Since time immemorial, various groups of O’odham resided on and stewarded the land that we now know as Tucson. Within the last 400 years, the impacts of colonization and the extractive industries that followed resulted in the drying of the Santa Cruz River. The specific conditions that led to the drying of the Santa Cruz are unique to Tucson. However, the story of the impacts of colonization on natural resources is shared across the world by communities that have experienced and continue to experience the devastation of settler colonialism.
Prior to colonization and the development of Tucson as a city, Tohono O’odham living along the Santa Cruz practiced flood-irrigation farming, hunted local wildlife, and harvested native edible fruits and plants. The arrival of non-native settlers, the establishment of the mission system, and the proliferation of non-native agriculture, cattle ranching, and mining completely changed the O’odham way of life. By the 1800s, shifts in land ownership (land theft) and aggressive groundwater pumping by settlers had impacted local resources to the point that many O’odham were forced to abandon traditional agricultural practices. O’odham previously living in relationship with the land were made to transition from a traditional barter system to seeking wages by working in the city. By the 1940s, the river that had previously brought life to Tucson only flowed after intense rains during the monsoon seasons.
The Santa Cruz River in 1942
The Santa Cruz River in 1942, facing south toward the Santa Rita Mountains. Pictured is a vast mesquite bosque
(forest), a highly productive riparian habitat found in the desert. Photo credit: U.S. Geological Survey.
The Santa Cruz River in 1989
The Santa Cruz River in 1989, facing south toward the Santa Rita Mountains. In place of the mesquite bosque from
1942, there is a dry river bed with little to no vegetation. Photo credit: U.S. Geological Survey.
As time went on, industrial agriculture intensified, and multiple international mining corporations continued operating near the San Xavier District of the Tohono O’odham Nation, both industries pumping water from underneath land the O’odham had farmed for thousands of years. Seeing the need for legal intervention, the Tohono O’odham Nation sued the City of Tucson and numerous mining and agricultural water users to protect its water rights in 1975.
Although tribal nations hold senior water rights through the creation of the reservation system, these rights often go unquantified or undermined by corporate interests.(1, 2) An example is how tribal nations were completely left out of the original allocation agreements of the Colorado River Compact of 1922. After the initial legal filing, it took another 7 years for the Southern Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act (SAWRSA) to be signed into law in 1982.
SAWRSA enabled the Tohono O’odham Nation to hold the entities responsible for draining the Santa Cruz River accountable and to secure water rights for the San Xavier District. The act also required the federal government to build water infrastructure, fund irrigation systems, and create water management plans. In total, SAWRSA awarded the San Xavier and Schuk Toak Districts 66,000 acre feet of Central Arizona Project (CAP) water annually. However, it took over 30 years for the legislation to go into effect: SAWRSA was not fully implemented until 2007. It took another 11 years after the act was put into effect to complete infrastructure to import Colorado River water and see meaningful aquifer recharge as a result of the nation’s conservation practices. An important note is that the rest of the Tohono O’odham Nation still doesn’t have settled water rights; the nation has been tied up in an over 50-year-long water adjudication process involving 30,000 other parties (including the Salt River Project and mining corporations like Freeport and Asarco).(3)
As the original stewards of the land, and as a reflection of their inherent sovereignty, Tribal nations should be at the forefront of local watershed management and restoration. What could it look like for Tucson to ensure equitable continued access to water for everyone–including the original stewards of the land? How can we support San Xavier District's long-standing stewardship of the river especially during periods of water shortages? Considering the uncertainty of the future of Central Arizona Project water that Tucson relies on, especially in light of potential changes to Colorado River water allocations, how could we strengthen our watershed by making an intentional effort to work together?
Jennifer Skinner a Chicana environmental educator and cultural worker from Douglas, AZ. Annisa McKenna works on climate resilience and tribal engagement and is a member of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe from Tucson, Arizona. Jennifer and Anissa are apprentices with Watershed engaging community members in education and restoration efforts to expand our riparian forests in hot neighborhoods.
Resources:
1 For more information, see the following article: “Future Indian Water Settlements in Arizona: The Race to the Bottom of the Waterhole?” (Weldon & McKnight, 2006) https://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/49-2/49arizlrev441.pdf
The Winters Doctrine was first applied to Native tribes by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Winters v. United States. It can be summarized by the phrase “first in time, first in right,” meaning that the person who first appropriates and uses water in compliance with procedures prescribed by state law has the better right to use that water against all persons who subsequently appropriate water. When the federal government reserves and sets aside land for an Indian reservation, it also implicitly reserves enough water rights for use on the reservation to the extent necessary to accomplish its primary purpose.
2 For more information, see the following article: “Wet Water and Paper Water in the Upper Gila River Watershed” ( Kelly Mott Lacroix, et. al, 2016) https://wrrc.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/attachment/Wet-Water-Paper-Water.pdf
There’s a difference between “paper water” and “wet water”; “paper water” may be possessed by those who have a legal water right, but what water is physically available to them is considered “wet water.” When there’s no physical water, “paper water” supplements water resources, often from outside of the watershed. One can have a legal water right, but whether the resource is actually available in the river or stream, or accessible from a groundwater well, may be a different story.
3 For more information see the following article: “How private interests benefit from tribal water settlements” (Anna V. Smith, 2023)