Wikipedia

User:Paigerosenberg/sandbox

< User:Paigerosenberg

Topic: Indigenous: Rights to Land along Rivers

(Winnemem Wintu Tribe & Shasta Dam, NODAPL, the Wall, Klamath River Dams)

Winnemem Wintu ; Shasta Dam

-talk: wikiproject of indigenous peoples of North America ; more of the dam itself and less of the effect on the Native Peoples affected by it (which will be my group's focus)

Dakota Access Pipeline ; Dakota Access Pipeline protests / NoDAPL

-talk: about the logistics of it; the protest focused articles goes more into depth of the controversy of this project but that talk page noted how it appears one-sided. Also, someone suggested adding the effect of Trump's executive orders pushing forward with the pipeline, which is what my article can also touch on, especially since it has not been discussed.

Klamath River Hydroelectric Project (what the series of dams is called) ; discuss Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement

-the first article covers the logistics well and touches slightly on the tribal effect, which is what is discussed in the second article; talk: nothing listed. but this article can be definitely added with more content and maybe updated statistics and status of the dams' effects on the tribes

Immigration policy of Donald Trump (AKA Trump's Wall)

-talk: lots of activity and added content, but nothing is covered about what will happen to the people and the environment where the wall will be located. this definitely can be an aspect of my group's article, and it's great it has not been covered yet either.

Stakeholders in my potential article to speak with:

-Lynn Huntsinger: Professor of ESPM at UC Berkeley and has devoted her studies specifically to the Klamath River tribe (culture, environment, restoration, history, etC).

-Winnemem Wintu historians, tribal members

-Expert on damming

-Expert on policy and indigenous policy

Week 4: what I added to the article "Oroville Lake"

"Regardless, the year of 2017 has made up for the five-year drought by having above-average precipitation. Although drought is not a present concern for Oroville Lake, this excess of water is concerning and appears as a new danger (see 2017 Oroville Dam crisis)."

^This article's section titled, "Climate," ended with the continued drought's affect on the water level January 2016. I added key information about the above-average precipitation so far in 2017, which has a different effect than the drought. Further, I also added a reference to a wiki article covering the issues happening with the excess of water.

Week 6: Finalize your topic/find your sources (got an extension to complete this due to health)

Topic: Indigenous rights to land along rivers

Contribution plans: I plan on helping write the introduction paragraph, which will outline and explain this topic and also the relevance of it in Donald Trump's presidency. I specifically will be writing the sub-topic: Dakota Access Pipeline. This is especially timely because Trump has recently has signed an executive order pushing forward the construction of this pipeline and the Keystone XL pipeline. The underground oil pipeline is 1,172 miles long and each day will carry 470,000 barrels of crude oil across four states until it reaches Illinois, and from there reach refineries through shipping.[1] Proponents of the pipeline are in favor of the construction because it is a more cost-effective way and quicker than through on-ground transport.The construction for the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) was met by numerous setbacks and controversy. The hashtag #NODAPL was coined to term the grassroots movements in protest to this construction since early 2016; this was covered highly by the media. But, President Trump pushed this forward in the beginning of his presidency to create more jobs for Americans. .

I am also the citation lead, so I will be ensuring that the article's sources are appropriately included and cited wherever necessary.

Relevant sources: Scholarly articles and news reports on the harms and positives of Dams, EPA Environmental Facts (impact of damming), expert on damming, Sacred Land Film Project Interviews with Jessica Abbe and Christopher (Tobey) McLeod [Indigenous Rights and DAPL experience and interviews], and Interview with Lynn Huntsinger (Klamath River tribe and decreasing salmon population due to damming expert). ~~~~

ND Water Rights History

North Dakota reserved water rights differ because their reservations were established in the 1800s, which was before the Winters v. United States case and it follows the prior appropriation systems. Even though this allows North Dakota tribes priority to their water rights over state law, this first come, first serve rule has caused conflict due to the water that flows on non-Indian land and homesteaders that settled on Indian reservation land. This is evident in the obtaining of land allotments

President Roosevelt popularized the use of land allotments, which was a designated amount of land—supposed to be about 320 acres but often was 160 acres—to individual tribe members for the purpose of farming the land, which is a method of assimilating Indians to American culture. Allotments were commonly established in treaties, including those that established “the Spirit Lake, Standing Rock, and Fort Berthold Reservations” [2]

Once land had been allotted to individual tribe members, a “surplus” was then offered to non-Indians, and thus birthed and progressed issues with claims to water because of the mix of Indians and non-Indians on reservation land.[3]

Further, there is a lack of settled negotiations and Congressional acts to claim water rights in North Dakota compared to other Western states, which has ensured the continuation of more disputes to the rights of water.

o  https://law.und.edu/_files/docs/ndlr/pdf/issues/85/1/85ndlr1.pdf

·     The 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie “defined boundaries between Indian tribes of the northern Great Plains” and the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie “established the Great Sioux Reservation which included the Sacred Black Hills.”

o  http://ndstudies.gov/gr8/content/unit-iii-waves-development-1861-1920/lesson-4-alliances-and-conflicts/topic-2-sitting-bulls-people/section-3-treaties-fort-laramie-1851-1868

·     The Great Sioux Reservation, later known as the Standing Rock Sioux Indian Reservation, “straddles North and South Dakota”

o  https://www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/RegionalOffices/GreatPlains/WeAre/Agencies/StandingRock/index.htm

·     However, with the discovery of gold in the Black Hills (Black Hills Gold Rush), the federal government supported miners’ extraction and conflict over ownership of this land ensued.

·     A combination of difficulty keeping land allotments because of fees and the federal government’s ultimate authority over land in the United States—reserved for indigenous peoples or not—allowed the ownership of “around fifty percent of the North Dakota side” of the Standing Rock Reservation by 1913 (11).

·     Overall, North Dakota has a unique and complicated situation when it comes to water rights, between tribe-state relations, federal policies, and the presence of non-Indians on reservations, which has certainly birthed the conflict faced with the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline through the Standing Rock Reservation.  

 Dakota Access Pipeline

edit

Location and Background

edit

The underground oil pipeline is 1,172 miles long and each day will carry 470,000 barrels of crude oil across four states until it reaches Illinois, and from there reach refineries through shipping.[4] Proponents of the pipeline are in favor of the construction because it is a more cost-effective way, reliable, and quicker than through on-ground transport.

Resistance and Government Action

edit

Donald Trump signed an executive order to push forward the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (Bakken pipeline) on January 24, 2017. This action tells the president's stance on pipeline construction and indigenous land and water rights. The building of this pipeline was met with much controversy and delay. The hashtag #NODAPL was coined to term the grassroots movements in protest to this construction since early 2016; this was covered highly by the media.

save this version below:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARTICLE

Indigenous rights to land along rivers

edit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.

Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion.

This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles. (March 2017)

Water rights and land rights are largely contested topics. Violations of indigenous rights to land along rivers have occurred since colonization began. In the United States, Native Americans have been displaced both physically and culturally. Forms of displacement still occur today despite sacred ties and historic rights to land along rivers. Rivers are bodies of water that provide fresh water supply to urban areas. There is substantial power in holding land next to rivers which is one of the reasons for these areas to remain contested.

