Irrigation and Drainage Systems

, Volume 23, Issue 2–3, pp 79–96 | Cite as

The Arizona Water Settlement Act and urban water supplies



The 2004 Arizona Water Settlements Act (AWSA 2004) when implemented will allocate to two Native American tribes, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) and the Tohono O’odham Nation (TON) almost ten percent of Arizona’s total developed water supply, which is 7.04 million acre-feet a year. The successful passage of AWSA, given the scale of the water rights settlement and competing uses for finite water supplies, is the topic of this paper. Key motivations for the settlement are that: (1) the 653,500 acre-feet a year allocation is around a third of the GRIC’s Gila River Adjudication 2001 claim; (2) the GRIC signed a number of water leases and exchanges providing water to municipalities and has not ruled out signing more; and (3) AWSA resolved more than tribal water claims; it also settled thorny issues of Central Arizona Project (CAP) debt repayment (for $2 billion in construction costs) and division of water allocation between federal (Indian) and state (non-Indian) uses including the reallocation of high priority uncontracted CAP water to cities.


Native American water rights Water reallocation Water rights settlement Central Arizona project 



This research was supported by Sustainability of semi-Arid Hydrology and Riparian Areas (SAHRA), a National Science Foundation, Science and Technology Center (Agreement No. EAR-9876800). Thanks also to the helpful comments and suggestions of two anonymous reviewers.


  1. ADWR (2004) Issue Summaries for Governor Janet Napolitano, from the Groundwater Users Advisory Council, Tucson Active Management Area. Arizona Department of Water Resources, Groundwater Users Advisory Council, Tucson Active Management Area. Water Listening Session, Tucson, December 14, 2004. (Accessed 21 Oct 2008)
  2. ADWR (2006) Technical Assessment of the Gila River Indian Community Water Rights Settlement. In re The General Adjudication of the Gila River System and Source. Arizona Department of Water Resources, August 23, 2006.
  3. ADWR (2009). Securing Arizona’s Water Future. (Accessed 2 March, 2009)
  4. Arizona v. California (1964). 373 U.S at 600, 83 S. Ct. at 1498Google Scholar
  5. AWSA (2004) Arizona Water Settlement Act, Public Law 108–451-Dec. 10, 2004Google Scholar
  6. AWSA Hearing (2003) Arizona Water Settlements Act: J. Hearing on S. 437 Before the Subcomm. on Water and Power of the Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources and the Comm. on Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. 23 (2003) (testimony of Richard Narcia, Governor, Gila River Indian Community). (Accessed 14 Sep 2007)
  7. Bark RH, Jacobs KL (2009) Indian Water Rights Settlements and Water Management Innovations: The Role of the Arizona Water Settlements Act. Water Resour. Res. accepted February 2009Google Scholar
  8. Blumm MC, Becker DH, Smith JD (2006) The Mirage of Indian Reserved Water Rights and Western Streamflow Restoration in the McCarran Amendment Era: A Promise Unfulfilled. Environ Law 36(4):1157–1203Google Scholar
  9. CAGRD (2009) Water Supplies: CAGRD’s Authority to Hold Water Rights. (Accessed 17 Apr 2009)
  10. CAP (2008a) Allocations. then click on Subcontract Status Report April 2009 (Accessed 1 Jun 2009)
  11. CAP (2008b) Acquisition, Development & Delivery of New Water Supplies. Project ADD water. (Accessed 17 Apr 2009)
  12. CAP (2009) Rates. ( Accessed 17 Apr 2009)
  13. CAWCD (2008) Central Arizona Water Conservation District Public Policy Committee meeting, Dec 4, 2008, public comments by Larry Dozier, Deputy General Manager of Central Arizona ProjectGoogle Scholar
  14. Christensen NS, Lettenmaier DP (2007) A multimodel ensemble approach to assessment of climate change impacts on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River Basin. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 11:1417–1434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Colby BG, Thorson JE, Britton S (2005) Negotiating Tribal Water Rights: Fulfilling Promises in the Arid West. The University of Arizona Press. ISBN 0-8165-2455-6Google Scholar
  16. Dejong DH (2007) “The Sword of Damocles?” The Gila River Indian Community Water Settlement Act of 2004 in Historical Perspective. Wicazo SA Rev 22(2):57–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fed Reg (1990) Criteria and Procedures for the Participation of the Federal Government in Negotiations for the Settlement of Indian Water Rights Claims. 55 Fed. Reg. 9223 (1990)Google Scholar
  18. Gila River Adjudication (2001) In the Gen. Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River Sys. & Source, 35 P/3d68, 79 (Ariz. 2001)Google Scholar
  19. Gila III (1999) In re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System and Source, 195 Ariz. 411, 414, ¶5, 989 P.2d at 748Google Scholar
  20. GRIC Settlement (2003) Gila River Indian Community Water Rights Settlement, February 4, 2003. 43 USC 1501Google Scholar
  21. Glennon RJ, Culp PW (2002) The last green lagoon: how and why the Bush Administration should save the Colorado River Delta. Ecol Law Q 28(4):903–992Google Scholar
  22. Globe Equity (1935) United States of America v. Gila Valley Irrigation District, Globe Equity No. 59, et al., entered in the United States District Court for the District of ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  23. IGA (2000) A resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Pima County relating to water; authorizing and approving the execution of a supplemental intergovernmental agreement with the City of Tucson and Pima County Flood control District regarding effluent. Pima County Resolution No. 2000-28. Sec. Scholar
  24. IFSC (2005) Indian Firming Study Commission Interim Report Draft 10-06-05. Indian Firming Study Commission (Accessed 6 May 2006)
  25. Hoerling MP, Eischeid JK (2007). Past peak water in the southwest. In the special issue Inconvenient Hydrology? in Southwest Hydrol., 6 (1) January/FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  26. Lewis RB, Hestand JT (2006) Federal reserved water rights: Gila River Indian Community Settlement. J Contemporary Water Res Educ 133:34–42Google Scholar
  27. McCarthy R (2004) The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Federal Trust Obligation to American Indians. The BYU J Public Law 19(1):1–160Google Scholar
  28. Raley BW (2003) Statement of Bennett W. Raley, Assistant Secretary, Water And Science, Before The Senate Energy & Natural Resources And Select Indian Affairs Committee On S. 437 Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act Of 2003 September 30, 2003. (Accessed 17 Apr 2009)
  29. ROD (2007) Record of Decision: Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Interim Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead. December 2007. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  30. SAWRSA (1982) Southern Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act, P.L. 97-293, 96 Stat. 1274 (1982)Google Scholar
  31. SAWRSA (1992) Southern Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act, P.L. 102–497, 106 Stat. 3255 (1992)Google Scholar
  32. SRP-MIC WRSA (1988) Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act, Pub. L. 100–512Google Scholar
  33. Smith D (2005) Note, Doctrinal Anachronism?: Revisiting the Practicably Irrigable Acreage Standard in Light of International Law for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Ariz J Intl Comp Law 22(3):712–713Google Scholar
  34. United States v. Haggard (1903) U.S. v. N.W. Haggard, No. 19 (D. Ariz. 3d Jud. Dist. June 11, 1903Google Scholar
  35. USBR (2007) Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Final Environmental Impact Statement. October 2007Google Scholar
  36. Water Strategist (2008) The Water Strategist, June 2008, p2Google Scholar
  37. Winters vs. United States (1908) 207 U.S. 564Google Scholar
  38. Worster D (1985) Rivers of Empire: Water, Aridity, and the Growth of the American West. Pantheon Books, New York. ISBN 0-19-507806-3 (PBK)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Postdoctoral Research Associate, Department of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations