The America’s were founded on the lands of Native American peoples. It goes without dispute that here is not one section of land we currently claimed that was once indigenous territory. We are founded on taken land and historically and currently we do not value or compensate these groups adequately if at all.  the Tohono O’dham people are an interesting case to look at with this in mind.

Legally speaking has there been effort shown to compensate the tribe? They do have a college on the terrirory that is very cheap for identified Tohono O’odham indians to peruse secondary education. They have received a large sum  of land totaling 3 mill. acres of land to the west of Tuscon , Az.  and  have been given more groundwater rights which enables their community to run more sucessfully.

Does this legally free the U.S from the Tohono O’odham after the u.s. annexed most of their lands in 1853? Should the U.S. have to be put in such a position for decisions such as the Gadsen purchase that was made so many decades ago?

I think we have to understand that this is not just a group of people being upset that they can’t have something. Ethiclly, its about a group of peoples who history is fundamentally founded in the land and resources of the area. Who, for almost their entire exsistance as a people have lived in that one area and then another group of peoples comes along. Gives them a PIECE of their own land and says the rest is now theirs along with the resources it contains. The most certainly is not fair. And then to survive in the new landscape created for them the indigenous people who are outnumbered by the white settlers have to adhere to another governments laws. Instinctively it’s easy to say but that was so long ago or but i, personally didn’t take their land away i don’t know why its such a big deal.

the big deal is that to say that the Tohono O’odhan are compensated already is to deny that as a separate people they suffered or continue to suffer the effects of losing their autonomy as a people. In the reading it talks about the high rates of poverty, low rates of secondary education and prevalence of crime. These are not unique to this reservation, across the bored this is a symptom of reservations no matter the location. Ethically speaking i have no clue how the U.S. government could improve the situation but i can say without hesitation it will done be done easily or quickly.

For other areas of the United States, the appropriation doctrine is followed to determine water rights. This doctrine states that who ever first puts the water to beneficial use has the water rights. Tribal water rights do not fall under the appropriation doctrine or riparian system. The system that is used for tribal water rights was outlined in Winters v. United States. When American Indian reservations were created, they were created for the intent to allow Native American settlements to become self-sustaining. This would imply the need for water for areas such as farming. In Winters v. United States this was determined, thus determining that the water rights were the tribes.

 

With the purchase of land in 1853 and the clear division that was made between the United States and Mexico the Tohono O’ odham lost land that was given to them in the settlements. With that they began to fight for their farmlands with American ranchers and settlers. In 1909 president Taft, convinced that the San Lucy district had to much land, took more then half of it and restored the land to public domain. Taking even more of the reservations ability to access the water they needed to be sufficient. Into the 1980s the reservation was fighting for water rights against the city of Tucson, they could not compete with Tucson’s continual purchase of farmlands to secure their water rights. The city was literally sucking the land dry, leaving the O’ odham farmers without water, thus losing their jobs. The tribe attorneys discovered the Winters v. United States decision and thus returned water rights.

 

For compensation for all of these years without water rights they were promised 37,000 acre-feet of water annually from the Central Arizona project and another 28,000 acre feet annually from another water source. Totaling 65,000 annually, US water management estimates about 1 acre-foot of water per average suburban household annually. The census for the reservation in 2000 was 8,376 persons. An example to show the amount of water the reservation might use for agriculture would be that 123 acre feet of water is used annually to water 160 acre dairy farm with 2,000 cows.

 

I don’t think they have been compensated properly, I don’t think it is about providing the reservation with more than enough water. The water is not going to fix all of the problems it created years and years ago. I think that both the waters rights and the reservation in general created social problems within the reservation and its society. Legally speaking one could maybe say that the reservation has been compensated enough but I don’t not think that ethically they have been. On that same note I don’t know how they could be compensated to the point of changing the social and economically effects it had.

I do not think that the Tohono O’odham have been adequately compensated for their losses. I think the main question you pose of “what is fair” is the key to this question. When you take someone’s land and force them to adapt to a new way of life and take advantage of their struggles as a society, this is not fair. I guess this goes more towards an ethical standpoint because “legally” everything that happened was permitted. I think you have to look at who created these laws though to fully understand how unfair it really is to the Native American people who were on that land long before we came. We created laws that were friendly to expansion and enforced our laws and rules without taking into account their laws and rules. We just always assume ours are right and just.

I do feel that we have tried to make up for some of the mistreatment that has happened by giving back land to them and the formation of reservations. Again someone came in behind and tried to take advantage of water rights and telling them that they have rights but know that they do not have the funds to fully take advantage or use these rights. Now we are acting like we are helping by signing a water right agreement, which says we will help you out, by giving you water but in return you have to waive all future water rights and claims and related damages. Again taking advantage of a situation, in the end, we are the ones who come out ahead in that deal.