The Indigenous World 2024: United States of America
The number of Indigenous people in the United States of America is estimated at between 3.1 and 8.7 million,[1] of which around 20% live in American Indian areas or Alaska Native villages.
Indigenous Peoples in the United States are more commonly referred to as Native groups. The state with the largest Native population is California; the place with the largest Native population is New York City.
With some exceptions, the official status of being American Indian or Alaska Native is conferred on members of federally-recognized tribes.
Five hundred and seventy-four Native American tribal entities were recognized as American Indian or Alaska Native tribes by the United States as of January 2023,[2] and most of these have recognized national homelands. Federally-recognized Native nations are inherently sovereign nations but their sovereignty is legally curbed by being unilaterally defined as wards of the federal government. The federal government mandates tribal consultation for many issues but has plenary authority over Indigenous nations. Many Native nations have specific treaty rights and the federal government has assumed responsibility for Native peoples through its guardianship, although those responsibilities are often underfunded. There are also State-recognized and non-recognized American Indian tribes but these are not officially Native nations in the eyes of the federal government.
While socio-economic indicators vary widely across different regions, the poverty rate for those who identify as American Indian or Alaska Native is around 18%.
The United States announced in 2010 that it would support the UNDRIP as moral guidance after voting against it in 2007. The United States has not ratified ILO Convention No. 169.
While American Indians born within the territory claimed by the United States are American citizens, they are also citizens of their own nations.
Land rights
American Indians and Alaska Natives can own lands like any other American citizen due to their status as citizens of the United States of America. However, as enrolled members of Native nations (or as these Native nations’ governments), much of their lands is owned “in trust”. This means that while individuals or tribal governments own the land, the federal government holds the title to the lands in trust for them. Such lands can only be leased, sold, or changed with the agreement of the federal government, they count as federal lands for tax purposes, and these are the lands over which tribal governments hold the most unlimited sovereignty. Sovereignty over “fee lands” (lands for which the owners – Native or non-Native – hold the title themselves) is more contested, although tribal governments hold specific rights over fee lands on reservations.
Some 56 million acres (over 22.5 million hectares) are owned in trust. Trust lands are mostly owned by the 347 federally-recognized tribes in the lower 48 states. The 227 tribes in Alaska have fought for years to be able to own lands in trust. In 2023, a 787 square foot (73 square meters) parcel in Juneau, Alaska became one epicenter of this fight when the state of Alaska filed a suit against taking the property in trust for the Tlingit and Haida tribes. The state argues that the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) prohibits trust lands in Alaska. The Biden administration, however, restored an opinion (previously rescinded by the Trump administration) that allows the federal government to take lands into trust in Alaska (see The Indigenous World 2017, 2019).
Some tribes have no land base at all. One of those, the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona, saw a bill introduced to Congress in 2023 to ratify a treaty between the tribe and the Navajo Nation that would grant them 5,400 acres of the Navajo reservation. While the two nations entered into the treaty in March 2000, the United States has not yet ratified it; the treaty cannot become legal until it does.[3]
Land back
In 1934, Native people in the United States owned 47 million acres, down from 138 million in 1887. Native land holdings have gone up and, in recent years, a movement called “Land Back” has contributed to this. Tribes are buying land that they lost; in Nebraska, the Winnebago, the Ponca, and the Iowa have bought 3,000 acres of farmland over the past five years, for example. Such purchases often involve purchase prices higher than average for the area, and have to be done in small steps. Another opportunity are lands with conservation easements (see The Indigenous World 2023). In August, California announced a USD 100 million (approx. EUR 91 million) grant program available to Native tribes in the state to buy back lands lost during colonization for cultural and conservation projects. In some cases, land is returned to tribes directly. In February, a bill was introduced to Congress to return land in Iowa and Nebraska to the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska from the U.S. Corps of Engineers. In September, Minnesota gave the Upper Sioux Agency State Park to the Upper Sioux Community. Over the past two decades, tribes have gained back some 420,000 acres through various pathways.
Where tribes cannot get lands restored, the federal government has entered into more co-management cooperative agreements (see The Indigenous World 2023). In 2023, almost 200 such agreements were announced. The University of Washington, together with the Native American Rights Fund and other organizations, has opened a clearing house for such agreements.[4]
Sacred sites
In many places, sites that are culturally significant lie outside Native lands. While, in December, the federal government finalized new guidelines for protecting such sites,[5] problems remain. In July, a federal court ruled in favor of a lithium mine in Nevada despite the objections of several Paiute tribes. The Reno-Sparks Indian Colony and the Summer Lake Paiute Tribe are still trying to have the area around Thacker Pass recognized as a cultural district. Meanwhile, construction for the mine is underway.
The Resolution Copper mine, which would destroy the Apache sacred site of Oak Flat in Arizona (see The Indigenous World 2021, 2022, 2023), is still being upheld by the courts, and in March the Forest Service said it could not say when it could finalize an Environmental Impact Statement. The San Carlos Apache appealed to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in April for support against the mine.
Natural resources
In January, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invoked the Clean Water Act to veto the Pebble Mine in Alaska (see The Indigenous World 2021, 2023). However, in July, the state of Alaska appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that Alaska be exempted from the Clean Water Act and that the EPA ruling be overturned. Also in Alaska, in March, the Biden administration approved the Willow oil extraction project, projected to produce 600 million barrels of petroleum over the next 30 years. This is a legacy of the Trump administration, albeit much reduced (see The Indigenous World 2020, 2021, 2022).
