This study identifies the historical factors that impacted Pima agriculture, water use and water rights in south-central Arizona between 1848 and 1921. Federal land and resource policies, especially federal Indian policies, impacted the dynamics of Pima agriculture and water use during these crucial years when the federal government utilized economic liberalism to open the West to homesteading and facilitate the development of the region's vast resources.As an agricultural people, the Pima did not passively accept these policies and events. Rather, they proved adaptive, demonstrating their resourcefulness in important ways. In response to water deprivation and infringement of their water rights, the Pima reduced the amount of land they cultivated. While before 1880 they had increased their cultivated acreage and expanded their trade networks, in the years after they creatively found ways to keep land in production despite water shortages. As the water crisis deepened, the Pima abandoned their least productive lands. In the midst of great deprivation, they relocated (or abandoned) a number of villages and scores of fields in an attempt against great odds to maintain their agricultural economy. To make the most of their diminishing water resources, the Pima adapted by growing small grains such as wheat and barley, even when these crops no longer proved to be economically viable in Arizona. While not new to their crop rotation, the Pima relied almost exclusively upon these crops by the 1910s since they required considerably less water than others.Because the Pima had prior and paramount rights to the water and were wrongfully deprived of their rights to the use of water, their water rights struggle raised a metaphorical Damoclean sword above the heads of those non-Indian farmers who used the water. This study, therefore, focuses on the history of water use and agricultural production among the Pima Indians between 1848 and 1921 and argues that without infringement of their rights to water, the Pima would have equaled and perhaps surpassed the local agricultural economy.

The ability to decisively benefit from ample sources of freshwater represents a pivotal challenge for American Indian nations and their self-determination in the western United States. Climate change, population growth, and capitalist pressures continue to escalate demand for water in an already dry land. This project set out to listen and add practical perspective to the importance of water as reflected in various forms of stories in the context of American Indian reserved water rights. It explores dynamic confluences and divergences of worldviews that influence American Indian nations' relationships with water in the present sociopolitical context. The integral relationship between literatures, laws, and tribal sovereignty constructs this study's theoretical framework as it broadens scholarship on this connection to include the implications of water rights. This approach leads to a critical, or perhaps "literary critical," background for examining two major water rights struggles in the western United States; the first being court decisions on the Wind River Indian Reservation, home of the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes, and secondly, the Klamath-Trinity Basin, where four federally recognized tribes recently partook in water rights settlement negotiations. Litigation and negotiations over vital water are presently limited to the minefield of ambiguous Western narratives on the values and uses of Indian water rights. While each conflict has its unique circumstances and personalities, EuroAmerican stories of control and superiority continue to justify the exploitation of water and subjugation of Indigenous human rights. Alternative forums might make room for restorying and more sustainably managing water.

abstract: Indian water rights and Indian water settlements have emerged as a means for resolving long-standing despites and water rights claims. Working with and understanding water rights demands a genuine knowledge of water issues that are specific to each indigenous community as there are cultural aspects and perspectives towards water that are involved. The Gila River Indian Community is an indigenous community in south central Arizona, whose cultural and historic origins span over two millennia. Their foundation as a people was tied to the presence of the Gila and Salt Rivers, from which they freely diverted its waters through hundreds of miles of hand-dug canals, to transform the Sonoran desert into a desert oasis. There is a historical progression of this Community's water rights from when water was abundant to the time it was scarce, leading to an outright denial of a livelihood where water and farming was central to their way of life. A water rights settlement was an option that was pursued because it offered a chance for the Community to see the return of their water. The 2004 Gila River Indian Community Water Rights Settlement has been recognized as the largest Indian water rights settlement in United States history and serves as a model for future water settlements. The success of Indian water settlements in the United States has the potential, under the right political and legal conditions, to be replicated in other areas of the world where water resources are under dispute and water rights have come into conflict between indigenous and non-indigenous users. / Dissertation/Thesis / M.A. Social Justice and Human Rights 2012

Tribal water rights and instream flows for species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) have been a source of tensions in the western United States, particularly when tribes have undetermined water rights to support tribal fisheries listed under the ESA. Understanding the mechanics of past tribal settlements and their strengths and weaknesses in resolving disputes over instream flows for tribal trust fisheries listed under the ESA will allow parties involved in negotiations to evaluate whether similar provisions should be incorporated into future settlements. A review of the 27 congressionally approved tribal water settlements for instream flow and ESA provisions revealed that instream rights were either established as junior rights or reallocated from existing rights. The ESA was a factor in many of the settlements; however, only one actively incorporated ESA tools as part of the benefits of the settlement. After this preliminary evaluation, a comparative analysis framework with 28 criteria for evaluating environmental conflict resolution was applied to the Nez Perce Water Rights Settlement and Pyramid Lake Paiute Water Rights Settlement to identify strengths and weaknesses of using tribal water settlements as a means to resolve disputes involving instream flow claims. From my analysis, I conclude that tribal water settlements offer unique opportunities to shift the status quo and address historic inequities while minimizing harm to existing water users; however, settlement agreements may not result in an outcome that reduces conflict without a concerted effort to establish a fair process and minimize the impacts of the agreement on other parties. Furthermore, despite the many benefits of settlement agreements, since they have not delivered time-immemorial rights for fisheries, other options will likely be a continued consideration for tribes seeking to restore fisheries. However, while litigation presents a risky though lucrative outcome, rights under state law are in line with what has been granted in settlements. Given the time, effort and cost associated with settlements, I suggest that since tribal water right settlements generally use state tools to establish instream flows, states and tribes may reduce future conflict by proactively working together to establish instream flows through existing state water reallocation mechanisms. / Graduation date: 2012