By: Daniel Cordalis
July 22, 2026
Published as part of The Headwaters Report

A Bad Week for Tribal Nations

What a bad week last week was. Despite an ongoing cacophony of proposed environmental regulatory rollbacks, energy infrastructure build outs (including data centers), and threats to public lands, the rubber hadn’t yet hit the road on many of these actions, and we were steeling ourselves in anticipation of bad decisions. Then last week happened. In the span of a few days, we watched three separate federal and state actions land major blows against Native American interests, including homelands (Bears Ears reduction), treaty rights and resources (Line 5 pipeline permit approved), and the ecosystems on which species depend (significant Endangered Species Act regulation changes).

Sure, we expected these changes on a this-is-the-world-we-now-live-in level, and we know more bad decisions impacting Tribal Nations are to come (see below), but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pause to think and feel the impact of the week.

To be sure, these decisions happened without Tribal Nation input in any meaningful way. Sacred lands, treaty-protected waters, and species we’ve stewarded since time immemorial are not viewed as necessary parts of our world that are worth protecting. Certainly, current political leaders do not see themselves as stewards of these resources. Instead, these treasures are being treated as obstacles to a future that is not encumbered by the legal and moral obligations that this country owes to sovereign Tribal Nations.

However, my mentors in this field imparted the notion, in me and others, that this is a long game. Tribal sovereignty is a long game. In meeting with federal or state officials, Tribal leaders often proclaim that the Tribes were here first and they will be here after everyone else is gone. Our stewardship will last beyond the decisions of today. It is easy to get caught up in the concept that the sky is falling, but it isn’t — at least not everywhere. However, what is happening in some cases, like in the Line 5 pipeline, could bring irreversible damage to Tribal and non-Tribal communities. Today’s decisions will significantly impact our shared ability to live on this land in the right way in the future, at least until we can right today’s wrongs.

Bears Ears, Gutted Again

On Monday, July 13, the president signed executive orders slashing Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument by a combined nearly three million acres, cutting more than 90 percent from each. The executive order also sought to terminate the Bears Ears Commission, an intertribal group with representatives of the five Tribal Nations tasked with collaborating with the federal government on monument management. The monument’s reduction would open the former monument lands up to mining, broader off-road recreation, and other extractive and potentially destructive land uses. Although to be sure, the larger monument did not restrict these activities entirely, only narrowed them to certain areas.

The Bears Ears National Monument, created by President Obama in 2016 after decades of advocacy by five sovereign Tribal Nations — the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, Ute Indian Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and Pueblo of Zuni — will ostensibly shrink from 1.36 million acres to roughly 121,000. No consultation was initiated with the Tribes before the decision was made.

Of course, this is second time this president has attempted this kind of monument rollback at Bears Ears. Existing litigation on whether the president has authority under the Antiquities Act to undo a predecessor’s monument designation at this scale is ongoing. For my Tribe, the Navajo Nation, and the other Bears Ears Tribes, this isn’t an abstract land-use dispute — it’s a direct threat to our ability to protect ancestral sites from looting, grazing, drilling, and uranium mining as well as a threat to our ability to interact with the land and its resources in ways we have done since time immemorial.

Notably, the president’s reduction rationale is riddled with errors and intentional misinformation. He claimed at a press conference that people could not use the monument lands, that “[y]ou could virtually not even walk on it.” The executive order itself asserted the landscape was commonplace, with “ordinary,” “relatively common” features found throughout the region. As any of us that have been on the ground at Bears Ears know, very little about this place is ordinary.

NARF has been engaged with Tribal Nations on Bears Ears Monument defense for over a decade and we will continue to support the rights and ability of Tribes to a protected Bears Ears landscape.

Line 5: Bulldozing Tribal Rights and Public Water Supply Concerns

On Wednesday July 15, two days later, Michigan regulators approved one of the permits Enbridge Energy needs to build a new pipeline tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac, the stretch of the Great Lakes connecting Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. The long-fought Line 5 tunnel project would envelop the Canadian oil pipeline underneath the Straits of Mackinac for another century. The Bay Mills Indian Community, represented by Earthjustice and the Native American Rights Fund (NARF), has led Michigan tribal efforts to oppose the tunnel project before the state agencies and other authorities for years.