Contents

edit

  null hide 

Federal and state policies[edit | edit source]

edit

The Bureau of Indian Affairs was established in 1824 under the Department of the Interior. The BIA is responsible for working with the country's 567 federally designated tribes. This federal bureau oversees the management and administration of tribes, including working with educational programs, legal and economic management, and other public services. There are regional offices for the BIA in Alaska, the Eastern region, Eastern Oklahoma, the Great Plains, the Midwest, the Navajo region, the Northeast, the Pacific, the Rocky Mountain region, the Southern plains, the Southwest, and West. Each regional location is led by its own director who works with the Deputy Regional Director for Trust Services and the Deputy Regional Director for Indian Services. "The Deputy Regional Director for Trust Services oversees a staff of specialists responsible for natural resources (water resources, forestry and fire, irrigation and safety of dams), agriculture, (farm, pasture, and range), fish, wildlife and parks and real estate services (land acquisition and disposal land title records office, probate, rights-of-way, and lease/permit)".

Natural resource policy and law involves debates over property and access on federal, state, and individual rights levels. Access to natural resources for Native Americans is part of their everyday livelihood and culture. In 1908 the Supreme Court ruled on the case Winters v. United States, determining the Native American water rights were incorporated into their land rights. If the land the tribe's reservation resides on has a fresh water source, then that becomes the tribe's water right. This property right supersedes federal water rights.

The federal government and regional offices of the BIA are one half of the government entities that work with native tribes. The California state government has its own history of law and policies with Native Americans. In the opening statement for the tribal government affairs webpage, it is stated that: "Native American tribes exercise inherent sovereign powers over their members and territory. The United States, including the State of California and Governor Brown's Administration, will continue to work with Native American tribes on a government-to-government basis to address issues concerning Native American tribal self-government and tribal trust resources, and Indian tribal treaty and other rights".

Policy for land along rivers[edit | edit source]

edit

Historically, society has been built around access to water. Whether this has meant society has been established next to surface water or developed technology to bring the fresh water to civilization, the right to water has always been of key importance for success. Establishment of water rights as a form of property rights in the United States developed as social contracts between the colonies evolved into the establishment of the federal and state governments. As the settlers pushed expansion westward, they displaced many native tribes to gain access to land and natural resources where these peoples lived. The history of displacement of Native Americans is one of the biggest genocide histories. Indigenous peoples settled near access to fresh water a resource needed for plantations to survive and industrial society to expand. Water infrastructure has been in development in the United States since the 18th century. This infrastructure was first seen in the form of water mills and irrigation networks which were built upon establishing a systems of dams and levees that dominate waterscape today.

Riparian water rights were brought over from England to the Eastern colonies and eventual states. Riparian water rights were the dominant right doctrine for the country up until the settlement of the West.

The history of Western water rights is a complicated one. As the Western territories were settled the arid and semi-arid regional realities were ignored and state borders were drawn in conflict with natural watersheds, leading to the remapping of natural waterscapes. The development of urban population bases in places that did not have natural water sources led to the extensive development of irrigation throughout the West to support growing populations and economies. Overtime the dominant industry transferred from mining to agriculture in California. This economic history, in addition to the previous native and settlement histories laid the groundwork for California and the West's current water rights system. As these areas were settled there was a mix of Native American water rights, Pueblo water rights, Riparian water rights, and Appropriative water rights (Prior-appropriation water rights). As these different rights frameworks came into conflict with each other, each Western state established dominant water law frameworks. The new water rights frameworks often displaced indigenous rights after a long history of being removed from their tribal lands. Some tribes survived the settlement of the West and held onto their water rights. Tribes along the McCloud, Klamath and Trinity rivers in California are a few examples. Currently the issue of indigenous rights to land along rivers has been highlighted in the cases of the proposed Shasta Dam raise and the Klamath Dam removal.

Shasta Dam and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe[edit | edit source]

edit

The 2016 ballot for California had three policy proposals involving the status of building upon already existing dam infrastructure, as well as the development of new infrastructure. These proposals included the Shasta Dam raise. The increase in height of the Shasta dam would have flooded out 15 more miles of upstream river on each of the three major tributaries flowing into the reservoir. One of the many consequences that could occur if the Shasta dam were to be raised is the flooding of the last remaining tribal land of the federally uncrecognized, Winnemem Wintu Tribe, along the McCloud river. If these sites were to be flooded out, the tribes ability to practice their historical culture would be lost as well.

Proposed Shasta Dam Raise[edit | edit source]

edit

There are three rivers flowing into Shasta Dam’s reservoir site; the Sacramento, Pitt, and McCloud rivers. This dam was originally built as part of the Central Valley Project in 1945. During the mid-twentieth century, there was a rush to build as many dams on as many rivers as possible. At that time, the common way of thinking was to bring water from north to south. Shasta Dam was a part of the attempt to divert water from the northern rivers for southern cities and agriculture. In 2016 there was a 1.1 billion dollar proposal by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to raise Shasta Dam by 18.5 feet, which would flood out five additional miles on each stretch of river, fifteen miles total. During a normal water year, it is rare that Shasta Dam’s reservoir completely fills. In the spring of 2016 it was recorded as being only 40 percent full. The BOR’s desire to create more water storage by raising the dam height will not increase the amount of water available. In drier years, such as the one’s recently experienced with the drought, the large reservoir will be unlikely to reach full capacity.

If the proposal is implemented, there will be negative impacts on water quality and flow. The Sacramento River carries the northern water into the California Delta. This will impact all of California. The Shasta Dam raise is directly related to the Delta tunnels project to build a tunnel underneath the Delta to divert Sacramento water to the south. There will also be further pollution form emissions of carbon dioxide and methane from an enlarged reservoir site.

In the modern era there has been an effort to restore rivers and remove unnecessary dams. Friends of the River, International Rivers, and EarthJustice, are some of many organizations in support of indigenous rights to land along rivers. Unfortunately, instead of fighting to remove the Shasta dam and restore the rivers, there is a fight to prevent raising the dam in hopes of mitigating further harm. Raising the dam would also adversely affect other wildlife habitat and species: “The dam raise/reservoir expansion will cause permanent loss of habitat for numerous important and special status wildlife species, including Pacific fisher, northern spotted owl, northern goshawk, foothill yellow-legged frog, Shasta salamander, seven bat species, and four mollusks. The project will also result in the permanent loss of rare plant habitat and important winter and fawning habitat for deer”.

Wildlife and habitat will be destroyed by raising the dam. Thousands of acres of U.S. Forest Service land will go under water. Additionally, recreational areas that are also the homes of wildlife, will be destroyed. There is already development of recreation and municipal facilities in place that would have to be reestablished. Indigenous peoples, local residents, wildlife and the natural landscape will be negatively impacted if the dam is raised.

The further flooding of the McCloud River would also violate its wild and scenic designation. The following excerpt from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act outlines the violations of dam building on designated wild and scenic stretches of river.

“It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. The Congress declares that the established national policy of dams and other construction at appropriate sections of the rivers of the United States needs to be complemented by a policy that would preserve other selected rivers or sections thereof in their free-flowing condition to protect the water quality of such rivers and to fulfill other vital national conservation purposes.” 

