Utah, Navajo Nation finalize landmark water rights deal
Utah and the Navajo Nation have finalized a landmark water rights agreement.
A state judge signed an interlocutory decree late last month to formally transfer annual water rights totaling 81,500 acre-feet of water to the Navajo Nation, marking the final step in a long process that started over two decades ago. The state will also transfer the last of $8 million that it pledged to help Navajo Nation officials pay for future water development projects.
"Today is a day for celebration," said Navajo National Councilwoman Shaandiin Parish, moments before leaders from both sides — some holding copies of the decree — gathered for a photo together at the Utah Capitol on Wednesday to commemorate the agreement.
The agreement, she says, will help residents have water for brushing their teeth, showering and all the "necessities" tied to water that others take for granted.
The Navajo Nation — located within parts of Utah, Arizona and New Mexico — has long fought for water access, especially since it was excluded from the Colorado River Compact in 1922. Over a century later, only about half of the homes of the now 6,000 members on the Utah portion of the reservation have running water and indoor plumbing.
"Unfortunately, I can say that's the case throughout the Navajo Nation," said Michelle Espino, its chief legislative counsel. "It's almost 40% of our homes nationwide that are without water."
Efforts to address these issues picked up over the past two decades, but it has taken time and many people to improve the situation.
In Utah's case, "deliberate, formal negotiations" over a water agreement began in 2003 before an agreement was reached in 2015, said Teresa Wilhelmsen, Utah's state engineer and director of the Utah Division of Water Rights.
Federal officials approved that agreement five years later, and it was ratified by state leaders in 2021. Their agreement received another boost in 2022, as the Navajo-Utah Water Rights Settlement Agreement received funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. It included $220 million in federal funding and $8 million in state funding for water infrastructure.
"This shows that we can do hard things if we're patient enough and we're willing to stay at the table," said Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson. "We can't change the past, but we can change the future — and that's what we're doing today."
While the agreement is life-changing, tribal and state leaders say it's also just the beginning. Wednesday's ceremony coincided with other issues Navajo leaders came to the state Capitol to address, including a proposed road and child protection laws. Thus, Parish says the decree is "one step in the right direction," but there are more issues that still need to be settled.
Joel Ferry, director of the Utah Department of Natural Resources, said it's also just the beginning of a "shared responsibility" among all water users to ensure that water resources last as the region continues to deal with drought and supply shortages.
Yet, both sides say the agreement also marks a key moment for the reservation.
"I see this as, truly, being the first major step in a sustainable future for the Navajo Nation," Ferry said.
Utah's settlement follows a similar agreement with New Mexico that also took a long time to complete, as it was finalized last year after an agreement in 2009. Espino said the nation is also working toward a similar settlement with Arizona.
With deals now complete in two out of three states, tribal leaders are concidering ways to advance water development within the reservation. These include more running water for homes and restoring lost farms.