State officials conceded the project carries significant impacts, including an unprecedented scale of disruption of Tribal burial sites and other cultural resources in Michigan, as well as harm to wetlands and rare species, even as they concluded the public and private need for the pipeline outweighed those costs. Tribal Nations, including the Bay Mills Indian Community, have fought this project for years, arguing  that it threatens Tribal resources in the Straits, a place of deep spiritual and cultural significance to Anishinaabe people. Further, the Straits sit at the heart of waters reserved for Tribal fishing under treaties. A rupture or long-term construction disturbance would devastate fisheries and water quality that Tribal and non-Tribal communities rely on for subsistence and livelihood, while the initial construction will unquestionably desecrate Tribal burials. For Tribal Nations in the Great Lakes region, this permit approval is a reminder that treaty rights are still treated as an afterthought rather than a legal obligation.

Stripping Habitat Protections from the ESA – Fisheries, Habitats at Risk

Finally, last week the administration finalized significant Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulatory changes, including rescinding the fifty-year-old regulatory definition of “harm” under the ESA, allowing consideration of financial and national security impact of designating critical habitat, and no longer giving threatened species the same protections as endangered species.  

Critically, the ESA prohibits the “take” of endangered species, which included the “harm” of species, meaning “significant habitat modification or degradation [that] actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” 50 CFR § 17.3. The Supreme Court upheld this standard in Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 515 U.S. 687 (1995). Under the new rule, however, destroying a nest, wetland, or fish spawning ground is no longer illegal unless the harm to the species is intentional and direct.

For Tribal Nations whose treaty-reserved hunting, fishing, and gathering rights depend on healthy fish and wildlife populations — like Pacific Northwest and Great Lakes Tribes —this change strikes directly at the resource foundation those rights were meant to protect. Salmon, sturgeon, and other culturally significant fish species already struggling with habitat loss from development, damming, and warming waters will have one less legal protection standing between them and further degradation, which also impacts Tribal rights to harvest those fish. For Tribal Nations like The Klamath Tribes, who are actively restoring habitat to support both the endangered C’waam and now returning coho and chinook salmon, this regulatory change could have impacts on that restoration work.

Additional resources:

• ESA “Harm” Rescission: Implications Far Beyond Habitat | Holland & Hart LLP
• Department of the Interior Restores Clear ESA Enforcement by Rescinding Misguided “Harm” Definition | U.S. Department of the Interior
• Trump administration faces lawsuits over change to Endangered Species Act : NPR

The Round Up

Here’s a roundup of the relevant water law/policy developments from roughly mid-May to mid-July.

• The CWA Section 401 rule was sent to the Office of Management & Budget for review.  The Rule will likely be final within 30 days. In January, EPA proposed rewriting the Section 401 certification rules to narrow state and Tribal authority to review and condition federally permitted projects, largely reverting to the more restrictive 2020 framework. Key changes would eliminate the process allowing Tribes to obtain “treatment as a state” (TAS) status solely for Section 401 certification purposes, instead requiring Tribes to first obtain TAS for water quality standards under Section 303(c) — a much heavier lift. The proposal would also erase the ability of Tribes to deny certification based on their own sovereign laws and regulations, which is particularly significant for the more than 30 Tribes that have TAS authorization to certify but haven’t yet gotten EPA approval of their own water quality standards. NARF and Earthjustice together submitted comments on behalf of Tribal Nations.
• The proposed rule narrowing waters of the United States (WOTUS)  first published last November — National Congress of American Indians/NARF and Earthjustice each submitted comments on behalf of Tribal Nations — remains in the finalization pipeline. In late June, EPA sent a supplement to its previous WOTUS definition to the White House for review, indicating some changes to the November proposal, but the goals of the rule remain the same. Ultimately, the WOTUS proposal would narrow Clean Water Act coverage of wetlands and seasonal water bodies by requiring “relatively permanent” flow and a “continuous surface connection” to a jurisdictional water, following the Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett decision.
• In May, EPA proposed two significant changes to the 2024 PFAS drinking water rule: one would rescind the national drinking water standards for four PFAS compounds (PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA/GenX, and their combined hazard index), while the other would extend the compliance deadline for PFOA and PFOS from 2029 to 2031 for utilities that request an extension. Public water systems serving Tribal and low-income communities are disproportionately likely to have high PFAS levels and to sit near current or historical contamination sites, so this rollback lands hardest exactly where it’s least affordable to absorb. Comments closed July 20, and EPA has said it intends to act on the rescission sometime this year.
• Tribes have negotiated a settlement resolving the largest outstanding Tribal claim to the Colorado River, with billions of dollars for water infrastructure, but Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming — the Upper Basin states — are resisting the deal because it would allow the Navajo and Hopi to lease water outside their reservations.

