The Supreme Court has ruled against the Navajo Nation in a dispute involving water from the drought-stricken Colorado River. States that draw water from the river — Arizona, Nevada and Colorado — and water districts in California had urged the court to decide for them, and that's what the justices did. Colorado said siding with the Navajo Nation would undermine existing agreements and disrupt the river's management. The Biden administration said that if the court ruled for the Navajo Nation, the government could face lawsuits from many other tribes. The Navajo Nation's president says the ruling is “disappointing" and lawyers are reviewing it. A lawyer who represented states opposing the tribe’s claims says the justices “ruled exactly right.”
    • Ertebolle@kbin.social
      2·
      1 year ago

      Twitter:

      Gorsuch normally: it’s completely within an employer’s rights to castrate any employee
      Gorsuch on reservation law: I am issuing this ruling from Piscataway land,

  • tl;dr bot@lemmy.worldBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    tl;dr:

    WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled against the Navajo Nation on Thursday in a dispute involving water from the drought-stricken Colorado River. States that draw water from the river - Arizona, Nevada and Colorado - and water districts in California that are also involved in the case had urged the court to decide for them, which the justices did in a 5-4 ruling. In 2003 the tribe sued the federal government, arguing it had failed to consider or protect the Navajo Nation’s water rights to the lower portion of the Colorado River. During arguments in the case in March, Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that the Navajo Nation’s original reservation was hundreds of miles away from the section of the Colorado River it now seeks water from. The states involved in the case argued that the Navajo Nation was attempting to make an end run around a Supreme Court decree that divvied up water in the Colorado River’s Lower Basin.

    I am a bot in training. Suggestions?

    • Thepinyaroma@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      Oh it definitely is complicated, and I’m not an expert in any sense. As I understand it a lot of the original water rights in this area were given out during unusually wet years, which has been a cascade of failures since.

      I don’t know that it should have been the Supreme Court dealing with this. Seems like congress should have, but doesn’t like to weigh in anymore. Especially since fixing the water problems out here would cost money and maybe even require us to stop building houses, golf courses, etc… so it gets punted to SCOTUS by default.

      It feels unjust to me to guarantee people a permanent home somewhere and not have a responsibility to somehow address their water needs. Although, how do you give them more of something that barely exists as is?

      I just hate how our government has so effortlessly “othered” people throughout the years. I feel like if 1/3 of Tuscon (about 175,000 people) didn’t have running water, every level of the government wouldn’t just shrug.

      It is a terribly complicated issue and I don’t know how to fix it without changing human nature. It’s just endlessly frustrating.