Winnemem Wintu Tribal Land[edit | edit source]

edit

The proposed dam raise would negatively impact native people and the local ecology. In a news report from the Sac Bee, Caleen Sisk explained that "the tribe is responsible for the care of Buliyum Puyuuk (Mount Shasta) and a network of sacred waters, trees and mountains, a task accomplished through prayers, songs and dances. In return, sacred places care for the people by sending healing spirits, visions, water and medicines. If we can no longer perform our religious responsibilities, we believe the world will be thrown out of balance." If the Shasta Dam is raised, the Winnemem Wintu tribe will lose their last remaining ceremonial land along the banks of the McCloud River. The coming of age ceremony takes place in the threatened land. This land includes puberty rock, a ceremonial place of passage from a girl to a young woman.Overall, the flooding of their land will therefore contribute to the loss of their culture.

The Winnemem Wintu have also been crucial in the fight to raise awareness of the highly impacted salmon runs.

"In the late 1800s, Chinook salmon dominated the waters of the San Francisco Bay and the San Joaquin River Delta region, with conservative estimates of 1 to 2 million spawning fish swimming upstream from ocean to river every year to return to the gravel beds where they once hatched in four seasonal “runs.” It is a journey that has long inspired the Native American people that live near Mt. Shasta in Northern California, even as they have watched fish numbers drastically decline since the Shasta Dam was erected in 1938, walling off some 35 miles of the Sacramento River. Now, as a result of the dam, warming waters and overfishing, only the Chinook salmon’s fall run is considered secure, and it, too, is vastly reduced in number."

The tribe has been active in fighting for their land. In 2004 the tribe held a war dance in reaction to the dam. Chief Sisk explained why they held the dance was because: "that's the Weapon of Mass Destruction...That's the weapon that took our lands, flooded our sacred places, covered up our burials - everything. And left us with nothing." In October of 2015 the tribe led the "Water. Every Drop Sacred" rally and march. 160 people attended the event that was organized to bring awareness of Crystal Geyser's pending plant. In the Fall of 2016, the tribe organized a Run4Salmon event with the help of EarthJustice, The Buena Vista Rancheria, the Wilton Rancheria, the Northstate Women's Health Network, Restore the Delta, and the Mechoopda Indian Tribe. This event was created to bring awareness of the journey of salmon swimming upstream to spawn. In addition to the Run4Salmon, the Sacred Lands Film Project is a larger project that is working to spread awareness of protecting sacred lands. Their motto is that "sacred places rekindle reverence for land and cultural diversity, and connect nature and culture." The producers of this project support the fight to protect the Winnemem Wintu land.

For further material on this topic look at the Winnemem Wintu Website.

Klamath River dams[edit | edit source]

edit

The removal of four hydroelectric dams along the Klamath River in California and Oregon has been proposed to improve the ecological health of the river and to ensure that Klamath tribes have access to the river and surrounding land. After construction of the dams in the early 20th century, salmon populations have died from knocking into dam walls and have been unable to reach upper parts of the Klamath Lake. The issue is of significance to the six federally recognized Native American tribes along the river because the salmon hold substantial social, financial and spiritual value in their respective cultures.

Tribal leaders have joined with federal and state officials to form the Klamath River Renewal Corp. and are working to gain ownership over the dams from PacifiCorp.The Klamath River Renewal Corp. aims to then remove the dams so that Klamath River can once again provide water for agriculture and sustain the salmon population that holds considerable cultural and economic value for Klamath Tribes. As approval for dam removal is needed from the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC), the proposal is likely to face resistance from Republican congress members. Although FERC approval is necessary, proponents of dam removal remain optimistic. With shifts in government positions under the Trump administration, three of the five seats on FERC have been left empty. PacifiCorp. officials feel that this will not be problematic in the dam removal process because of economic reasons. In analyzing economic impacts, PacifiCorp. has determined that dam removal would be the most fiscally responsible choice. Repairing the dams for continued use would require major improvement. Expensive fish ladders would have to be installed in order for salmon to travel the river and restore their population.

The four dams do provide water for the surrounding agriculture industry. Governor Jerry Brown of California and Governor Greg Walden of Oregon, however, are both in support of dam removal and legislation that addresses water usage issues for the agricultural industry. Another example of strong political support for dam removal along the Klamath River comes from U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell. In October 2016, Secretary Jewell sent a letter to FERC urging them to accept the formal requests of both the Klamath River Renewal Corp. and PacifiCorp. to remove the dams. The plan for dam removal is now set to begin in 2020

Dakota Access Pipeline

edit

Background of North Dakota Water Rights Policy

edit

North Dakota reserved water rights differ because their reservations were established in the 1800s, which was before the Winters v. United States case and it upholds the prior appropriation systems. Even though this allows North Dakota tribes priority to their water rights over state law, this first come, first serve rule has caused conflict due to the water that flows on non-Indian land and homesteaders that settled on Indian reservation land. Further, the lack of settled negotiations and Congressional acts to claim water rights in North Dakota compared to other Western states has ensured the continuation of more disputes to the rights of water.

President Roosevelt popularized the use of land allotments, which was a designated amount of land—supposed to be about 320 acres but often was 160 acres—to individual tribe members for the purpose of farming the land and is a method of assimilating Indians to American culture. Allotments were commonly established in treaties, including those that established “the Spirit Lake, Standing Rock, and Fort Berthold Reservations.”[5] Once land had been allotted to individual tribe members, a “surplus”[6] was then offered to non-Indians, and thus birthed and progressed issues with claims to water because of the mix of Indians and non-Indians on reservation land in North Dakota.

The 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie “defined boundaries between Indian tribes of the northern Great Plains” and the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie “established the Great Sioux Reservation which included the Sacred Black Hills."[7] The Great Sioux Reservation, later known as the Standing Rock Sioux Indian Reservation, “straddles North and South Dakota”[8] However, with the discovery of gold in the Black Hills (Black Hills Gold Rush[9]), the federal government supported miners’ extraction and conflict over ownership of this land ensued. A combination of difficulty keeping land allotments because of fees and the federal government’s ultimate authority over land in the United States—reserved for indigenous peoples or not—allowed non-Indians the ownership of “around fifty percent of the North Dakota side”[5] of the Standing Rock Reservation by 1913.

Overall, North Dakota has a unique and complicated situation when it comes to water rights, between tribe-state relations, federal policies, and the presence of non-Indians on reservations, which has certainly birthed the conflict faced with the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline involving the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation.

Perspectives and Resistance about the Pipeline

edit

The underground oil pipeline is 1,172 miles long and each day will carry 470,000 barrels of crude oil across four states until it reaches Illinois, and from there reach refineries through shipping.[10] Proponents of the pipeline are in favor of the construction because it is more cost-effective, reliable, and quicker than through on-ground transport.[11] They also claim the pipeline does not cross Standing Rock Sioux Reservation land.