'This settlement is so important to help us move forward so that we can finally fulfill our goal, our vision to provide water to all of the Navajo Nation who are lacking water,' Espino said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
The 5 Worst Green Energy Projects Funded by Biden
Despite the Department of Government Efficiency's failures to cut spending and the president's support for a bill that will add $2.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years, some wasteful government projects have been cut under the Trump administration. Energy Secretary Chris Wright recently canceled 24 grants approved by the Energy Department under former President Joe Biden. The action netted over $3 billion in savings. Earlier in May, Wright axed an additional $7 billion of green energy loans approved by Biden. Unfortunately for taxpayers, the savings that Wright has identified are only a drop in the bucket of the wasteful spending that the Biden Energy Department approved. Here are five of the most egregious examples: In December 2024, the Energy Department's Loan Programs Office (LPO) closed a $9.63 billion direct loan to BlueOval SK LLC, a joint venture between Ford and South Korean conglomerate SK On. The loan was approved to fund "the construction of three manufacturing plants, to produce batteries for Ford Motor Company's future Ford and Lincoln electric vehicles [E.V.s]," according to the award announcement. BlueOval has begun or completed construction for these facilities—one in western Tennessee called BlueOval City—and two in Hardin County, Kentucky, known as Kentucky 1 and 2. In addition to allocating millions of dollars in tax credits for the rights to house BlueOval City, the Tennessee Legislature also created the Megasite Authority of West Tennessee, reports Reason's Joe Lancaster. The board was granted the authority to execute contracts on behalf of development, which includes the power to seize private property through eminent domain. In most cases, the board lowballed local property owners, including Ray Jones, who was offered "a measly $8,165" for his acre of land, even though the going rate was $200,000 per acre. There is no set date for when the plant will open. Kentucky 1 has faced numerous occupational safety and health complaints from its workers. A review from The Courier-Journal found "dozens of workplace injuries; hospitalizations related to respiratory issues; unshakeable mold contamination; a bat-infested training facility; blocked emergency exit doors; and chemical exposure risks." The state has opened investigations into the plant, which is scheduled to begin production later this year. Kentucky 2's opening has been indefinitely delayed. Michael Adams, CEO of BlueOval SK, recently told WDRB, that the plant's opening date will be a market decision, but "the market is telling us that Kentucky 2 is not ready." The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed in 2021 created a new office within the Energy Department called the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED), whose goal is to finance first-of-a-kind clean energy projects through private-public partnerships. One of the largest beneficiaries of the program has been Exxon Mobil. The oil major was awarded a $332 million grant from OCED to "enable the use of hydrogen in place of natural gas" at a textile and plastics facility in Baytown, Texas. At the time of the announcement, the Biden administration said the project would prevent 2.7 million metric tons of carbon emissions per year. While an interesting technology, the project did not need taxpayer support. In the same year that Exxon received this disbursement (2024), the company reported annual earnings of $33.7 billion. The project's funding was canceled on May 30 by Wright. No industry was spared from corporate welfare under the Biden administration, including condiments. In October 2024, Kraft Heinz was awarded a grant of up to $170.9 million from OCED. The award was intended to fund energy efficiency upgrades, the installation of heat pumps and electric boilers, and renewable energy technologies at 10 of the company's facilities. The grant was also rescinded on May 30. Kraft Heinz says it will continue to invest in upgrading 30 of its manufacturing facilities and will invest $3 billion over the next five years "to modernize" its domestic supply chain infrastructure. In October 2024, the LPO announced a $2.26 billion direct loan to Lithium Nevada Corp., a subsidiary of Lithium Americas Corp., to build facilities to produce lithium carbonate—a critical component of E.V. batteries. The facilities will be sited next to and get their lithium from Thacker Pass, a mine site in Nevada that is estimated to hold the largest lithium reserves in the world. The U.S. largely relies on imports to meet its lithium needs. These facilities could reduce this dependence, but that doesn't mean the loan isn't wasteful. The demand for lithium, and lithium-carbonate, is expected to significantly climb in the next few decades as the use of green technologies increases. In 2024 alone, demand for the metal grew by 30 percent. Lithium Americas expects the mine, which began construction in February, to generate $2.2 billion per year in annual earnings. Taxpayers don't need to spend billions of dollars to support a project that the market seems to think will be successful. One of the largest steel makers in the U.S. was another beneficiary of Biden-era federal funding. In 2024, Cleveland-Cliffs, which generated $19.2 billion in revenue that year, was awarded up to $575 million in grants (which are still active) from the Energy Department. One of these awards, worth up to $500 million, would implement hydrogen fuel into the steel making process and install two electric melting furnaces at the company's Middletown Works facility in Ohio. The project is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the plant by 1 million tons per year and received a $9.5 million disbursement in September 2024. A second grant worth up to $75 million would electrify Cleveland-Cliffs' facility in Butler, Pennsylvania, which produces steel for transforms, motors, and generators. This project got a $19 million disbursement in August 2024. The company says these projects are expected to be live before 2030. While Wright has canceled some of the most wasteful projects approved under Biden, federal backing for favored energy projects isn't going to end under the Trump administration. The Washington Free Beacon reports that the Energy Department is considering financing a $44 billion pipeline in Alaska. The post The 5 Worst Green Energy Projects Funded by Biden appeared first on
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Will NHTSA's Anti-Drunk-Driving Tech Mandate Survive 2025?
