressed the (by then) near 600 deaths attributed to lung cancer, which might have been avoided, had the Federal Government required mining companies to install proper ventilation and offered sufficient protection gear. The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) of 1990 offers monetary compensation to any individual who was exposed to radiation during nuclear weapons testing, or who had been exposed to radiation during employment in one of the numerous uranium mines. A maximum of $100,000 may be awarded to miners, and $50,000 may be awarded to those downwind of nuclear test sites between January 1, 1942 and December 31, 1971 (Radiation Exposure Compensation...).

Since RECA was passed, citizens of the Navajo nation have been awarded a total of $212 million toward offsetting medical costs of the act’s approved diseases (Justice.gov 2). Future claims will be barred as of July 29, 2022. Yet still today, as a result of the federal push to mine uranium ores during the Cold War, Navajo residential lands and farmlands remain littered with at least 1,000 abandoned uranium mines (Justice Department Surpasses...). This is the Navajo’s silent crisis.

Increasing access of higher-level education to Native American students is one potential means of emphasizing the concurrent roles of sovereignty and accountability.

When those social systems which oppress native students’ abilities to gain access to equal education are addressed, then internal research would be able to succeed. This is one such goal of the EPA STAR program. The health and educational disparities of the Crow have been combatted through community-based research. Students involved in joint research projects established those issues which they were most exposed to, and in addressing water and soil quality issues, had become those of the tribe most equipped to attending higher education. Many of the students involved in the project pursued graduate degrees in environmental science.Currently, 13,000 people are enrolled members of the Crow Tribe. Pollution in the Little Bighorn River has led the Crow to seek out drinking water from other sources, however use of the River is still religiously significant and serves ceremonial purpose. There is little allocation of funds from the Indian Health Service to pay for testing or treatment of the water. In the 1970’s children who swam in the river contracted shigellosis, yet the Bureau of Indian Affairs purportedly did not look into the tribe’s reports.

In 2000, community members from the Crow tribe managed to acquisition funds from the BIA, and together formed the Crow Environmental Health Steering Committee (CEHSC), which conducted independent testing of water quality, as well as other environmental concerns. Over recent years, the committee has expanded data collection to include research of suspected cancer clusters in the Crow community. The Crow’s efforts stand as a model of the effectively of community-based research. The data collected serves to directly benefit the tribe, and community involvement in research assures that the pacing of the project is in line with the urgency of the issues being studied.

Established evidence of climate change confirms not only that the average global temperature is rising, but that there will be significant environmental damages as a result of temperature changes-- namely local extinction, drought, and wildfires. According to the Canada model, these damages will be most drastic near the equator and in already arid regions. The land on which reservations have been placed (in the largely infertile, artificially irrigated southwest, isolated regions) are most immediately susceptible to water shortages, unemployment, and drought. It is important to note that in addition to direct water shortages, the lack of internal industry within reservations financially obligates many Southwestern nations to use what clean water is available as a commodity to liquidate. In the absence of stable economic systems, many tribes develop infrastructure around tourism. Casinos are said to be built to bring in tourism and provide citizens with work, yet the majority of Native American casinos are not Native-owned, and as with the mining industry, Native citizens’ health is put at risk from those external industries which have taken advantage of and profited from their vulnerability. These are issues that are meant to be addressed by the Federal Trust Doctrine.

The Southwest is already in a 15 year drought. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has projected that droughts will become more frequent. To make matters worse, according to 1990 Census and Indian Health Services, over 12% of tribal housing already lacks sufficient access to electricity and running water. As global climate change causes instances of water shortages increase, droughts will only become more frequent. In the east, the allocation of water resources is determined using the Riparian water system, under which bodies of water that fall within a property’s boundaries are said to be reserved for the use of its owner. In this system, a river that flows between the properties of two people is divided for use. In the east, rainfall is consistent, and the Riparian system is sufficient for raw allocation. In the western United States, however, water shortages are far more prevalent. Rainfall is sparse, and as it is for the Standing Rock Sioux, mni wiconi. Water is life.

Many western states, instead, uphold the Prior Appropriation system. While the Riparian system may trace its roots to English law, the Appropriation system would not gain traction in the United States until the California Gold Rush inspired competition for water rights within the many mining camps. Cooperatively, miners began to divert water to regions where gold had been found previously, and thus was introduced an understanding of water rights that was separate from land itself. Several factors determine the right to appropriate water, primarily including: priority, diversion, beneficial use, and intent. Priority is given to the first person to make use of a body of water. Diversion clarifies that water may be routed away from its natural course. Beneficial use mandates that water may not be wasted, a policy that is highly subjective and described by individual states, counties, and tribal governments. In the west, the right to water is deemed forfeit should it not be made use of for a period of years, or should there be evidence of a company or landowner’s intent to abandon the resource. Finally, intent to make use of water resources must be established through a nonpartisan land survey and application for a water permit.

The Cocopah tribe provides one of the clearest examples of this dependency on water resources. In 1935, the completion of the Hoover dam hailed the largest water reservoir in the United States, to date. This reservoir would serve to irrigate hundreds of thousands of acres of land in the arid southwest, as well as diverting the flow of the Colorado River to regions that were becoming increasingly urbanized. The past several decades have followed suit, with the Colorado’s flow seemingly being diverted from the tribe in greater quantities with each passing year. Amid the media attention given to various environmental concerns, lingering and less-spoken issues of social justice also come to light. The Cocopah Reservation, home to the “People of the River,” has not seen its share of these diverted waters. The some thousand residents of the reservation now import

Figure 3.

their drinking water by truck. The tribe has traditionally depended on the waters for hunting, fishing, and agriculture. In recent decades, due to a combination of diversion and climate change, the river has dried up almost entirely within the reservation.Today, all of the federally recognized tribal nations with land that lies within the Colorado River Basin hold quantified water rights.