On the other hand, opponents of the pipeline attribute the land sovereign to the indigenous peoples based on previous water and land rights, but again, the history of water rights in North Dakota was complicated, and thus questions of ownership ensue. They also fear the risks to the environment and indigenous culture: the contamination of water supply (the pipeline route traverses under parts of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers and Lake Oahe) and the harming of sacred burial sites.[12]

A camp was formed on federal land near the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline in April 2016 in protest; the hashtag #NODAPL was coined to term this grassroots movement. The July 2016 approval of the pipeline's route by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was met with a lawsuit by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in August 2016.[13] Protestors of the construction called themselves "Water Protectors"[14] and their presence in the resistance greatly increased by late November 2016.[15] Water protectors faced off with state officials and private security guards in the hopes of halting construction of the pipeline. The resistance gained nation-wide awareness and was highly covered by the media, in comparison to other efforts supporting indigenous rights to land, because it is viewed as a final stand for the survival of indigenous peoples' land and culture after so many lost efforts and the increase in citizen journalism via mediums such as Facebook live. These videos revealed often unseen stand-offs and the ethicality of actions by those progressing the construction was widely seen and discussed around the country and the world, such as the use of tear gas and "water cannons on protestors in freezing weather"[14]

Government Action

edit

The resistance proved apparent and widespread and there were a few halts in construction from December until mid-January. However, with the change in Presidential office from Barack Obama to Donald Trump, the end appeared near. On January 24, 2017, Trump signed an executive order to push forward the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (Bakken pipeline); he was clear in his campaign and in this action about his stance on pipeline construction and indigenous land and water rights. North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum declared February 22,2017 as the date that protestors must evacuate their camp.[13]

Mexico-United States Border and the Colorado River[edit | edit source]

edit

Background of Mexico–United States Border[edit | edit source]

edit

The international Mexico-United States Border was first time clearly defined based on the The Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty of February 2, 1848. The 3141 km long border area is shaped by arid deserts, rugged mountains, and two main rivers which are the main water supply for this area: Colorado River and the Rio Grande. The Colorado River runs along 38km of the border, 100km through Mexico and end in the California. Until now, there are around 12 million people live on the borderlands. These two rives are the main resource of traditional irrigated agriculture, industry, daily use, and other purposes. However, the speed of providing infrastructure is not as rapid as the growth of urban areas. The unbalance between the growing population size and associated urban area development puts a lot of pressure to the environment along the border between Mexico and United States Border.

History of IBWC[edit | edit source]

edit

The International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), is an organization continued more then one century which dedicated to solve issues of water use along the border. The International Boundary Commission was established in 1848 through the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which was used to mark the boundary. In 1889, the United States and Mexico signed the convention to establish the International Boundary Commission (IBC) to apply border agreements. Around 50 years later, in 1944 IBC was expanded the agreements and changed the name to International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) which is charged of addressing issues of boundary application and water treaties. In the 1944 Treaty, Article 10 provides 4 allotments related to the Colorado River:

  1. Guaranteed delivery of 1,500,000 acre feet annually
  2. In the event of excess water in the US, delivery to Mexico, not to exceed 1,700,000 acre feet annually
  3. In the event of the drought, the 1,500,000 acre foot allotment will be reduced the same amount as the consumptive use in the US is
  4. Mexico created Morelos Dam to facilitate transport of water to agricultural areas, which is managed by the IBWC

How does the Mexico–United States Border affect the environment?[edit | edit source]

edit

Water Supply[edit | edit source]

edit

Colorado River Supply and Demand Graph The increasing demand of agriculture, industry and municipal water supply highly threatens the sustainability of Colorado River. Based on the graph from U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation in December 2012, in 2008, the water use was around 15 million acre-feet and this usage will continue increase in the following years. However, the supply of the water did not increase as the same trend as the water use. From the blue line in the graph, the supply amount fluctuates around 15 million acre-feet and does not show a clear increase trend. The main reason for the increasing demand of water is that the expanding of urban area. The increase consumption and the increase agriculture need not only drives the climate change, causes the overconsumption but also heavily consumes the supply of Colorado River. Lake Mead, as the largest reservoir on Colorado river, lost more than half content from 25 million acre-feet in 1944 to 10 million acre-feet in 2016. In fact, research at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography indicates that there is a 50% chance that Lake Mead will by completely dry by the year 2021. Because the capacity of Colorado River was closely affected Glen Canyon Dam, which is only driven by the water power to generate electricity, the decrease of water content along Colorado river will highly affect the people's life along the Colorado river.

Water Quality[edit | edit source]

edit

One of the main problems concerning the water quality of Colorado river is salinity. Seriously lowered the water quality of the river and even led to completely unusable water, 9 million tons of salt per year in Colorado River caused by natural and human reasons was a big problem need to be resolved. There are a variety of natural sources of salinity and one of them is the saline spring, which contributes the most salt to the river. Although the contribution of natural salinity is unavoidable, the contribution of salinity from human to the Colorado river is unnecessary and can be remedied. The first is due to groundwater. Because of the increase population, the pollution to ground water on account of leaching of coal materials, oil and gas production, water consumption also increase. All of these are practices should be prevented with more caution. Another human-made resource of salinity comes from municipal and industrial water, accounting for 4% of the salinity of the river. The third reason comes from the expand of agricultural area. As the single largest source of increased salinity, agriculture contributes 37% of the increased salinity in the Upper Basin. The increase salinity of irrigation water creates a loop which will cause a worse water environment. Due to the increase salinity of irrigation water, the choices of crops can be grown are limited and also the output decreases because of the excessive salinity. Thus, to make up for the change of water and improve the sustainability of water, it is necessary to decrease the effect of human that affects the salinity of water.

Agriculture[edit | edit source]

edit

Even though US Mexico border is not the major agriculture as Imperial Valley farm, the agriculture along this border is still important. It is a crucial enterprise in the U.S./Mexico Border Region. This enterprise Not only serves people along the border line, but also supports the local economies significantly. Farming along the border requires large inputs of water in relatively low price in order to be profitable.

References[edit | edit source]

edit
  1. Jump up^ See 1889 Boundary Convention
  2. Jump up^ See 1944 Water Treaty
  3. Jump up^ 
  4. Jump up^ 
  5. Jump up^ 
  6. Jump up^ 
  7. Jump up^ 
  8. Jump up^ 
  9. Jump up^ 
  10. Jump up^ 
  11. Jump up^ 
  12. Jump up^ 
  13. Jump up^ 
  14. Jump up^ 
  15. Jump up^ 
  16. Jump up^ 
  17. Jump up^ 
  18. Jump up^ 
  19. Jump up^ 
  20. Jump up^ 
  21. Jump up^ 
  22. Jump up^ 
  23. Jump up^ 
  24. Jump up^ 
  25. Jump up^ 
  26. Jump up^ 
  27. Jump up^ 
  28. Jump up^ 
  29. Jump up^ 
  30. Jump up^ 
  31. Jump up^ 
  32. Jump up^ "Dakota Access Pipeline Facts". Dakota Access Pipeline Facts.
  33. Jump up^ See 1889 Boundary Convention
  34. Jump up^ See 1944 Water Treaty
  35. Jump up^ 
  36. Jump up^ 

External links[edit | edit source]

edit
  • Indigenous Land Rights
  • Klamath River Hydroelectric Project
  • Dakota Access Pipeline Protests
  • Shasta Dam
  • Winnemem Wintu
  • Colorado River
  • Sacred Land Film Project

Categories: 

edit
  • Read
  • Edit
  • Edit source
  • View history
  • Watch

More

edit

Interaction

edit

Tools

edit

Print/export

edit
  • Create a book
  • Download as PDF
  • Printable version

Languages

edit

Add links

  • This page was last modified on 14 April 2017, at 20:55.

TALK PAGE

Talk:Indigenous rights to land along rivers

edit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BorrisJBadanov (talk) 06:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC) Awesome summaries of these events. Great, neutral detail. I think the page could use some mention of existing federal or state policy about this topic, and maybe some motivation of why there needs to be a specific wikipedia page on indigenous rights along rivers in particular (i.e. are there different laws here? Do they face different challenges from indigenous rights movements elsewhere?). Maybe also don't use "The Wall" but a more technical term? Other than that it looks great!

Feedback from Ashley:

This is looking really solid!