Back in January 2024, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) calling for a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) that would mandate impaired-driving detection systems in every new passenger vehicle sold in the United States. Born from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (passed in late 2021), the proposal aimed to combat the 13,000-plus annual deaths caused by alcohol-impaired driving with passive detection systems built directly into cars. Now it's June 2025 and we're still waiting. Eighteen thousand public comments later, with no clear implementation update. No final rule. No rollout plan. Just a quick review behind the scenes as political priorities shift in Washington. The timing couldn't be more uncertain. President Donald Trump, now returned to office, has a deeply personal disdain for alcohol due to the death of his brother, Fred Trump, Jr., who in 1981 at the age of 42, died from a heart attack caused by his alcohol use. President Trump has also championed deregulation and railed against federal overreach in the private sector. The question now hanging over this initiative is: Will his administration kill the mandate, slow-walk it or push forward with modifications? NHTSA's early 2024 filing didn't propose a specific technology. It proposed a performance standard. This would allow automakers to choose from a range of solutions: Breath-based alcohol interlocks. Touch sensors. Driver monitoring systems using cameras. Behavioral analytics for drowsiness or distraction. NHTSA even broadened the scope beyond alcohol. its notice expanded coverage to include drowsy and distracted driving, arguably more common and complicated to regulate. This drew both praise and criticism. Critics argued that detection methods for drowsiness and distraction vary too widely to be regulated with a one-size-fits-all mandate. Right now, NHTSA is in the rule review phase. With a presidential transition, it's unclear whether the proposal will move forward. Key issues include: Cost to OEMs and consumers. False positives and liability concerns. Privacy and surveillance fears. Implementation feasibility by 2026. Although GM publicly stated it's ready to implement impairment-detection tech, other manufacturers have been quieter. As of mid-2025, no formal regulation has been issued — just public comment summaries, stakeholder meetings and ongoing reviews. While the proposed FMVSS applies only to new passenger vehicles, fleets should monitor the regulatory horizon. CDL holders face stricter standards than the general public. Under 49 CFR 392.5, a CDL driver operating a vehicle over 26,001 pounds can be put out of service for any detectable alcohol. The Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) limit for commercial drivers is 0.04%, half that of the general public. Any measurable alcohol during on-duty status, even if below 0.04, can lead to immediate enforcement action. As detection systems evolve, especially as litigation pressures grow, fleets may face pressure to adopt similar tech voluntarily. Dashcams, biometric sensors and driver wellness programs are already laying the groundwork. The insurance market may not wait for a mandate. The future of this rule rests on three pivots: Will NHTSA push a final rule before the 2026 target implementation date? Will the Trump administration support, delay or strike it down? Will automakers begin adopting the tech regardless, due to liability and market pressure? There's no clear answer yet. What is clear is that drunk driving deaths are still rising, and both the public and private sectors are actively seeking solutions. Whether this takes the form of federal mandates, OEM-led features or fleet-driven initiatives, the road to real-time impairment detection is already paved; it's just a question of who gets there first and how. We may be watching the beginning of one of the most controversial vehicle safety regulations in decades or the quiet death of another ambitious government mandate. Either way, fleets and safety managers would do well to prepare, because the margin for error in impaired driving is evaporating fast and technology is watching. The post Will NHTSA's Anti-Drunk-Driving Tech Mandate Survive 2025? appeared first on FreightWaves.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Shared risk at the heart of dispute over Colorado River