---

By: Daniel Cordalis
December 1, 2025
Published as part of The Headwaters Report

EPA and Army Corps Propose Revised Waters of the United States Rule, Narrowing the Reach of the Clean Water Act, Comments Requested (due Jan. 5, 2026)

On November 17, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) announced a proposed rule affecting the reach of the Clean Water Act (CWA) by proposing to “clarify the definition of ‘waters of the United States’ and fully implement the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. 651 (2023).” The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register (90 Fed. Reg. 52498) on November 20, 2025. There is a 45-day public comment period ending on January 5, 2026. Please also see our guide to commenting on the proposed WOTUS rule.

Background

The designation of waters of the United States (“WOTUS”) is important as it determines what waters – e.g., rivers, smaller tributaries, ephemeral streams and washes, wetlands – are subject to CWA protections and what waters are otherwise left to state jurisdiction and protection, if any. The 2023 Sackett v. EPA decision fundamentally changed the interpretation of what WOTUS are. Before the Sackett ruling, EPA employed a “significant nexus” test to determine if a waterbody was a WOTUS, looking at whether the waterbody affected the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of existing WOTUS. This examination focused on how the waterbody interacted with a WOTUS.

The Court in Sackett, however, effectively removed the scientific analysis and concluded WOTUS were only “relatively permanent” waters, and that wetlands are only protected where they have “continuous surface connection” to, or abut, other WOTUS. As a result of the Court’s ruling in Sackett, the agencies first amended the 2023 rule to remove the existing “significant nexus” standard, drastically limiting the CWA’s application to wetlands and leaving many ephemeral streams – particularly in the desert southwest – without protection. This change left a gaping jurisdictional hole and burden on Tribal, state, and local jurisdictions to step in to protect waters no longer protected under federal law.

Proposed Rule

Now, the 2025 proposed rule goes even further than discussed in Sackett and narrows significantly what is considered a WOTUS, thereby reducing the CWA’s coverage over waters previously protected under the Act. This reduction includes most of the wetlands in Alaska that do not have a continuous, visible surface connection to a navigable water, and puts into question protections over ephemeral streams and tributaries throughout the western United States.

This proposed rule matters to Tribal Nations for at least a few reasons. First, it reduces previously protected waters that may flow or influence waters that flow onto Tribal lands, potentially impacting water quality on Tribal waters and lands. Second, the proposed rule could remove water quality protections on off-reservation or Treaty-protected waterbodies where Tribal fisheries or harvesting occur. Finally, many wetlands in Alaska may not be protected by the rule and make it easier for development through mining or other land-use changes to occur.

Comment Coordination

NARF is coordinating with its partners to ensure Tribal Nations get information on the proposed WOTUS rule and have ability to sign onto a comment letter or submit their own. Earthjustice plans to again represent Tribes and submit comments on this issue, NCAI plans to organize outreach and coordinate comments, and NARF will support in whatever capacity is helpful, including representing Tribes and drafting comments. If you are interested in learning about opportunities for coordination, including outreach to Earthjustice or NCAI, please email Daniel Cordalis at cordalis@narf.org.

Additional information on the proposed rule:

• Harvard Law School Regulatory Tracker
• Clean Water For All WOTUS Proposed Rule Toolkit
• EPA Proposed Rule Information
• Federal Register Page (#2025-20402)

---

By: Daniel Cordalis
July 31, 2025
Published as part of The Headwaters Report

Since the last Field Notes posting in May, time has passed like a year. The volume of issues coming from Washington, DC, has us moving at a rapid pace. In the last two months, the administration and Congress have been through the final negotiations and passage of the 1,000+-page budget reconciliation bill (aka, the One Big Beautiful Bill, or, the Megabill), numerous agencies releasing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidance or proposed rules, the start of Clean Water Act (CWA) regulation rollbacks, high court decisions greenlighting federal employee firings, and energy project fast-tracking, to name a few. 

Meanwhile, Tribal water issues continue to burn at a steady rate, with the re-introduction of twelve water rights-related bills in Congress, constituting new settlements and amendments to existing settlements; Colorado River management plan development to beat the 2026 deadline; more Klamath River water distribution disputes; and the federal withdrawal of the Columbia River Agreement that supported the restoration of salmon in the river and Tribal rights to the river’s fisheries.  