You've done a good job of laying out the context and staying neutral in your lead section. I would just remove the last sentence, "These topics will be the subtopics of discussion..." and just go straight into the subtopics without prefacing them.

The key examples you give look great. Are you planning on further breaking out subtopics within them? If you expand on them much more, I think it would be helpful to have separate "proposal" and "consequences"/"effects"/"implications"/"controversies" subtopics within each example.

Also, under "'The Wall' and the Colorado River" section, I'd consider rephrasing the sentence "The Wall is not only a human issue but also a environmental issue" I would say "immigration issue" rather than human issue.

It's coming together nicely! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley.boots (talk • contribs) 15:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Ashley.boots

Thanks for the feedback. Any suggestions on sources to look at for direct relations to environmental justice issues? I'm having trouble finding anything in academic journals. ClarkEJ163 (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

ESPM Project Prospectus:

Main topic and subtopics to tackle: Indigenous: rights to land along rivers (Winnemem Wintu Tribe & Shasta Dam, NODAPL, the "Wall" & the Colorado, Klamath River Dams)

Wikipedia pages already established: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klamath_River_Hydroelectric_Projecthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Access_Pipeline#Protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shasta_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnemem_Wintuhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River

Stakeholders: Native American peoples Big oil/other corporations Caleen Sisk and Wimmemem Wintu Tribe Lynn Huntsinger River activists Big agriculture Border residents

Drgood13 (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Drgood13

Final Topic:

New page on Indigenous rights to land along rivers

Contribution plans: I plan to write the introduction for the page explaining the importance of the topic both historically and in our current reality. The introduction will also display how timely this topic is within the political climate. Drumpf has given the go ahead for DAPL and has publicly stated his supportive stance on furthering infrastructure projects. The current administration has also made it clear that they do not respect indigenous rights. There is an additional connection to this topic for future negative implications that would result from the creation of "The Wall". I will also contribute by writing one of the subtopic sections. The subtopics include the Shasta Dam Raise, DAPL, "The Wall" and the Colorado River, and the Klamath Dam removals. The section I am planning to write on is the issue of the proposed Shasta Dam raise and the violations this would have on the Winnemem Wintu tribe's rights. If the dam were to be raised it would result in an extra 15 miles of flooding, five miles on each of the major tributaries. One of the three big river systems flowing into the reservoir is the McCloud river. Just above the reservoir, along this river, is the last remaining tribal land for this Northern California tribe.

Relevant sources: Friends of the River advocacy material against Shasta Dam Raise Scholarly articles and news reports on the harms of Dams EPA Enviro Facts Line in the Sand by Rachel St. John River Restoration reports on the lower Colorado River Interviews with activists that were filming the NODAPL protests Sacred Land Project Interview with Caleen Sisk Interview with Lynn Huntsinger

Drgood13 (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Drgood13

Rough Draft:

Introduction/"Lead Section":

Water rights and land rights are largely contested topics. Violations of indigenous rights to land along rivers have continued since colonization began. In the United States, Native American’s have been displaced both physically and culturally. Forms of displacement still occur today despite sacred ties and historic rights to land along rivers. Rivers are bodies of water that provide fresh water supply to urban areas. There is substantial power in holding land next to rivers which is one of the reasons why these areas remain contested.

Drumpf has already planned to confirm for the North Dakota Access Pipeline, as he has stated he wants to build more infrastructure. Drumpf's administration has a lack of respect for indigenous rights. In California, the deconstruction of the Klamath River dams fight was fought over indigenous rights to their land. The Winnemem Wintu tribal lands above the Shasta River dam are threatened. Additionally, Drumpf's proposal to build “the wall” is a concern of indigenous communities in the boarder lands living along the Colorado River. These topics will be the subtopics of discussion, serving as a few key examples out of many issues that fall under the overarching issue of the violation of indigenous rights to land along rivers in America.

Shasta Dam and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe: On the 2016 ballot for California, there were three policy proposals involving dams. These proposals included the Shasta Dam raise. The increase in height of the Shasta dam would have flooded out 15 more miles of upstream river on each of the three major tributaries flowing into the reservoir. The three tributaries include the upper Sacramento River, the McCloud River and the Pit River. One of the many consequences that could occur if the Shasta dam were to be raised is the flooding of the last remaining tribal land of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe. The tribe’s land along the McCloud river contains sacred ceremonial sites for the tribe. If these sites were to be lost their ability to practice their historical culture would be lost as well. ……… more to be added.

The Klamath River Dams: The removal of four dams on the Klamath River has been proposed to improve the ecological health of the river and to ensure that Klamath tribes have access to the river and surrounding land. Tribal leaders have joined with federal and state officials to form the Klamath River Renewal Corp. and are working to gain ownership over the dams from PacifiCorp. The Klamath River Renewal Corp. aims to then remove the dams so that Klamath River can once again provide water for agriculture, and sustain salmon populations that hold significant cultural and economic value for Klamath Tribes. As approval for dam removal is needed from the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC), the proposal is likely to face resistance from Republican congress members .ClarkEJ163 (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The Dakota Access Pipeline: Drumpf has signed an executive order to push forward the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (Bakken pipeline) on January 24, 2017. This action tells the President's stance on pipeline construction and indigenous land and water rights. The building of this pipeline was met with much controversy and delay. The hashtag #NODAPL was coined to term the grassroots movements in protest to this construction since early 2016; this was covered highly by the media. The underground oil pipeline is 1,172 miles long and each day will carry 470,000 barrels of crude oil across four states until it reaches Illinois, and from there reach refineries through shipping. Proponents of the pipeline are in favor of the construction because it is a more cost-effective way and quicker than through on-ground transport. (...more will be added and will work on the citations). Paigerosenberg (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

“The Wall” and the Colorado River: Drumpf has planned to build a border wall between Mexico and the US which idealistically will be paid by Mexico to limit the illegal immigration. The Wall is not only a human rights issue but also a environmental issue. To build the Wall which will extend about 2000 miles, besides the estimated $265 billion budgets. the Wall will affect the ecosystems along the Colorado River and also impose huge impacts on Native Americans. Because of the plan of building concrete wall between two countries, animals' habitats might be highly affected, such as endangered North American jaguar. The natural flooding zones also need to be considered because of the move of grounds.Ljqianl (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Drgood13 (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Drgood13

Working Draft of Wiki Article copied from April 14, 2017 at 2:00 PM[edit source]

edit

    Water rights and land rights are largely contested topics. Violations of indigenous rights to land along rivers have occurred since colonization began. In the United States, Native Americans have been displaced both physically and culturally. Forms of displacement still occur today despite sacred ties and historic rights to land along rivers. Rivers are bodies of water that provide fresh water supply to urban areas. There is substantial power in holding land next to rivers which is one of the reasons for these areas to remain contested.

Federal and state policies The Bureau of Indian Affairs was established in 1824 under the Department of the Interior. The BIA is responsible for working with the country's 567 federally designated tribes. This federal bureau oversees the management and administration of tribes, including working with educational programs, legal and economic management, and other public services. There are regional offices for the BIA in Alaska, the Eastern region, Eastern Oklahoma, the Great Plains, the Midwest, the Navajo region, the Northeast, the Pacific, the Rocky Mountain region, the Southern plains, the Southwest, and West. Each regional location is led by its own director who works with the Deputy Regional Director for Trust Services and the Deputy Regional Director for Indian Services. "The Deputy Regional Director for Trust Services oversees a staff of specialists responsible for natural resources (water resources, forestry and fire, irrigation and safety of dams), agriculture, (farm, pasture, and range), fish, wildlife and parks and real estate services (land acquisition and disposal land title records office, probate, rights-of-way, and lease/permit)".

Natural resource policy and law involves debates over property and access on federal, state, and individual rights levels. Access to natural resources for Native Americans is part of their everyday livelihood and culture. In 1908 the Supreme Court ruled on the case Winters v. United States, determining the Native American water rights were incorporated into their land rights. If the land the tribe's reservation resides on has a fresh water source, then that becomes the tribe's water right. This property right supersedes federal water rights.

The federal government and regional offices of the BIA are one half of the government entities that work with native tribes. The California state government has its own history of law and policies with Native Americans. In the opening statement for the tribal government affairs webpage, it is stated that: "Native American tribes exercise inherent sovereign powers over their members and territory. The United States, including the State of California and Governor Brown's Administration, will continue to work with Native American tribes on a government-to-government basis to address issues concerning Native American tribal self-government and tribal trust resources, and Indian tribal treaty and other rights".

Policy for land along rivers Historically, society has been built around access to water. Whether this has meant society has been established next to surface water or developed technology to bring the fresh water to civilization, the right to water has always been of key importance for success. Establishment of water rights as a form of property rights in the United States developed as social contracts between the colonies evolved into the establishment of the federal and state governments. As the settlers pushed expansion westward, they displaced many native tribes to gain access to land and natural resources where these peoples lived. The history of displacement of Native Americans is one of the biggest genocide histories. Indigenous peoples settled near access to fresh water a resource needed for plantations to survive and industrial society to expand. Water infrastructure has been in development in the United States since the 18th century. This infrastructure was first seen in the form of water mills and irrigation networks which were built upon establishing a systems of dams and levees that dominate waterscape today.

Riparian water rights were brought over from England to the Eastern colonies and eventual states. Riparian water rights were the dominant right doctrine for the country up until the settlement of the West.

The history of Western water rights is a complicated one. As the Western territories were settled the arid and semi-arid regional realities were ignored and state borders were drawn in conflict with natural watersheds, leading to the remapping of natural waterscapes. The development of urban population bases in places that did not have natural water sources led to the extensive development of irrigation throughout the West to support growing populations and economies. Overtime the dominant industry transferred from mining to agriculture in California. This economic history, in addition to the previous native and settlement histories laid the groundwork for California and the West's current water rights system. As these areas were settled there was a mix of Native American water rights, Pueblo water rights, Riparian water rights, and Appropriative water rights (Prior-appropriation water rights). As these different rights frameworks came into conflict with each other, each Western state established dominant water law frameworks. The new water rights frameworks often displaced indigenous rights after a long history of being removed from their tribal lands. Some tribes survived the settlement of the West and held onto their water rights. Tribes along the McCloud, Klamath and Trinity rivers in California are a few examples. Currently the issue of indigenous rights to land along rivers has been highlighted in the cases of the proposed Shasta Dam raise and the Klamath Dam removal.

Shasta Dam and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe The 2016 ballot for California had three policy proposals involving the status of building upon already existing dam infrastructure, as well as the development of new infrastructure. These proposals included the Shasta Dam raise. The increase in height of the Shasta dam would have flooded out 15 more miles of upstream river on each of the three major tributaries flowing into the reservoir. One of the many consequences that could occur if the Shasta dam were to be raised is the flooding of the last remaining tribal land of the federally uncrecognized, Winnemem Wintu Tribe, along the McCloud river. If these sites were to be flooded out, the tribes ability to practice their historical culture would be lost as well.

Proposed Shasta Dam Raise There are three rivers flowing into Shasta Dam’s reservoir site; the Sacramento, Pitt, and McCloud rivers. This dam was originally built as part of the Central Valley Project in 1945. During the mid-twentieth century, there was a rush to build as many dams on as many rivers as possible. At that time, the common way of thinking was to bring water from north to south. Shasta Dam was a part of the attempt to divert water from the northern rivers for southern cities and agriculture. In 2016 there was a 1.1 billion dollar proposal by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to raise Shasta Dam by 18.5 feet, which would flood out five additional miles on each stretch of river, fifteen miles total. During a normal water year, it is rare that Shasta Dam’s reservoir completely fills. In the spring of 2016 it was recorded as being only 40 percent full. The BOR’s desire to create more water storage by raising the dam height will not increase the amount of water available. In drier years, such as the one’s recently experienced with the drought, the large reservoir will be unlikely to reach full capacity.

If the proposal is implemented, there will be negative impacts on water quality and flow. The Sacramento River carries the northern water into the California Delta. This will impact all of California. The Shasta Dam raise is directly related to the Delta tunnels project to build a tunnel underneath the Delta to divert Sacramento water to the south. There will also be further pollution form emissions of carbon dioxide and methane from an enlarged reservoir site.

In the modern era there has been an effort to restore rivers and remove unnecessary dams. Friends of the River, International Rivers, and EarthJustice, are some of many organizations in support of indigenous rights to land along rivers. Unfortunately, instead of fighting to remove the Shasta dam and restore the rivers, there is a fight to prevent raising the dam in hopes of mitigating further harm. Raising the dam would also adversely affect other wildlife habitat and species: “The dam raise/reservoir expansion will cause permanent loss of habitat for numerous important and special status wildlife species, including Pacific fisher, northern spotted owl, northern goshawk, foothill yellow-legged frog, Shasta salamander, seven bat species, and four mollusks. The project will also result in the permanent loss of rare plant habitat and important winter and fawning habitat for deer”.

Wildlife and habitat will be destroyed by raising the dam. Thousands of acres of U.S. Forest Service land will go under water. Additionally, recreational areas that are also the homes of wildlife, will be destroyed. There is already development of recreation and municipal facilities in place that would have to be reestablished. Indigenous peoples, local residents, wildlife and the natural landscape will be negatively impacted if the dam is raised.

The further flooding of the McCloud River would also violate its wild and scenic designation. The following excerpt from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act outlines the violations of dam building on designated wild and scenic stretches of river.

“It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. The Congress declares that the established national policy of dams and other construction at appropriate sections of the rivers of the United States needs to be complemented by a policy that would preserve other selected rivers or sections thereof in their free-flowing condition to protect the water quality of such rivers and to fulfill other vital national conservation purposes.”

Winnemem Wintu Tribal Land The proposed dam raise would negatively impact native people and the local ecology. In a news report from the Sac Bee, Caleen Sisk explained that "the tribe is responsible for the care of Buliyum Puyuuk (Mount Shasta) and a network of sacred waters, trees and mountains, a task accomplished through prayers, songs and dances. In return, sacred places care for the people by sending healing spirits, visions, water and medicines. If we can no longer perform our religious responsibilities, we believe the world will be thrown out of balance." If the Shasta Dam is raised, the Winnemem Wintu tribe will lose their last remaining ceremonial land along the banks of the McCloud River. The coming of age ceremony takes place in the threatened land. This land includes puberty rock, a ceremonial place of passage from a girl to a young woman.Overall, the flooding of their land will therefore contribute to the loss of their culture.

The Winnemem Wintu have also been crucial in the fight to raise awareness of the highly impacted salmon runs.

"In the late 1800s, Chinook salmon dominated the waters of the San Francisco Bay and the San Joaquin River Delta region, with conservative estimates of 1 to 2 million spawning fish swimming upstream from ocean to river every year to return to the gravel beds where they once hatched in four seasonal “runs.” It is a journey that has long inspired the Native American people that live near Mt. Shasta in Northern California, even as they have watched fish numbers drastically decline since the Shasta Dam was erected in 1938, walling off some 35 miles of the Sacramento River. Now, as a result of the dam, warming waters and overfishing, only the Chinook salmon’s fall run is considered secure, and it, too, is vastly reduced in number."

The tribe has been active in fighting for their land. In 2004 the tribe held a war dance in reaction to the dam. Chief Sisk explained why they held the dance was because: "that's the Weapon of Mass Destruction...That's the weapon that took our lands, flooded our sacred places, covered up our burials - everything. And left us with nothing." In October of 2015 the tribe led the "Water. Every Drop Sacred" rally and march. 160 people attended the event that was organized to bring awareness of Crystal Geyser's pending plant. In the Fall of 2016, the tribe organized a Run4Salmon event with the help of EarthJustice, The Buena Vista Rancheria, the Wilton Rancheria, the Northstate Women's Health Network, Restore the Delta, and the Mechoopda Indian Tribe. This event was created to bring awareness of the journey of salmon swimming upstream to spawn. In addition to the Run4Salmon, the Sacred Lands Film Project is a larger project that is working to spread awareness of protecting sacred lands. Their motto is that "sacred places rekindle reverence for land and cultural diversity, and connect nature and culture." The producers of this project support the fight to protect the Winnemem Wintu land.

For further material on this topic look at the Winnemem Wintu Website.

Klamath River dams The removal of four hydroelectric dams along the Klamath River in California and Oregon has been proposed to improve the ecological health of the river and to ensure that Klamath tribes have access to the river and surrounding land. After construction of the dams in the early 20th century, salmon populations have died from knocking into dam walls and have been unable to reach upper parts of the Klamath Lake. The issue is of significance to the six federally recognized Native American tribes along the river because the salmon hold substantial social, financial and spiritual value in their respective cultures.

Tribal leaders have joined with federal and state officials to form the Klamath River Renewal Corp. and are working to gain ownership over the dams from PacifiCorp. The Klamath River Renewal Corp. aims to then remove the dams so that Klamath River can once again provide water for agriculture and sustain the salmon population that holds considerable cultural and economic value for Klamath Tribes. As approval for dam removal is needed from the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC), the proposal is likely to face resistance from Republican congress members. Although FERC approval is necessary, proponents of dam removal remain optimistic. With shifts in government positions under the Trump administration, three of the five seats on FERC have been left empty. PacifiCorp. officials feel that this will not be problematic in the dam removal process because of economic reasons. In analyzing economic impacts, PacifiCorp. has determined that dam removal would be the most fiscally responsible choice. Repairing the dams for continued use would require major improvement. Expensive fish ladders would have to be installed in order for salmon to travel the river and restore their population.

The four dams do provide water for the surrounding agriculture industry. Governor Jerry Brown of California and Governor Greg Walden of Oregon, however, are both in support of dam removal and legislation that addresses water usage issues for the agricultural industry. Another example of strong political support for dam removal along the Klamath River comes from U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell. In October 2016, Secretary Jewell sent a letter to FERC urging them to accept the formal requests of both the Klamath River Renewal Corp. and PacifiCorp. to remove the dams. The plan for dam removal is now set to begin in 2020

Dakota Access Pipeline

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Location and Background The underground oil pipeline is 1,172 miles long and each day will carry 470,000 barrels of crude oil across four states until it reaches Illinois, and from there reach refineries through shipping. Proponents of the pipeline are in favor of the construction because it is a more cost-effective way, reliable, and quicker than through on-ground transport.

Resistance and Government Action Donald Trump signed an executive order to push forward the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (Bakken pipeline) on January 24, 2017. This action tells the president's stance on pipeline construction and indigenous land and water rights. The building of this pipeline was met with much controversy and delay. The hashtag #NODAPL was coined to term the grassroots movements in protest to this construction since early 2016; this was covered highly by the media.

Mexico-United States Border and the Colorado River Background of Mexico–United States Border The international Mexico-United States Border was first time clearly defined based on the The Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty of February 2, 1848. The 3141 km long border area is shaped by arid deserts, rugged mountains, and two main rivers which are the main water supply for this area: Colorado River and the Rio Grande. The Colorado River runs along 38km of the border, 100km through Mexico and end in the California. Until now, there are around 12 million people live on the borderlands. These two rives are the main resource of traditional irrigated agriculture, industry, daily use, and other purposes. However, the speed of providing infrastructure is not as rapid as the growth of urban areas. The unbalance between the growing population size and associated urban area development puts a lot of pressure to the environment along the border between Mexico and United States Border.

History of IBWC The International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), is an organization continued more then one century which dedicated to solve issues of water use along the border. The International Boundary Commission was established in 1848 through the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which was used to mark the boundary. In 1889, the United States and Mexico signed the convention to establish the International Boundary Commission (IBC) to apply border agreements. Around 50 years later, in 1944 IBC was expanded the agreements and changed the name to International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) which is charged of addressing issues of boundary application and water treaties. In the 1944 Treaty, Article 10 provides 4 allotments related to the Colorado River:

Guaranteed delivery of 1,500,000 acre feet annually In the event of excess water in the US, delivery to Mexico, not to exceed 1,700,000 acre feet annually In the event of the drought, the 1,500,000 acre foot allotment will be reduced the same amount as the consumptive use in the US is Mexico created Morelos Dam to facilitate transport of water to agricultural areas, which is managed by the IBWC How does the Mexico–United States Border affect the environment? Water Supply

Colorado River Supply and Demand Graph The increasing demand of agriculture, industry and municipal water supply highly threatens the sustainability of Colorado River. Based on the graph from U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation in December 2012, in 2008, the water use was around 15 million acre-feet and this usage will continue increase in the following years. However, the supply of the water did not increase as the same trend as the water use. From the blue line in the graph, the supply amount fluctuates around 15 million acre-feet and does not show a clear increase trend. The main reason for the increasing demand of water is that the expanding of urban area. The increase consumption and the increase agriculture need not only drives the climate change, causes the overconsumption but also heavily consumes the supply of Colorado River. Lake Mead, as the largest reservoir on Colorado river, lost more than half content from 25 million acre-feet in 1944 to 10 million acre-feet in 2016. In fact, research at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography indicates that there is a 50% chance that Lake Mead will by completely dry by the year 2021. Because the capacity of Colorado River was closely affected Glen Canyon Dam, which is only driven by the water power to generate electricity, the decrease of water content along Colorado river will highly affect the people's life along the Colorado river.

Water Quality One of the main problems concerning the water quality of Colorado river is salinity. Seriously lowered the water quality of the river and even led to completely unusable water, 9 million tons of salt per year in Colorado River caused by natural and human reasons was a big problem need to be resolved. There are a variety of natural sources of salinity and one of them is the saline spring, which contributes the most salt to the river. Although the contribution of natural salinity is unavoidable, the contribution of salinity from human to the Colorado river is unnecessary and can be remedied. The first is due to groundwater. Because of the increase population, the pollution to ground water on account of leaching of coal materials, oil and gas production, water consumption also increase. All of these are practices should be prevented with more caution. Another human-made resource of salinity comes from municipal and industrial water, accounting for 4% of the salinity of the river. The third reason comes from the expand of agricultural area. As the single largest source of increased salinity, agriculture contributes 37% of the increased salinity in the Upper Basin. The increase salinity of irrigation water creates a loop which will cause a worse water environment. Due to the increase salinity of irrigation water, the choices of crops can be grown are limited and also the output decreases because of the excessive salinity. Thus, to make up for the change of water and improve the sustainability of water, it is necessary to decrease the effect of human that affects the salinity of water.

Agriculture Even though US Mexico border is not the major agriculture as Imperial Valley farm, the agriculture along this border is still important. It is a crucial enterprise in the U.S./Mexico Border Region. This enterprise Not only serves people along the border line, but also supports the local economies significantly. Farming along the border requires large inputs of water in relatively low price in order to be profitable.

References See 1889 Boundary Convention See 1944 Water Treaty "Mission 2012 : Clean Water". web.mit.edu. Retrieved 2017-04-11. "Lake Mead Water Database". lakemead.water-data.com. Retrieved 2017-04-11. "FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.". Findlaw. Retrieved March 22, 2017. Brougher, Cynthia. "Indian Reserved Water Rights under the Winters Doctrine" (PDF). Advisor, The Governor's Office of the Tribal. "Laws & Regulation - Office of the Tribal Advisor - State of California". www.tribalgovtaffairs.ca.gov. Retrieved March 22, 2017. "Water in California". Wikipedia. 2017-03-03. "Riparian water rights". Wikipedia. 2017-01-16. "Prior-appropriation water rights". Wikipedia. 2016-06-20. "Plan to raise Shasta Dam takes hit after federal biologists say they can't support it – The Mercury News". Retrieved 2017-04-06. "Sacramento Threat". Friends of the River. Retrieved 2017-04-06. "Help Stop the Raising of Shasta Dam". International Rivers. Retrieved 2017-04-06. "Winnemem Wintu Chief Leads a Movement to Restore Salmon Runs". Earthjustice. 2016-09-16. Retrieved 2017-04-06. Evans, Steve (July 2015). "Shasta Dam Raise Fact Sheet". Friends of the River. "About the WSR Act.". "If Shasta Dam is raised, tribe would lose sacred places and culture". sacbee. Retrieved 2017-04-06. "Winnemem Wintu Chief Leads a Movement to Restore Salmon Runs". Earthjustice. 2016-09-16. Retrieved 2017-04-06. Bacher, Dan. "Winnemem Wintu War Dancers: Shasta Dam a Weapon of Mass Destruction". Truthout. Retrieved 2017-04-06. "Winnemem Wintu Chief Leads 'Water. Every Drop Sacred' Rally and March : Indybay". Indybay. Retrieved 2017-04-06. "Sacred Land Film Project". www.sacredland.org. Retrieved 2017-04-06. "Winnemem Wintu". www.winnememwintu.us. Retrieved 2017-04-06. Obrien, Gerry. "Sec. Jewell backs Klamath River dam removal". Herald and News. Retrieved 2017-03-23. Mapes, Jeff. "PacifiCorp Pursues Dam Removal After Collapse Of Klamath Agreement". www.opb.org. Retrieved 2017-03-17. "EBSCO Publishing Service Selection Page". web.b.ebscohost.com. Retrieved 2017-03-17. "INFRASTRUCTURE: Republicans in hot seat over landmark deal for dam removal". www.eenews.net. Retrieved 2017-03-17. Owens, Holly. "Klamath dam removal plan on track". Herald and News. Retrieved 2017-03-23. Obrien, Gerry. "Sec. Jewell backs Klamath River dam removal". Herald and News. Retrieved 2017-03-23. Mapes, Jeff. "PacifiCorp Pursues Dam Removal After Collapse Of Klamath Agreement". www.opb.org. Retrieved 2017-03-23. Obrien, Gerry. "Sec. Jewell backs Klamath River dam removal". Herald and News. Retrieved 2017-03-23. Owens, Holly. "Klamath dam removal plan on track". Herald and News. Retrieved 2017-03-23. "Dakota Access Pipeline Facts". Dakota Access Pipeline Facts. See 1889 Boundary Convention See 1944 Water Treaty "Mission 2012 : Clean Water". web.mit.edu. Retrieved 2017-04-11. "Lake Mead Water Database". lakemead.water-data.com. Retrieved 2017-04-11. External links Indigenous Land Rights Klamath River Hydroelectric Project Dakota Access Pipeline Protests Shasta Dam Winnemem Wintu Colorado River Sacred Land Film Project "Indigenous land rights". Wikipedia. 2017-03-03. "Klamath River Hydroelectric Project". Wikipedia. 2016-04-14. "Dakota Access Pipeline". Wikipedia. 2017-03-21. "Shasta Dam". Wikipedia. 2017-03-04. "Winnemem Wintu". Wikipedia. 2016-11-17. "Colorado River". Wikipedia. 2017-03-19.

"Sacred Land Film Project". www.sacredland.org. Retrieved 2017-04-06. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgood13 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

  1. Jump up^ 
  2. Jump up^ 
  3. Jump up^ 
  4. Jump up^ 
edit
  • Read
  • Edit source
  • New section
  • View history
  • Watch

More

edit

Interaction

edit

Tools

edit

Print/export

edit
  • Create a book
  • Download as PDF
  • Printable version

Languages

edit
  1. ^ "Dakota Access Pipeline Facts". Dakota Access Pipeline Facts.
  2. ^ Telecommunications, Interactive Media Group - Nebraska Educational. "NebraskaStudies.Org". www.nebraskastudies.org. Retrieved 2017-04-16.
  3. ^ Charles, Carvell. "Indian Reserved Water Rights: Impending Conflict or Coming Rapprochement Between the State of North Dakota and North Dakota Indian Tribes" (PDF). University of North Dakota. Retrieved 2017-03-10.
  4. ^ "Dakota Access Pipeline Facts". Dakota Access Pipeline Facts.
  5. ^ a b Telecommunications, Interactive Media Group - Nebraska Educational. "NebraskaStudies.Org". www.nebraskastudies.org. Retrieved 2017-04-16.
  6. ^ Charles, Carvell. "Indian Reserved Water Rights: Impending Conflict or Coming Rapprochement Between the State of North Dakota and North Dakota Indian Tribes" (PDF). University of North Dakota. Retrieved 2017-03-10.
  7. ^ "Section 3: The Treaties of Fort Laramie, 1851 & 1868 | North Dakota Studies". ndstudies.gov. Retrieved 2017-04-17.
  8. ^ "Indian Affairs | Standing Rock". www.bia.gov. Retrieved 2017-04-17.
  9. ^ "Black Hills Gold Rush". Wikipedia.
  10. ^ CNN, Madison Park. "5 things to know about the Dakota Access Pipeline". CNN. Retrieved 2017-04-17. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  11. ^ "Dakota Access Pipeline Facts". Dakota Access Pipeline Facts. Retrieved 2017-04-17.
  12. ^ "Dakota Access Pipeline". Wikipedia.
  13. ^ a b "Key Moments In The Dakota Access Pipeline Fight". NPR.org. Retrieved 2017-04-17.
  14. ^ a b "Police defend use of water cannons on Dakota Access protesters in freezing weather". Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-04-17.
  15. ^ "Dakota Access Pipeline Protests". Wikipedia.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Paigerosenberg/sandbox&oldid=1091948187"