I. History

Indigenous reservations in the United States were created through treaties, forced removals, and federal policies that confined Indigenous Nations to specific territories, often far from their original homelands. These reservations were not established to support Indigenous self-determination, but rather to free land for settler expansion while exerting control over Indigenous peoples. Many reservations were located on marginal land with limited access to clean water, fertile soil, or economic opportunities. This marginalization created the long term environmental and infrastructural disparities that persist today. Over time, federal neglect and underinvestment in reservation infrastructure, particularly water systems, have become a clear example of environmental racism, where Indigenous communities disproportionately bear the burden of unsafe environmental conditions due to systemic discrimination and political exclusion.

Through treaties with the federal government, many Indigenous Nations were promised a “permanent, livable homeland,” which implicitly included access to safe and reliable drinking water. In practice, however, these promises have not been fulfilled. Many reservation communities continue to lack basic drinking water infrastructure, face contamination from aging systems, or rely on unsafe sources such as unregulated wells. Federal responsibility for tribal water systems is often fragmented across agencies, leading to gaps in funding, oversight, and maintenance. As a result, Indigenous communities experience higher rates of water insecurity than non-Indigenous populations, revealing a stark gap between treaty commitments and lived reality. The failure to uphold treaty obligations around water access reflects not only infrastructural neglect but also a broader pattern of broken trust between Indigenous Nations and the federal government.

In Oklahoma, where numerous Tribal Nations are located, drinking water challenges are intensified by long-standing legal disputes and jurisdictional conflicts. Tribal Nations often face state interference in water governance, even in cases where federal law recognizes tribal authority. This undermines tribal autonomy and limits the ability of Nations to regulate, fund, and enforce water quality standards within their own territories. Only two Tribal Nations in Oklahoma, the Choctaw Nation and the Chickasaw Nation, have successfully quantified their water rights through negotiated settlements, leaving many other Nations without clear legal claims to the water resources they depend on. This legal uncertainty contributes to under-resourced water systems and perpetuates inequitable access to safe drinking water across the state.

II. Impact on Communities

Many tribal communities continue to lack access to safe and reliable drinking water. This issue is rooted in decades of historical neglect and broken trust. Around half of Native households have unreliable water and poor sanitation access, directly limiting communities’ ability to protect public health, fully govern, sustain local economics, and uphold cultural and ceremonial practices tied to water. Even though tribal water rights are legally recognized through treaties and doctrines such as Winters, restrictive state policies, notably Oklahoma’s 2005 “Midnight River”, have prevented many Tribal Nations from setting or enforcing their own water quality standards. These nations are also unable to challenge excessive outside state and corporate water use. This ongoing tension creates distrust in the federal and state governments and reinforces long-standing racial inequities in infrastructure and environmental protection.

The impacts of poor water access can be most clearly seen through public health and financial strain. Limited water access makes everyday activities like cooking, bathing, and preventing waterborne illnesses significantly more difficult, worsening existing health disparities for indigenous peoples. Families are forced to spend their income on bottled water or travel long distances to find safe sources, taking time away from work and school. Many environmental threats, such as agricultural runoff , algal blooms, oil and gas injection wells, flooding and contaminated groundwater are rooted in a lack of drinkable water. The reliance on bottled water not only creates a financial strain, but also has environmental consequences. These tribal communities are forced to bear the weight of these systemic issues.

For Indigenous youth, water insecurity has become a normalized part of daily life. Many indigenous children must ration water or rely on bottled supplies, reshaping their understanding of dignity and what it means to have your basic needs met. Illnesses and hygiene challenges can also lead to school absences, added stress, mental health struggles, and fewer opportunities. Experiencing ongoing government inaction also introduces the youth to concepts of injustice and an infringement upon rights at an early age, which further reinforces generational trauma. On the other hand, these experiences can inspire resilience, motivating the Indigenous youth to become leaders, advocates, and activists, fighting for water justice, environmental protection, and the future of their communities.

III. Policy Problem

On January 13, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rollback of Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. This Section gives states and tribes the authority to “review and veto federally permitted pipelines, dams, coal mining, data centers, and other projects that harm water quality” (Environmental Law and Policy Center, 2026). The reasoning behind the rollback was that this Section was “regulatory overreach,” and its removal would “slash delays” for federally permitted projects being undertaken (Environmental Law and Policy Center, 2026). The EPA has also claimed that this rollback would be “maximizing permitting efficiency and eliminating unwarranted delays that have stifled economic growth” (US EPA, 2026). The agency assured that they would still be ensuring water quality, but would be removing “unnecessary burden on critical infrastructure projects” (US EPA, 2026). 

The EPA pushed the narrative that this slashing of Section 401 would be a benefit, however concerns have been raised over whether this would allow projects to move forward even if they are going to cause pollution of waterways (Environmental Law and Policy Center, 2026). Concerns include cutting back state and tribal authority on projects involving their waterways, rendering them unable to intervene or stop projects being undertaken that will put their water quality at risk (Environmental Law and Policy Center, 2026). Nancy Stoner, Senior Attorney at the Environmental Law & Policy Center stated, “EPA is not content just to greenlight corporate pollution itself – it is now proposing to prevent states and Tribes from using authorities given to them by federal law to protect the public,” emphasizing concerns with prioritizing economic growth through leniency towards industry over environmental and public health and safety (Environmental Law and Policy Center, 2026).  

IV. Policy Options

A. Colorado River Basin Project

The 29 federally recognized tribes in the Colorado River Basin hold legal rights to a significant amount of the basin’s water (University of Montana, 2026). These tribes have historically used the Colorado River’s waters for cultural and religious practices, irrigation, power generation, and numerous other activities. Despite holding ownership over the water longer than the basin-reliant states, tribal nations have not been included in negotiations over the division of the water. In recent negotiations, tribal nations are expected to have more formal roles with the hopes that they will gain “legal certainty and the ability to access, develop, or lease their water” (Walker, 2025), which could relieve the water access problem in underserved communities. 

By granting tribal nations greater legal ownership over the water, and giving them funding for water infrastructure and conservation, tribal nations will likely be able to meet their sustainable water management goals. The primary problem with this, however, is the uncertainty of federal funding that can jeopardize attempts of negotiation between tribal nations and the basin states. 

B. Access to Watershed Programs

Watersheds are interconnected land-water systems that carry water from land to its final destination of a body of water; healthy watersheds naturally filter and store water, ultimately preventing flooding by absorbing excess water and conserving habitats (USDA). In 2024, the Natural Resources Conservation Service removed the requirement of eminent domain authority for tribes, or the ability for tribes to exercise the right to seize private lands for public use. This is not a right granted to all tribes. By removing this requirement, the NCRS opened access to the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Operations Program, granting tribes the ability to undertake new watershed projects. 

The NCRS Watershed Program grants funding to communities to implement conservation methods that “prevent erosion, restore infrastructure, improve water and air quality, increase water filtration, [and] enhance wildlife habitat” (USDA). This rule change was especially beneficial for tribes in Alaska, who are greatly affected by thawing permafrost that contributes to erosion and flooding. 

While the watershed programs are greatly beneficial, a drawback is that all projects require a “local sponsor”, individuals with the following: the power of eminent domain, ability to acquire permits and licenses, the authority to levy taxes, the ability to obtain agreements to implement soil conservation practices, the ability to act was the project’s fiscal agent, the ability to provide watershed management oversight, and numerous other requirements (USDA). Although the idea of a local sponsor is to unite the different agencies and organizations involved in a watershed project, this can prove to be a deterrent to encouraging projects as this acts as a barrier to obtaining funding.

V. Conclusion

The lack of drinking water access in tribal communities remains an ongoing issue needed to be addressed. With a disconnection between political implementation and reality, many tribal communities struggle to maintain economic, cultural, and public health well-being. From the lack of impact on indigenous youth to the burden of effectively addressing the issue without overburdening the government, the lack of drinking water access remains a pressing issue despite political initiatives. By examining previous policies, this brief provides policy recommendations aimed at effectively increasing drinking water access in tribal communities, serving as a blueprint for water governance in underserved communities.

‍

VI. Works Cited

2026b. “EPA Proposed Water Rule Restricts States’, Tribes’ Authority to Stop Federal Projects That Pollute Waterways | Environmental Law & Policy Center.” Environmental Law & Policy Center. January 14, 2026. https://elpc.org/news/epa-proposed-water-rule-restricts-states-tribes-authority-to-stop-federal-projects-that-pollute-waterways/.

2026b. US EPA. January 13, 2026. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-proposes-cwa-section-401-rule-streamline-permitting-unleash-economic-growth-and.

Borunda, Alejandra. 2025. “Countries Are Gathering for Climate Negotiations. Here’s Where the U.S. Stands.” NPR, November 10, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/11/10/nx-s1-5601876/trump-cop30-climate-brazil-belem.

Environmental Law and Policy Center. 2026a. “EPA Proposed Water Rule Restricts States’, Tribes’ Authority to Stop Federal Projects That Pollute Waterways | Environmental Law & Policy Center.” Environmental Law & Policy Center. January 14, 2026. https://elpc.org/news/epa-proposed-water-rule-restricts-states-tribes-authority-to-stop-federal-projects-that-pollute-waterways/.

“EPA Proposes CWA Section 401 Rule to Streamline Permitting, Unleash Economic Growth, and Protect America’s Waterways | US EPA.” 2026a. US EPA. January 13, 2026. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-proposes-cwa-section-401-rule-streamline-permitting-unleash-economic-growth-and.

Geest, Emily, Teri Cocke, and Oklahoma State University. 2023. “FUTURE ACCESSIBILITY OF DRINKING FOUNTAINS.” Journal-article. Journal of Science Policy & Governance. http://www.sciencepolicyjournal.org/uploads/5/4/3/4/5434385/geest_etal_jspg_23-1__1_.pdf.

“Harnessing Federal Resources to Enhance Tribal Water Capacity and Well-Being.” n.d. The Administration for Children and Families. https://acf.gov/ocs/outreach-material/harnessing-federal-resources-enhance-tribal-water-capacity-and-well-being.

Harrison, Derek. 2025. “US Is (Officially) Gone, but Not Forgotten, at COP30.” Inside Climate News. November 21, 2025. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20112025/united-states-cop30-absence-influence/.

National Survey of K-12 Public School Educators. 2022. “The State of Climate Change Education: Findings From a National Survey of Educators.” https://naaee.org/sites/default/files/2023-02/NAAEE_State%20of%20Climate%20Change%20Education%20Report_SUBMITTED%2012_12_22%5B1%5D.pdf.

Native American Rights Fund. 2025. “Tribal Water Issues in Oklahoma - Native American Rights Fund.” December 2, 2025. https://narf.org/tribal-water-oklahoma/.

Simon, Julia. 2025. “With U.S. Noticeably Absent, World Leaders Gather in Brazil for COP30 Climate Summit.” NPR, November 10, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/11/10/nx-s1-5594924/with-u-s-noticeably-absent-world-leaders-gather-in-brazil-for-cop30-climate-summit.

“Tribal Drinking Water - the State of the Data — Environmental Policy Innovation Center.” n.d. Environmental Policy Innovation Center. https://www.policyinnovation.org/tribal-drinking-water-data#:~:text=A%202016%20report%20by%20the,drawing%20from%20EPA's%20ECHO%20database%2C.

United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP]. 2025. “Adaptation Gap Report: Running on Empty.” UN Environment Programme. https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/48798.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). “Watershed Programs | Natural Resources Conservation Service.” Natural Resources Conservation Service. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs-initiatives/watershed-programs. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). “Watershed Programs - Sponsor Eligibility.” Natural Resources Conservation Service. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs-initiatives/watershed-protection-and-flood-prevention-operations-wfpo-program/watershed.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2024. “Biden-Harris Administration Announces Nearly $82 Million to Bring Clean Drinking Water to Tribal Communities.” U.S. Department of The Interior, October 31, 2024. https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-administration-announces-nearly-82-million-bring-clean-drinking-water.

U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Heather Tanana, Universal Access to Clean Water for Tribal Communities, Democratic Staff, House Committee on Natural Resources, DigDeep-US Water Alliance, Jay Willis, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Nell Jessup Newton. (1849) 2023. “Oversight Hearing on Water as a Trust Resource: Examining Access in Native Communities.” Report. U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. https://www.indian.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023-09-27-HRG-Testimony-Tanana.pdf.

Walker, Alice. 2025. “Tribal Interest in the Future of the Colorado River.” Native American Rights Fund. https://narf.org/tribal-interests-colorado-river/.

“Water & Tribes Initiative | Colorado River Basin.” 2026. University of Montana. https://www.naturalresourcespolicy.org/projects/water-tribes-colorado-river-basin/.

“WaTER Center.” n.d. https://www.ou.edu/coe/centers/water.

“Water in Oklahoma | US EPA.” 2025. US EPA. August 1, 2025. https://www.epa.gov/ok/water-oklahoma.

“With the Rest of the World at a Climate Summit, Trump Administration Announces Major Environmental Rollbacks.” 2025. NBC News. November 24, 2025. https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/world-cop30-trump-administration-rolls-back-environmental-rules-rcna245135.