Because there are so many things to update, below are snapshots of key issues and concepts, followed by noteworthy regulatory issues: 

• NARF/WWSC Symposium on the Settlement of Indian Reserved Water Rights Claims 

• NARF and the Western States Water Council are co-hosting the Reserved Rights Settlement Symposium on August 6, a one-day virtual event. The goal of this symposium is to bring together Tribal, federal, and state leaders to discuss the political state of water settlement, congressional advocacy, settlement implementation, and other issues to support ongoing and future settlement efforts. We hope you can attend.  

• Colorado River – June conference hosted by Colorado Law, Getches-Wilkinson Center: we heard terrific updates from Tribal Nations, state and federal officials, conservation organizations, climate scientists, and others about the state of the Colorado River Basin. A few overarching takeaways for our team: 

• Climate policy is water policy. Significant greenhouse gas reductions are necessary to fight the “beyond awful” projected climate impacts on the basin’s annual river flows. Ignoring climate policy will lead to future disputes and greater uncertainty and frustration due to decreasing available water. 

• Unquantified Tribal water rights are difficult, if not impossible, to get recognized and accounted for in water management. Like the Navajo Nation’s unquantified rights that led to the negative 2023 Navajo Nation v. Department of Interior U.S. Supreme Court decision, unquantified Tribal rights are a long-deferred, important opportunity for Tribal Nations to build sustainable and healthy communities and economies, but the United States is severely limited in their ability to support widespread resolution of these rights and it is overly conservative in management planning, restricting the ability of Tribes to protect their water rights. For example, the Indian Peaks Band of Paiute Indians in Southwest Utah has, so far, been unable to get the Interior Department to recognize the potential scope of the Band’s water rights while it works toward approval of a large water pipeline that would pull water from the Band’s original reservation to which it still holds water rights to. It will be critical to develop proposals for the protection of these Tribal water rights, trust assets, in all federal decision making. 

• The importance of the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) Branch of Safety of Dams, which supports dam infrastructure on Tribal lands, is overlooked. 

• Federal staffing changes are beginning to hurt Tribal water issues. 

• Two federal departments, Interior and Justice, have primary roles in supporting Tribal Nations’ water rights claims. Staffing in these departments is being reduced through voluntary resignations, urged by the administration’s push to significantly cut and hamstring the federal workforce, especially in positions that support environmental justice, climate, and other equity work.  

• The numbers:  

• The Interior Department’s Secretary’s Indian Water Rights Office has three (3) full-time staff to lead and manage all Tribal water rights settlements, whether in the assessment, negotiation, or implementation phases. The office last two staff this year. 

• The Interior Department’s Solicitor’s Office, Branch of Indian Water, lost two staff and has five attorneys to handle all Tribal water issues that come before the Department.   

• Regional Solicitor’s offices are losing career staff with significant expertise, including the Portland office who is losing their hydropower relicense and Federal Regulatory Energy Commission expert as well as attorneys working on Tribal claims in Pacific Northwest water adjudications. 

• The Justice Department, through the Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD), which houses the Tribal Resources Branch, is losing longstanding career staff that represent Tribes in adjudications, water settlements, and other Tribal water matters. 

• We are rapidly approaching an inflection point whereby the federal government will not be able to meet its trust responsibilities to Tribal Nations because they do not have the staffing nor the expertise to competently protect Tribal water rights and trust assets.  

• Klamath River Water Management Policy Change – The administration and Interior Department made its first significant move involving Tribal water in May when, in Klamath River litigation over water use, it switched positions on how the Bureau of Reclamation meets Endangered Species Act needs when it also has delivery obligations under federal irrigation contracts. Previously, the government asserted the ESA provided a legal requirement to reduce irrigation deliveries pursuant to certain contract language, a position the district court agreed with in ruling for the Tribes and United States. But now, Interior has chosen to flip its position and claim those contracts actually override competing ESA interests, claiming different contracts from a different irrigation project in California control the Klamath contracts. Klamath irrigators applauded this change while the Tribal Nations are fighting this in court. This change affects how Reclamation manages Klamath water, how it accounts for in-river releases (i.e., water for the Klamath River as opposed to diverting water to agriculture), and ultimately whether it may owe compensation for reducing water deliveries to meet ESA legal requirements (this may be the irrigators’ goal). The downstream Karuk, Hoopa, and Yurok Nations have senior and time immemorial fishing and water rights in the Klamath River that will be affected by this position and that may be trampled by this change.  

