The largest tribal water rights settlement in U.S. history is stalled in Congress after four states raised objections to provisions they say could affect their interests in the Colorado River, according to a ProPublica investigation.

The Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Act would resolve outstanding claims on the river for the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe and San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, providing roughly $5 billion in federal funding to build infrastructure that would bring running water to communities where a third of homes currently lack it. The legislation has gained support from Lower Basin states Arizona, California and Nevada, but faces opposition from Upper Basin states Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.

Negotiators for Utah and Wyoming sent a letter in March to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs stating they had "significant unresolved concerns with the legislation that may affect each of our states' rights to and interests in Colorado River water." New Mexico and Colorado sent similar letters, ProPublica reported. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have declined to approve the settlement until all parties reach agreement.

For 83-year-old Marilyn Tewa, a member of the Hopi Tribal Council who has worked on the water rights agreement, the stalemate means her family will continue living without running water at their home in the village of Mishongnovi. The family's kitchen stores water in large plastic containers because there is no faucet. Every other day, Tewa loads 5-gallon buckets into her pickup and drives 5 miles to a well originally built for livestock that draws untreated water from underground.

"That's what keeps us alive," Tewa told ProPublica during a May visit.

What the Right Is Saying

Upper Basin state officials argue they are protecting their legal rights and long-term water security under the compact that governs how Colorado River water is divided among states. The river's upper and lower basins do not precisely follow state borders, with some states having portions in both sections.

The line dividing the two basins cuts across northeastern Arizona and directly through the Navajo reservation. Upper Basin officials contend they have veto power over any settlement that moves water across this boundary, though legal experts note it remains an open question whether approval from all seven states is necessary for congressional action.

State negotiators particularly object to provisions allowing tribes to lease water rights to cities downstream. They fear this could set a precedent enabling wealthy municipalities such as Los Angeles, Phoenix and Las Vegas to purchase vast quantities of Upper Basin water on the open market, potentially diminishing supplies available to agricultural and residential users in their states.

"We have significant unresolved concerns with the legislation that may affect each of our states' rights to and interests in Colorado River water," negotiators for Utah and Wyoming wrote in their March letter to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.

What the Left Is Saying

Democratic lawmakers and tribal advocates argue the settlement represents a long-overdue correction of historical inequities. They note that Native American communities in northern Arizona have lived without reliable water access for generations while cities downstream have grown using the same river system.

The legislation would also create an official reservation for the San Juan Southern Paiute, whose effort to secure a permanent homeland has been folded into the settlement due to their difficulty obtaining recognition through separate congressional action. Supporters say this approach is pragmatic, allowing smaller tribes to achieve goals that might otherwise stall in committee.

Tribal leaders have made concessions to address Upper Basin concerns, including limits on the volume of water and duration of leases they could negotiate with growing towns around Phoenix. The Navajo and Hopi also offered to leave some of their water in drought-depleted reservoirs to help maintain downstream flow levels. Despite these accommodations, the Upper Basin states have maintained their opposition.

"That's my prayer," Tewa said. "That we get this settlement through for all three tribes."

What the Numbers Show

The proposed settlement represents the largest tribal water rights agreement ever brought before Congress, involving three tribes across approximately 1.25 million acres of reservation land in northeastern Arizona.

About one-third of homes on northern Arizona reservations lack running water, according to figures cited in reporting on the negotiations. The legislation includes roughly $5 billion in federal funding for pipes, pumps and treatment plants needed to transport water across the reservations.

The Colorado River serves as a critical water source for nearly 40 million people across seven states. The river's reservoirs have experienced significant depletion during prolonged drought conditions, with water levels reaching historic lows in recent years. The Upper Basin states currently control their allocated shares of the river's flow under existing compact agreements.

To help defray infrastructure costs beyond federal contributions, the Navajo and Hopi tribes plan to lease some of their secured water rights to growing municipalities around Phoenix. Under revised proposals, the tribes accepted limits on both the volume of water available for leasing and the duration of such agreements as an attempt to address Upper Basin concerns.

The Bottom Line

The stalemate illustrates how interstate water disputes intersect with tribal rights issues, creating a complex negotiation that has resisted resolution under multiple administrations regardless of political party. Congress and the White House have repeatedly declined to act on the settlement until all affected parties reach consensus.

What happens next depends largely on whether Upper Basin states modify their position or whether tribal advocates find alternative pathways through Congress that do not require unanimous state agreement. Legal scholars note the question of whether all seven Colorado River Compact states must approve such a settlement remains unsettled in federal law.

For communities like Mishongnovi, the political maneuvering translates into daily reality. Marilyn Tewa and her neighbors continue hauling water from a livestock well while their congressional representatives negotiate over an agreement that has been decades in the making.