The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday against the Navajo Nation in a dispute concerning the tribe’s access to the drought-stricken Colorado River. Critics says the decision harms a community where an estimated one-third of tribal members lack running water and furthers the history of the US government breaking its promises to tribes. The case, Arizona v Navajo Nation, centres on the obligations of an 1868 treaty, which established the Navajo reservation as the tribe’s permanent home, following their forced removal from their ancestral lands by the United States military. The tribe argued that under the treaty, the US government has an obligation to evaluate the tribe’s need for water and factor that analysis into how it divides up water access to the Colorado River, which serves over 40 million people and passes through seven states. The US government, as well as the states of Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado, and various water districts in California, argued against the tribe in consolidated appeals. They claimed that the tribe’s interpretation of the treaty would undermine existing agreements on sharing the water from the Colorado and create and impose unsubstantiated obligations on the US government to develop water infrastructure for the tribe. In a 5-to-4 decision, all but one of the high court’s conservatives ruled against the tribe. “In light of the treaty’s text and history, we conclude that the treaty does not require the United States to take those affirmative steps,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. “And it is not the Judiciary’s role to rewrite and update this 155-year-old treaty. Rather, Congress and the President may enact — and often have enacted — laws to assist the citizens of the western United States, including the Navajos, with their water needs.” The court’s three liberal justices, as well as the Trump-appointed Neil Gorsuch, an advocate for tribal rights, dissented. “The Navajo have waited patiently for someone, anyone, to help them, only to be told (repeatedly) that they have been standing in the wrong line and must try another,” he wrote in his dissenting opinion. He argued, alongside the tribe, that the Navajo weren’t forcing the US government to immediately start building water infrastructure or changing water claims on the river, but rather begin the process of fully accounting for what the nation needed. Navajo representatives criticised the ruling. "My job as the president of the Navajo Nation is to represent and protect the Navajo people, our land, and our future,” Navajo Nation president Buu Nygren said in a statement after the ruling. “The only way to do that is with secure, quantified water rights to the Lower Basin of the Colorado River.” With a population of about 175,000 and a land mass larger than West Virginia, the Navajo Nation is the largest US tribal reservation, and the Colorado River and its tributaries flow alongside and through the tribe’s territory. “The US government excluded Navajo tribal citizens from receiving a share of water when the original apportioning occurred and today’s Supreme Court decision for Arizona v. Navajo Nation condoned this lack of accountability,” John Echohawk, executive director of the Native American Rights Fund, one of the many Indigenous groups that filed briefs in support of the Navajo Nation, said in a statement. “Despite today’s ruling, Tribal Nations will continue to assert their water rights and NARF remains committed to that fight.” In 2003, the Navajos sued the federal government regarding access to the Colorado River, while the tribe has also fought for access to a tributary, the Little Colorado River, in state court. As The Independent has reported, many on the Navajo nation struggle for basic water access. “If you run out [of water] in the evening, you have to get up earlier the next day to make sure that there’s water for the kids to wash hands, brush their teeth, make breakfast,” Tina Becenti told The Independent. “It was time-consuming and took a lot of energy.” Tribes were cut out of initial deals made to allocate the water on the Colorado River, leaving many to rely on thousands of unregulated wells, springs, and livestock troughs that are spread across the reservation, which can pose a serious health risk. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, these sources may contain bacterial or fecal contaminants, along with unsafe levels of uranium and arsenic – a legacy of mining on Navajo land which began with the US military’s Manhattan Project for nuclear weapons in 1944 and continued until 2005. The fate of the Colorado River has become increasingly contentious, as the vital waterway dwindles under heavy demand and a changing climate. In May, following years of tense negotiations, Arizona, California, and Nevada agreed to cut their use of water from the Colorado in exchange for $1.2bn in federal funding, a last-minute compromise that staved off catastrophic impacts to agriculture, electricity generation, and water supplies to major cities like Phoenix and Los Angeles. The high court decision follows a ruling this month on another topic with a long and complicated history involving tribal groups: adoption. Last week, a 7-2 majority ruled to preserve the Indian Child Welfare Act, defending the law’s preference for the foster care and adoption of Native children by their relatives and Tribes, which was implemented following investigations that revealed more than one-third of Native children were being removed from their homes and placed with non-Native families and institutions, cutting off important family and cultural ties. Louise Boyle and Alex Woodward contributed reporting to this story. Read More Father of 13 dies in Colorado rafting accident after saving his children from danger Feds announce start of public process to reshape key rules on Colorado River water use by 2027 Nevada fight over leaky irrigation canal and groundwater more complicated than appears on surface Supreme Court rules against Navajo Nation in Colorado River water rights case Feds announce start of public process to reshape key rules on Colorado River water use by 2027 Vegas water agency empowered to limit home water flows in future

US tourist Stephen Termini is believed to have been kicked and beaten in Dublin city centre.

It took a slow-but-steady climb for 'The Wire' to emerge as a cultural phenomenon, but the show that challenged every cops-and-robbers television trope has permeated just about every corner of our culture.

Deadly fires have raged for a century in mines in India's Jharkhand state, where Savitri Mahto is one of 100,000 people risking their lives shovelling...

While most of the times Andrew Tate receives backlash for his controversial views, he has an ardent group of followers that supports him

Treasuries dropped in Asia as they reopened following a US long weekend, extending a global slide that began

Mike Pence says Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis do not grasp the broader implications of their call for limited military assistance to Ukraine

Ukraine's energy sector is under...

When Italy's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni made an official visit to the crime-ridden Neapolitan suburb of Caivano last week, she promised a "radical reclamation" of a territory she admitted "the state had failed."

Hunter Biden has sued the IRS, arguing that they unlawfully released his private tax information. The son of the president is also alleging that the tax agency failed to safeguard his private records. The younger Mr Biden is seeking all the files linked to the disclosure of tax information, as well as $1,000 for every improper disclosure, and legal fees, in addition to other things, CNN reported. The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Washington, DC. It doesn’t name the two IRS whistleblowers as defendants, but it’s focused on information shared by the agents – Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler – as well as their lawyers in testimony to Congress, interviews, and public statements. “Despite clear warnings from Congress that they were prohibited from disclosing the contents of their testimony to the public in another forum, Mr. Shapley and Mr. Ziegler’s testimony only emboldened their media campaign against Mr. Biden,” the legal filing notes. “And finally, since their public testimony before the House of Representatives on July 19, 2023, the agents have become regular guests on national media outlets and have made new allegations and public statements regarding Mr. Biden’s confidential tax return information that were not previously included in their transcripts before the Committee on Ways and Means.” “The lawsuit is about the decision by IRS employees, their representatives, and others to disregard their obligations and repeatedly and intentionally publicly disclose and disseminate Mr. Biden’s protected tax return information outside the exceptions for making disclosures in the law,” Mr Biden’s legal filing states. “These agents’ putative ‘whistleblower’ status cannot and does not shield them from their wrongful conduct in making unauthorized public disclosures that are not permitted by the whistleblower process. In fact, a ‘whistleblower’ is supposed to uncover government misconduct, not the details of that employee’s opinion about the alleged wrongdoing of a private person,” the lawsuit adds. The legal filing claims that Mr Shapley and Mr Ziegler did more than verify the investigation into Mr Biden – that they shared specific claims against the 53-year-old, the amount of the deductions he had taken and how much he owed in taxes. Mr Shapley’s attorneys said in a Friday statement that Mr Biden’s lawyers have attempted to get the Department of Justice to take action against their clients for sharing information that was protected under whistleblower regulations. “Taxpayer privacy laws are written by Congress, and it gave itself authority in those laws to hear disclosures about taxpayer information,” a lawyer for Mr Shapley said in the statement on Friday. The agents shared their allegations regarding the Department of Justice’s handling of the Biden probe earlier this year. The Department of Justice said in June that they had struck a deal with Mr Biden that meant that he would plead guilty to two tax misdemeanours after he didn’t pay his taxes on time in 2017 and 2018. Mr Biden also agreed to a deal which would mean that he wouldn’t be charged with a gun possession violation, but that agreement was torn up following scrutiny by a federal judge. When the judge declined to greenlight the deal, discussions ended between the office of US Attorney David Weiss and Mr Biden’s legal team. Mr Weiss then asked for, and was granted, the status of Special Counsel. Mr Biden was indicted on three felony gun charges on Thursday and the office of Mr Weiss has stated that they could bring tax charges, with Washington, DC and California being on the list of possible jurisdictions. Read More Rambling Biden is on the ropes – will his Democratic challengers strike? Trump denies pushing for Biden impeachment inquiry in secret meetings with MAGA Republicans Trump suggests Biden impeachment is revenge for his own

By Jeff Mason and Kanishka Singh WASHINGTON U.S. President Joe Biden has urged both sides in the West

Having struggled to reduce its trade reliance on China, New Zealand is now trying to diversify within it.