Further, in its change, Interior made the incredible leap that it need not accommodate Yurok’s water needs for its summer Boat Dance ceremonial water needs (again, flipping positions on this where Interior previously determined the Tribe had a right to the water) because there is no federal statute requiring water for the ceremonial purpose and because the Tribe’s asserted water right for this ceremony is not quantified (see note above on the exposure Tribes face due to unquantified water rights). Rather than look at the purposes of the reservation to define Yurok water needs and water rights (as Winters and subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions require), Interior claims the 2023 Navajo Nation decision precludes those releases and that it will reconsider future releases for the ceremony. But, Navajo Nation does not support this position and, instead, stands for the proposition that there is no trust-based duty unless there is express federal acknowledgement (e.g., statute) of such a duty, not that the government cannot continue to recognize implied water rights (i.e., Winters) or provide water for Tribes if not statutorily based. We have seen industry make similar arguments alleging Tribal rights must be curtailed due to Navajo Nation, but those arguments have failed. 
 
Interior’s position is extremely disheartening in that it does not acknowledge Tribal water rights and, instead, rolls over them and makes very weak legal arguments to subordinate those rights to junior irrigator contracts. As the administration’s first statement on Tribal water, this is a bad start. 

Regulatory Issues to Follow 

• EPA 

• The Clean Water Act (CWA) Tribal Reserved Rights Rule litigation continues to be paused at the request of EPA. We anticipate that EPA may ultimately seek to change the rule due to industry and state requests. 

• CWA section 401 revision. On July 7, EPA issued a request for information regarding the 401 water quality certification process, presumably to change the 2023 CWA section 401 rule revision, which replaced the Trump Administration’s 2020 rule. See this excellent explainer about section 401, explaining how Tribes with Treatment as a State (TAS) and states have important interest at stake in the 401 certification process. NARF is collaborating with other organizations and Tribal Nations to submit comments. If you are interested in participating, please contact Lily Cohen or Melissa Kay.  

• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

• The Trump Administration moved quickly to rescind all Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations through Executive Order 14,154 (Unleashing American Energy), regulation that all agencies implementing NEPA had followed for decades. Further, two federal court decisions concluded that CEQ did not have the authority to issue regulations under NEPA, clearing the way for the administration’s recission.  

• In the place of CEQ regulations, the administration directed each agency to develop its own procedures and guidelines for NEPA implementation, which they have been doing this month. These NEPA changes are intended to speed-up NEPA environmental review to support quicker energy-project permitting. Accordingly, the proposals cut back significantly on their effort to consult with Tribal Nations and obtain input from Tribal communities. NARF is tracking the below NEPA regulations in concert with other entities: 

• DOI NEPA Regulations 

• FERC NEPA regulations 

That’s all for now, please reach out if interested in learning more~ 

Daniel 

---

By: Daniel Cordalis
May 21, 2025
Published as part of The Headwaters Report

The first 100 days of the second Trump administration have been very busy. The president has signed more than 140 executive orders, many testing the limits of executive authority, and signed dozens of proclamations and memorandums setting out new policy directives. These directives are reshaping how the federal government operates and what issues it prioritizes. The new administration is engaging in widespread agency staffing reduction initiatives, major regulatory changes designed to reduce perceived regulatory burdens, federal funding cuts and freezes, and removal of equity- and climate-based initiatives. Through executive policy making, the White House is altering international trade practices and reshaping domestic policy to increase energy production from federal public lands. Understandably, there is a lot of social unease, and the economy is reacting negatively to the rapid changes and uncertainty. These changes are not insubstantial. To be clear: these are significant departures from established federal policies and practices that constitute a drastic reformation of government operations.  

So far, tens of thousands of federal employees across the federal government have either resigned or been fired, and there are numerous agency reorganization initiatives and reductions in force (known as “RIF”) taking place that will likely not be completed for months. These staffing reductions and agency changes will likely negatively impact Tribal Nations and the public’s ability to interact with the federal government both to implement and enforce federal policy and the law. NARF is tracking closely how these new efforts are affecting Indian Country and we will take action when needed to protect the rights of Tribal Nations, such as our lawsuit challenging funding and staff reductions at Bureau of Indian Education schools.  

On the environmental front, the White House has issued overarching climate-related directives, including executive orders to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, to increase domestic energy production on public and private lands, and to bypass environmental justice, as well as state laws and policies aimed at combatting climate change. On the ground, the administration is working to scale back environmental protections and programs, particularly at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Administrator Lee Zeldin. For example, EPA is revisiting its 2009 conclusion that carbon dioxide endangers human health and welfare (the endangerment finding), a conclusion that allowed EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas under the Clean Air Act. EPA is also accepting input into how it defines “waters of the United States” for Clean Water Act jurisdictional purposes.  