In July, the first of four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in Oregon and California was removed. This is the world’s largest dam removal and river restoration project so far, designed to help restore salmon populations, among other environmental concerns (see The Indigenous World 2023). In June, the Yurok Tribe signed a memorandum of understanding with CalTrout and Farmers Ditch Company to restore the salmon habitat on the Scott River, a tributary of the Klamath, which produces the most coho salmon in California. In April, the Association of Village Council Presidents and the Tanana Chiefs Conference, together representing around 100 Native villages in Alaska, sued the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). They argue that the NMFS prioritizes commercial fisheries and is thus endangering fish populations.
In Wisconsin, a federal judge ruled in June that an oil pipeline operated by Enbridge – Line 5 – had been trespassing on the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa’s land. The right of way over the Bad River reservation expired in 2013 but Enbridge insisted it had the right to operate the pipeline until 2043. The decision demands the company shut down the portion of the pipeline crossing tribal lands and pay the tribe USD 5.1 million (approx. EUR 4.6 million). The company has appealed the decision. It is also proposing to build a segment of the pipeline that would go around the reservation but resistance is growing against permitting this project.
Water
In June, the Supreme Court ruled against the Navajo Nation, who had sought water rights from the Colorado River. The agreement in place over water from the river leaves tribes dry – every drop in the river is assigned to seven states or Mexico, and the water in the river has diminished by 20% over the past two decades. Under the Winters doctrine,[6] reservations hold water rights but the Supreme Court majority argued that a treaty in 1868 did not contain any “language that imposed a duty on the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Tribe”.[7] This is reminiscent of another case involving the Hopi, where the federal government also refused to secure the water system based on narrow legal arguments (see The Indigenous World 2016). In the dry western parts of the U.S., in particular, access to water is critical. Around one-third of the people on the Navajo reservation do not have running water in their homes.
Apart from access to water, access to clean water is also an issue. While federally-recognized tribes theoretically have the right to determine clean water standards on a par with states’ rights, only 84 tribes out of 326 with reservation lands have been approved under the Treatment as State (TAS) program so far and are able to set their own standards for waters within their jurisdiction.
National Monuments
One way the federal government can attempt to protect lands and landscapes and co-manage them with tribes is by designating them National Monuments. In March, President Biden created the Avi Kwa Ame National Monument in Nevada and the Castner Range National Monument in Texas. Avi Kwa Ame is spiritually important for Paiute tribes as well as the Zuni, Havasupai, Hopi, Hualapai, Kumeyaay, Yavapai, Maricopa, and other nations. Avi Kwa Ame, or Spirit Mountain, was also designated as tribal cultural property. The Castner Range in the Franklin Mountains is seen as an ancestral homeland by the Comanche and Apache. This area was used as an army training base until 1966, and the designation directs the army to work with tribes to open the land to the public. In August, the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument was designated. This area holds sites sacred to the Havasupai, Hopi, several Paiute tribes, the Navajo, Zuni, and Yavapai-Apache nations. Its designation will also protect the area from further uranium mining.
Rights of nature
More attempts to provide legal rights to natural entities were also initiated in 2023, often with Indigenous leadership. The Great Plains Action Society and the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska are calling for the Mississippi River to be invested with rights. In North Carolina, people are calling for the Haw River to have legal rights. In April, the city of Seattle settled a case brought by the Sauk-Siuattle tribe (see The Indigenous World 2023) on behalf of the salmon and agreed to operate fish passages in its hydroelectric dams. While some states are passing laws prohibiting communities or counties from passing rights of nature laws, tribes could force the issue because they are sovereign.
Sebastian Braun is Director of American Indian Studies and Associate Professor in Anthropology at Iowa State University. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
This article is part of the 38th edition of The Indigenous World, a yearly overview produced by IWGIA that serves to document and report on the developments Indigenous Peoples have experienced. The photo above is of an Indigenous man harvesting quinoa in Sunimarka, Peru. This photo was taken by Pablo Lasansky, and is the cover of The Indigenous World 2024 where this article is featured. Find The Indigenous World 2024 in full here
Notes and references
[1] Estimates vary depending on definitions. The official Census uses self-identification. It gives much smaller numbers for those who only identify as American Indian/Alaska Native than it does for those who identify as American Indian/Alaska Native plus another population group. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service and other agencies of the federal government provide numbers based on enrollment in federally-recognized tribes and/or based on eligibility for their services. Current numbers are based on 2021 estimates by the U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey, S0201 Selected Population Profile in the United States. https://data.census.gov/table?q=S0201&t=006:009:01A&y=2021&tid=ACSSPP1Y2021.S0201
[2] Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Indian Entities Recognized by and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs.” Federal Register 88 (8): 2112-2116. 12 January 2023. Notices. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-01-12/pdf/2023-00504.pdf
[3] 3 H.R. 2461, 118th Congress, 1st Session. San Juan Southern Paiute Tribal Homelands Act of 2023. 3 H.R. 2461, 118th Congress, 1st Session. San Juan Southern Paiute Tribal Homelands Act of 2023. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2461?s=1&r=19
[4] Sovereign-to-Sovereign (S2S) Cooperative Agreements. https://lib.law.uw.edu/cooperative
[5] Best Practices Guide for Federal Agencies Regarding Tribal and Native Hawaiian Sacred Sites. https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/media_document/sacred_sites_guide_508_2023-1205.pdf
[6] The Winters doctrine, based on a Supreme Court decision from 1908, states that by establishing reservations, the federal government implicitly also established the right to enough water to fulfill the purposes of the reservation. While this is a federal right, the federal government subsequently gave the right to assess the needs to the states, who also interpret the purposes of the reservations. In many cases, this leads to reservations having theoretical water rights (rights to “dry water”) but no access to real water (“wet water”).
[7] Arizona et al. v. Navajo Nation et al. Supreme Court of the United States. Nos. 21-1484 and 22-51. 22 June 2023.
Tags: Land rights, Business and Human Rights , Cultural Integrity , Conservation
