A young member of the Hoopa Valley Tribe investigates fish and water conditions in the Klamath Basin. Photo by Vivienna Orcutt
Ryan Jackson, the chairman of the Hoopa Valley Tribe in California, explains why S.133, the Klamath Basin Water Recovery and Economic Restoration Act, doesn't have much support in Indian Country:
Most Indian tribes and environmental groups in the Klamath Basin oppose S. 133 because it dooms salmon runs and provides no funding for fish habitat restoration. Readers may wonder why Congress is even needed to bless what Ms. Marris calls “compromises devised by locals.” The answer: Indian tribal water and fishing rights are protected by federal law, and S. 133 would undermine those rights. Only Congress has the power to relieve the federal government of its duty to fulfill the promises it made to protect Indians’ right to fish to feed themselves, their families and their elders. S. 133 proponents also hope for federal money to meet cost estimates of $500 million to $900 million for future habitat restoration work. Only one Indian tribe with fishing rights in the Klamath has agreed to trade away its priority water rights.Get the Story:
Ryan Jackson: Indian Water Rights (The New York Times 11/17) Another Opinion:
Emma Marris: In the Dry West, Waiting for Congress (The New York Times 11/6)
Related Stories
Tribes unhappy with lack
of progress on big water agreement (09/17) Tribes in Northern California protest federal water management (08/06)
Hoopa Valley Tribe orders water restrictions as tanks run dry (07/01)
Join the Conversation
