Native American Tribes’ Colorado River Water Settlement Stalled Amid Interstate Dispute

A proposed agreement to resolve the largest outstanding Native American water rights claim on the Colorado River is facing opposition from four states, stalling efforts to deliver water and infrastructure to three tribes in northern Arizona. The settlement, known as the Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, would secure water for the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, and San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, as well as provide approximately $5 billion in federal funding to construct infrastructure for water delivery and treatment across their reservations. It also includes the establishment of a reservation for the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, whose previous attempts to secure a permanent homeland have not advanced independently in Congress.

The tribes, whose lands are situated in regions where a significant proportion of homes lack access to running water, have been engaged in decades-long negotiations to achieve this settlement. According to Hopi Tribal Council member Marilyn Tewa, in her village of Mishongnovi, residents rely on hauling untreated water in buckets from a windmill several miles away, and use portable toilets due to the absence of indoor plumbing. Tewa expressed hope that passage of the settlement would provide critical water access for current and future generations.

The settlement has the support of the Lower Basin states—Arizona, California, and Nevada—but is being blocked by the Upper Basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. The core issue is a provision allowing the Navajo and Hopi to lease a portion of their water rights, likely to urban areas around Phoenix, to fund the infrastructure needed to deliver water to their reservations. The Upper Basin states contend that such leasing could set a precedent for water transfers out of their control and potentially allow downstream cities to outbid them for water in the future. They have argued that existing rules governing the river give them veto authority over any settlement that involves water crossing the upper-lower basin boundary, a line that cuts through northeastern Arizona and the Navajo reservation. Whether unanimous approval from all seven basin states is legally required remains unresolved.

In written statements to Congress, Utah and Wyoming negotiators expressed concerns about the potential impact of the settlement on their states’ Colorado River water allocations. New Mexico’s government acknowledged that most concerns had been addressed, but questions persisted regarding whether leased water to Arizona cities would count against the Upper Basin’s legal water delivery obligations to the Lower Basin. Colorado’s lead river negotiator, Becky Mitchell, stated that the leasing provisions violated river laws and threatened the security of Colorado’s share.

To address these apprehensions, the tribes made significant concessions. They agreed to limit the volume and duration of water available for leasing and proposed leaving some of their water in a drought-depleted reservoir to support downstream flows. Despite these changes, the Upper Basin states have maintained their opposition. Navajo President Buu Nygren emphasized that leasing would be temporary—intended only to fund infrastructure—and argued that no precedent would be set, as no other tribe’s lands straddle both basins. "We shouldn’t be punished for being in two basins," Nygren stated, referencing the uniqueness of the Navajo, Hopi, and San Juan Southern Paiute claims.

The dispute occurs in the context of long-standing water shortages and unresolved legal obligations. The 1908 Supreme Court decision established that the federal government owes tribes sufficient water to sustain agricultural economies on their reservations. However, the process of quantifying and securing these "Winters rights" has been slow and contested. Tribes were largely excluded from the original compacts dividing the river’s flow and have faced repeated setbacks in court and in Congress. The Navajo, after rejecting a previous settlement in 2012, unsuccessfully sought a Supreme Court ruling requiring the federal government to expedite their claims.

Currently, 30 federally recognized tribes with land in the Colorado River Basin are estimated to hold rights to at least one-quarter of the river’s annual flow. However, because tribes use only a fraction of their entitled share, other users—including cities, farmers, and businesses—have been able to utilize the surplus. Ethel Branch, former Navajo attorney general, described the current situation as one where the basin states benefit from "free" tribal water in the absence of a settlement. Should tribes begin using their full entitlement, the existing system that underpins economic activity across the region could be disrupted.

The process of developing the settlement required overcoming divisions among the tribes themselves as well as historical tensions with Arizona. The Navajo and Hopi have had a contentious relationship, and past state proposals included provisions that tribes saw as obstructive. Nevertheless, the three tribes united behind a joint claim, prompting Arizona to shift its position. The settlement was then introduced in Congress, but further obstacles arose. The House expressed concern over the cost, and the executive branch has been reluctant to prioritize the measure amid a backlog of other water rights settlements, none of which have passed since 2022.

In November 2024, as a possible change in presidential administration loomed, tribal leaders attempted to finalize the deal by offering additional leasing restrictions during a meeting in Phoenix attended by state and federal representatives. Despite these efforts, the Upper Basin states presented new objections, and negotiations stalled. In March 2026, tribal leaders testified at a Senate hearing, urging passage of the revised bill. While the committee chair, Senator Lisa Murkowski, voiced support, she and an Interior Department official noted concerns over the $5 billion price tag, with ongoing negotiations to reduce costs.

The settlement’s supporters argue that water access is essential for public health, economic development, and the preservation of cultural practices. The Hopi, for example, have seen traditional springs dry up, impacting both ceremony and agriculture. Councilmember Marilyn Fredericks likened the proposed pipeline to an "umbilical cord" for future generations, emphasizing water’s central role in community survival. For the San Juan Southern Paiute, the agreement represents the long-awaited opportunity to establish a reservation and build a sustainable economy.

Despite having previously hosted infrastructure critical to regional water and energy supply—such as the Navajo Generating Station and its intake plant—the tribes themselves now lack the water and facilities needed for basic domestic use. The intake plant, intended for a future pipeline known as iiná bá-paa tuwaqat’si ("for life" in Diné and "water is life" in Hopi), remains unused while the settlement is unresolved. Tribal leaders have highlighted the contrast between their communities’ needs and the water-intensive amenities available elsewhere in the basin.

While the Lower Basin states support the deal, the impasse among the Upper Basin states, Congress, and the White House continues. The outcome of these negotiations will determine whether the tribes gain access to water rights recognized over a century ago, as well as the infrastructure necessary for their use. The broader struggle reflects ongoing questions of equity, legal precedent, and the allocation of a resource vital to nearly 40 million people and substantial economic activity throughout the region.