Show Summary Details

Page of

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Environmental Science. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 19 April 2024

Ceremonial and Subsistence Water Uselocked

Ceremonial and Subsistence Water Uselocked

  • Dale WhittingtonDale WhittingtonGillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  •  and Michael HanemannMichael HanemannArizona State University

Summary

Water for cultural and religious purposes, referred to as ceremonial and subsistence (C&S) use, is a distinctive feature of many Indigenous and other communities. Whether this constitutes a legitimate claim for water for an American Indian Tribe in the United States was litigated in the context of a trial to determine the federal government’s obligation to reserve water for Indian Tribes whom it had settled on reservations during the 19th century. Following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1963, the amount of water the federal government was obligated to provide was defined as the quantity of water that could be used to grow crops profitably on the reservation. In 2001, the Arizona Supreme Court adopted a new definition, for Arizona, namely the amount of water that ensured the reservation would be a permanent homeland. However, parts of this 2001 ruling were contradictory and seemed to support the profitable irrigation standard. What the Arizona Supreme Court actually meant was not put to the test until the Hopi water rights trial in 2020. The Hopi Tribe’s water rights claims included a claim for new water to replace diminishing local water supplies in order for the Tribe to continue cultivating traditional varietals of corn and other crops. Hopi agricultural practices date back at least a millennium and are a central part of Hopi culture and religion. The crops are used in cultural and religious ceremonies and are not sold commercially. The Hopi claim for water for irrigation to support C&S cultivation was opposed by the other parties to the case and was rejected by the court.

Subjects

  • Sustainability and Solutions

You do not currently have access to this article

Login

Please login to access the full content.

Subscribe

Access to the full content requires a subscription