For the Cherokee, Sayisi Dene, Navajo, Crow, and Cocopa h, the inherently complex interactions between tribal and federal governments have created long-standing threats to the preservation of tribal culture. Loss of access to hunting and farming resources, diversion of water, groundwater contamination, and industrial pollution have laid heavy economic and social burdens on the tribes, and yet federal legislation has done little to combat such burdens and fulfill the obligations of the Trust Relationship. Rather than by geographic or cultural borders, thStanding Rock Sioux, Cherokee, Sayisi Dene, Navajo, Crow, and Cocopah are connected by a shared history of reliance on water. Water is undoubtedly a source of life. It is a means of industry and economy; it is a means of sovereignty. Yet the absence of media coverage and political awareness threatens these tribes’ waters. The Standing Rock Sioux have come into public light as of the summer of 2016, and continue to fight for their rights to land in federal court. As they protest the pipeline which has actively destroyed sacred lands and might pollute vital water sources, they have been met when an unusual outpouring of public support. Should the Navajo, Crow, and Cocopah find similar representation in American media, there is greater hope, still, for the future of water rights in Indian Nation.

24 Stat., 388.. 1902,.

Abdulrahim, Walid. “State Territory And Territorial Sovereignty”.

Alexeeff, G et al. “Racial/Ethnic Disparities In Cumulative Environmental Health Impacts In California: Evidence From A Statewide Environmental Justice Screening Tool (Calenviroscreen 1.1).” American Journal Of Public Health., vol 105, no. 11, 2015, pp. 2341-8. Bilgen-Reinart, Ustun, and Ila Bussidor. Night Spirits: The Story Of The Relocation Of The Sayisi Dene. 1st ed., Winnipeg, Manitoba, Univ. Of Manitoba Press, 1997.

Braun, Molly, and Carl Waldman. Atlas Of The North American Indian. New York NY, Infobase Publishing, 2009.

Cerrato, JM et al. “Elevated Concentrations Of U And Co-Occurring Metals In Abandoned Mine Wastes In A Northeastern Arizona Native American Community.”. Environmental Science & Technology., vol 49, no. 14, 2015, pp. 8506-14.

Cherokee Nation V. Georgia. 1831,.

“Dakota Access Pipeline FAQ”. 2015.

Donatuto, J et al. “Community-Based Research As A Mechanism To Reduce Environmental Health Disparities In American Indian And Alaska Native Communities”. International Journal Of Environmental Research And Public Health., vol 12, no. 4, 2015.

Eggers, M.J. et al. “Community-Based Participatory Research In Indian Country: Improving Health Through Water Quality Research And Awareness”. Family Community Health, vol 33, no. 3, 2010, pp. 166-174.

Ezra, Jeri. “The Trust Doctrine: A Source Of Protection For Native American Sacred Sites”. Catholic University Law Review, vol 38, no. 3, 1989, pp. 705-735.

“General Allotment Act, Act Of Feb. 8, 1887 (24 Stat. 388, Ch. 119, 25 USCA 331)”.

Goble, Rob, and Doug Brugge. “The History Of Uranium Mining And The Navajo People”. American Journal Of Public Health, vol 92, no. 9, 2002.

Justice Department Surpasses $2 Billion In Awards Under The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. 2015.

Malone, Kelly. “Manitoba’s Sayisi Dene: Forced Relocation, Racism, Survival”. 2016.

McKendry, Jean et al. Burning Questions: A Social Science Research Plan For Federal Wildland Fire Management. 1st ed., Missoula, Montana, National Wildfire Coordinating Group, 2002.

Meyer, Robinson. “The Legal Case For Blocking The Dakota Access Pipeline”. The Atlantic, 2016.

Nation Wide Permit 12. 2012.

National Environmental Policy Act Of 1969, As Amended. 2000,.

Nationwide Permit 12. 2012,.

Nez, H et al. “Environmental Exposures To Metals In Native Communities And Implications For Child Development: Basis For The Navajo Birth Cohort Study”. Journal Of Social Work In Disability & Rehabilitation., vol 14, 2015, pp. 245-69.

North, Dakota Michael T et al. “EPA’S GOLD KING MINE DISASTER: EXAMINING THE HARMFUL IMPACTS TO INDIAN COUNTRY”. 2015.

North, Dakota Michael T et al. “EPA’s Gold King Mine Disaster: Examining The Harmful Impacts To Indian Country”. 2015.

Petch, Virginia, and Virginia Petch. “Relocation And Loss Of Homeland, The Story Of The Sayisi Dene Of Northern Manitoba.”. 2007.

“Plenary Power Doctrine”. 2016.

Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. 1990,.

Sammon, Alexander. “A History Of Native Americans Protesting The Dakota Access Pipeline”. 2016.

“Sayisi Dene: Displaced”. 2016.

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe V. U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers. 2016,.

Yazzie-Lewis, Esther et al. The Navajo People And Uranium Mining. 1st ed., Albuquerque, UNM Press, 2006.