Railroad tracks run along the Colorado River as it flows along Interstate 70 through Glenwood Canyon near Glenwood Springs. (William Woody for Colorado Newsline) A version of this story originally appeared in Big Pivots. Even-steven. That was the intent of delegates from the seven basin states in 1922 when they met near Santa Fe to forge a compact governing the Colorado River. But what exactly did they agree upon? That has become a sticking point in 2025 as states have squared off about rules governing the river in the drought-afflicted and climate-changed 21st century. The negotiations between the states, according to many accounts, have been fraught with tensions. Becky Mitchell, Colorado's lead negotiator, delivered a peek into that dispute at a forum on May 22 in Silverthorne along the headwaters of the river. The Colorado River Compact was a quid pro quo. California, in particular, but also Arizona, was ready to see the highs and lows of the rivers smoothed out. They, as well as Nevada, wanted a giant reservoir in Boulder Canyon in Nevada near the small town of Las Vegas, which then had a population of 2,300. Those Southwestern states couldn't do it alone, though. They needed the federal government to build the dam later called Hoover. For that, they needed the support of Colorado and the three other upper-basin states. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Colorado, represented by Delph Carpenter, and the three other headwaters states realized that they had best reach a compromise, as they would more slowly develop the rivers. If the doctrine of prior appropriation that they had all adopted within their own states prevailed on the Colorado River, the water would be gone by the time they found need for it. This was the foundation for Article III of the Colorado River Compact. It apportions 7.5 million acre-feet in perpetuity for the exclusive beneficial consumption by each of the two basins. On top of this 15 million acre-feet, they knew there would be water lost to evaporation, now calculated at 1.5 million acre-feet annually, plus some sort of delivery obligation to Mexico, which later turned out to be 1.5 million acre-feet. In Santa Fe, delegates had assumed bounteous flows in the river, as had occurred in the years prior to their meeting. And so, embracing that short-term view of history, they believed the river would deliver 20 million acre-feet. It has not done so routinely. Even when there was lots of water, during the 1990s and even before, as Eric Kuhn and John Fleck explained in their 2019 book, 'Science be Dammed,' troubles ahead could be discerned. And by 1993, when the Central Arizona Project began hoisting water to Phoenix and Tucson, the river ceased absolutely to reach the ocean. Then came the 21st century drought. Those framing the compact understood drought as a temporary affliction, not the multi-decade phenomenon now perplexing the states in the Colorado River Basin. Nor did they contemplate a warming, drying climate called aridification. Similar to drought in effects, it is rooted in accumulating atmospheric gases. Unlike drought, it has little to no chance of breaking. Now, faced with creating new rules governing the sharing of this river, delegates from the seven states are at odds in various ways, but perhaps none so much as in their interpretation of compact's Article D. It says that the upper-division states 'will not cause the flow of the river at Lee Ferry to be depleted below an aggregate of 75,000,000 acre-feet for any period of ten consecutive years.' The lower division states have so far received 75 million acre-feet over every revolving 10-year period. The upper-basin states have not fully developed their apportionment, although Colorado has come close. In the last 25 years, the upper-basin states have been using 3.5 million to 4.5 million acre-feet. The lower-basin states that a decade ago were still using 10 million acre-feet have cut back their use to 7.5 million acre-feet. Lake Powell serves as a water bank for the upper basin states. The storage in 2022 had declined to 22%, although a good snow winter in 2022-23 restored levels somewhat. Today, the two reservoirs are at a combined 34% of full. 'That means 66% empty,' said Mitchell at the forum along the Blue River in Silverthorne at a 'state of the river' forum organized by the Colorado River Water Conservation District. Mitchell, an engineer by training, has a large on-stage presence. She's not one to mince words, sometimes straying into the colloquial. This outspokenness is more evident when she speaks exclusively to a home-town crowd. Silverthorne certainly counted as one. Shared risk is at the heart of the dispute. Colorado and other upper-basin states want the lower-basin states to accept that the river will not always satisfy all needs. 'How do we handle drought? We know how to do that in the upper basin, and most of the people in this room know that you get less,' said Mitchell, Colorado's representative on the Upper Colorado River Commission. 'That hasn't been the case in the lower basin.' The two basins differ in three fundamental ways. One is the pace of development. The lower basin developed quickly. The upper basin still has not used its full allocation. From the upper-basin perspective, that does not mean that the lower-basins states should expect something beyond a 50-50 split. 