Other agencies are also working to undo current regulatory requirements that may impede energy and other economic development. In late April, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration proposed to modify what it means to “harm” wildlife so Endangered Species Act protections would not include modification of wildlife habitat, making it easier to develop and use land where endangered species live. 

While we have seen a lot of activity from cabinet-level political appointees working to enact the president’s agenda, the administration has been very slow (as it was in 2017) to fill in other political appointments, but that is picking up a bit now that we are into mid-May. This is causing some stagnation in issue areas that the administration does not have a particular focus on, including water issues (other than supporting irrigators in California and in the Upper Klamath River Basin).  Of particular concern for water-related issues: we still do not have a Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation.  

Interior Department 

We do not have clarity on how the Interior Department will direct policy regarding Tribal water issues.  Interior Secretary Doug Burgum made affirmative comments supporting the resolution of Tribal water issues through settlement in his confirmation hearing, but little has happened since. For now, Scott Cameron, a Senior Advisor to the Secretary and Interior Department appointee under the first Trump Administration, has been Interior’s lead on Colorado River management negotiations. Three other Interior Department nominees will be critical to support Tribal water: Billy Kirkland (Navajo/Diné), nominated for Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs; Andrea Travnicek, nominated for Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, and; William Doffermyre, nominated to be Solicitor of the Department of the Interior. Travnicek and Doffermyre are in the Senate confirmation process, but Kirkland will not onboard until this summer. As such, we will have to wait to see how the department’s political appointee staffing shapes up and what direction leadership will take on Tribal water issues.  

The Interior Department is the lead federal department handling Tribal water issues and a handful of Interior agencies and programs work on them, including the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Secretary’s Indian Water Rights Office (SIWRO), the Bureau of Reclamation, the Solicitor’s Office, the Indian Trust Litigation Office, and often Secretary’s counselors and advisors.  

Finally, one of Indian Country’s most dedicated federal employees, Pam Williams, SIWRO director, retired on April 18. Pam, with thirty-five years of federal service in the Interior Department working on Tribal water rights settlements, will be missed tremendously and we thank her for her service on incredibly difficult and important issues.  

Congressional Activity 

In Congress, Tribal Nations have been quick to reintroduce water-related legislation in both the Senate and House of Representatives. Because none of the twelve Tribal water rights settlements or settlement amendments bills passed at the end of 2024, the Tribes must restart the congressional approval process. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs passed six water rights settlement bills on March 5, 2025, and the bills will next head to the Senate floor for consideration. The House of Representatives has not held any hearings on the bills in its chambers.    

Immediately, Congress, and the House of Representatives specifically, is consumed with drafting and negotiating the budget reconciliation bill. The budget reconciliation bill is legislation addressed at budget-specific items like spending and revenues or changing the debt limit. General policy issues are not allowed in the reconciliation bill, although much of the bill includes items that reflect policy proposals. Reconciliation is a special process that allows the Senate to pass legislation with only a simple majority, 51 votes, rather than the 60 votes typically needed.  

Each House committee drafts its piece of the bill. The House Natural Resources Committee’s portion seeks to increase fossil fuel production and mining on public lands, while cutting environmental reviews.  Included in the bill are: 

• Reinstatement of two mining projects blocked by Biden Administration, Ambler Road through the Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve, Alaska, and Twin Metals in Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. 

• Requirements that the Interior Department offer up 30 chances for companies to bid on opportunities to drill in the Gulf of Mexico over the next 15 years. 

• Requirements that six similar auctions to be held for drilling inside Alaska’s Cook Inlet.  

• A late amendment to sell certain public lands in Nevada and Utah. 

• The reinstatement of leases to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and four new drilling auctions there. 

• Additional Arctic drilling opportunities in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.  

• $2.5 billion for California water storage and conveyance improvements funding, aimed at raising Shasta Dam and increasing water storage in Shasta Reservoir. 

• Pay-for expedited environmental reviews (NEPA), reviews would then be exempted from court challenge. 

• More opportunities to mine for coal on federal public lands. 

House committees are working through their approval process, but it appears there will be a lot of negotiating to get the bill passed.   

In all, there is a lot of activity to redefine the federal government’s role as public trustee and to create more energy development and fewer environmental restrictions. We are tracking all the policy developments and will continue to provide monthly updates on issues of importance to Indian Country. 

Events We are Tracking 

• University of Colorado School of Law, Getches-Wilkinson Center, 2025 Conference on the Colorado River 

• National Congress of American Indians Mid-Year Conference 

More blog posts

• Share
• Share on Facebook
• Tweet
• Send email