For other areas of the United States, the appropriation doctrine is followed to determine water rights. This doctrine states that who ever first puts the water to beneficial use has the water rights. Tribal water rights do not fall under the appropriation doctrine or riparian system. The system that is used for tribal water rights was outlined in Winters v. United States. When American Indian reservations were created, they were created for the intent to allow Native American settlements to become self-sustaining. This would imply the need for water for areas such as farming. In Winters v. United States this was determined, thus determining that the water rights were the tribes.

With the purchase of land in 1853 and the clear division that was made between the United States and Mexico the Tohono O’ odham lost land that was given to them in the settlements. With that they began to fight for their farmlands with American ranchers and settlers. In 1909 president Taft, convinced that the San Lucy district had to much land, took more then half of it and restored the land to public domain. Taking even more of the reservations ability to access the water they needed to be sufficient. Into the 1980s the reservation was fighting for water rights against the city of Tucson, they could not compete with Tucson’s continual purchase of farmlands to secure their water rights. The city was literally sucking the land dry, leaving the O’ odham farmers without water, thus losing their jobs. The tribe attorneys discovered the Winters v. United States decision and thus returned water rights.

For compensation for all of these years without water rights they were promised 37,000 acre-feet of water annually from the Central Arizona project and another 28,000 acre feet annually from another water source. Totaling 65,000 annually, US water management estimates about 1 acre-foot of water per average suburban household annually. The census for the reservation in 2000 was 8,376 persons. An example to show the amount of water the reservation might use for agriculture would be that 123 acre feet of water is used annually to water 160 acre dairy farm with 2,000 cows.

I don’t think they have been compensated properly, I don’t think it is about providing the reservation with more than enough water. The water is not going to fix all of the problems it created years and years ago. I think that both the waters rights and the reservation in general created social problems within the reservation and its society. Legally speaking one could maybe say that the reservation has been compensated enough but I don’t not think that ethically they have been. On that same note I don’t know how they could be compensated to the point of changing the social and economically effects it had.