'The main thing that we got from the compact was the principle of equity and the ability to develop at our own pace,' said Mitchell. 'We shouldn't be punished because we didn't develop to a certain number. The conversation now, she added, is 'what does equity look like right now?' Another difference is that the upper basin has thousands of individual users. Sure, there are a few big ones, like Denver Water and the other Front Range transmountain water diverters who collectively draw 400,000 to 450,000 acre-feet annually across the Continental Divide. The lower basin has just a handful of diverters, and the diversions are massive. Also different — as alluded to by Mitchell — is that the lower basin has the big reservoirs lying upstream. The largest is Mead, with a capacity of almost 29 million acre-feet, followed closely by Powell at a little more than 25 million acre-feet. Mead was created expressly to meet needs of irrigators and cities in the desert southwest. Powell was created essentially to ensure that the upper-basin states could meet their delivery obligations. Mitchell shared a telling statistic: More water has been released from Powell in 8 of the last 10 years than has arrived into it. Upper-basin states must live within that hydrologic reality, said Mitchell. If it's a particularly bad snow year in the upper basin, the farms and ranches with junior water rights and even the cities can get shorted. The lower basin states? Not a problem. They always get their water — at least so far. But the two big reservoirs have together lost 50 million acre-feet of stored water. 'We're negotiating how to move forward in a way different place than we were negotiating 20 years ago,' said Mitchell. Upper-basin states have managed to deliver the 75 million acre-feet across 10 years that the compact specifies, but what exactly is the obligation? That has long been a gray area. At a forum two days before Mitchell spoke in Colorado, her counterpart in Arizona, Tom Buschatzke, reiterated at a conference in Tucson that they see the compact spelling out a clear obligation of upper-basin states to deliver 75 million acre-feet plus one-half of the water obligated to Mexico. What if the water isn't there? That's the crux of this dispute as the upper and lower basin states negotiate in advance of a September deadline set by the Bureau of Reclamation. In theory, if the situation were dire enough, Colorado could stop all its post-1922 diversions to allow the water to flow downstream. But is that what those gathered in Santa Fe in the shortening days of November 1922 had in mind? Will lawsuits toss this into the court system for resolution? That process might take decades and, if it ended up at the Supreme Court, it might not yield a nuanced outcome. Mitchell didn't address that directly, although she did say everybody on the river wants to avoid litigation. The situation described by Mitchell and other upper-basin proponents is perhaps analogous to a divorce settlement. The settlement may call for a 50-50 split of all earnings between the partners, but what if one becomes destitute and has no money to pool? Upper-basin states do have reservoirs to help buffer them from short-term droughts. Altogether, however, they don't come close to matching the capacity of Powell. Again, from the perspective of upper-basin states, California and Nevada have a sense of entitlement. Not that the upper basin states are angelic, said Mitchell. It's because they have no choice. 'I say we use three to four million acre-feet less than our apportionment. It varies. You know why? Because hydrology varies. And so we respond to hydrology. It's all based on snowpack and it's all gravity. Most of it is gravity dependent. We don't have those two big reservoirs above us like the lower basin does. We don't have those reservoirs to equal out the flows or allow us to overuse. We have to live with variable hydrology, and we take cuts every single year.' Upper-basin states want a willingness in this settlement for agreement that focuses on the water supply, not the demand. 'Common sense would tell you, maybe Mother Nature should drive how we operate the system.' That, she said, is the bedrock principle of the proposal from the upper division. With plentiful snowfall, greater releases from Powell might be possible, said Mitchell, and in times of extreme duress, water from Flaming Gore and perhaps the Blue Mesa and Navajo too. She said there might be room for greater conservation measures in the upper basin states. But there must be 'real work happening down in the lower basin,' she said. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE