Opinion
A decade ago, the rallying cry of the Standing Rock protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline—slated to cross beneath the Missouri River within the ancestral lands of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe—was Mní Wičóni, meaning “Water is Life.”
The phrase reflects both a basic human necessity and a core Indigenous belief: water is sacred.
Across Indian Country, many reservations still lack access to safe drinking water. On the Navajo Nation—roughly the size of West Virginia—about 30% of citizens live without running water.
A reservation where nearly one-third of residents lack running water exposes a stark divide between national wealth and daily reality. This is more than an infrastructure issue—it is a public health crisis, a matter of dignity, and an ongoing policy failure.
Earlier this month, Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs during a hearing that included review of the Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025.
Nygren said a typical Navajo family that must haul water to meet basic needs spends an average of $600 per month. By comparison, the typical U.S. family pays about $78 per month for piped water that flows with the turn of a spigot.
It’s safe to say that paying $600 each month for water would erode the financial stability of most American families—not just Navajo families.
The committee also invited the U.S. Department of the Interior to present the administration’s position. Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget Scott Cameron testified that while the administration supports tribal access to clean water, it is concerned about the cost.
“With over $13 billion in Indian water rights settlements pending before Congress, we believe it is important for settling parties to have realistic expectations regarding the federal contributions toward settlement that this administration can support,” Cameron said.
While Cameron was on Capitol Hill, the Trump administration was waging a war more than 6,000 miles away in Iran. The price tag for this war of choice has been estimated at $1 billion per day for American taxpayers.
The war lacks public support. Sixty-one percent of Americans oppose it, according to a Pew Research Center poll released last Wednesday. Readers of Native News Online oppose the war at even higher levels, with 89% disapproval.
The administration is reportedly seeking a staggering $200 billion in additional funds to support its efforts.
The contrast is clear: the federal government can move swiftly to fund military action, while Indian water rights settlements—totaling about $13 billion—remain unresolved.
One reflects political will. The other exposes its absence.
Tribal water settlements should not be treated as optional. These are settlements—legally binding obligations rooted in treaties, court decisions, and the federal government’s trust responsibility to Native nations.
For communities across Indian Country, this is practical: whether families have running water, whether housing can be built, and whether economic development can move forward.
Meanwhile, the federal government continues to fund military operations at a far faster pace. Funding moves quickly when framed as national security. Yet the basic need for clean water in Native communities moves slowly.
Beyond military spending estimated at $1 billion per day, the administration has drawn scrutiny for other expenditures, including roughly $200 million for an aircraft and a $220 million ad campaign tied to former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. There is also taxpayer spending at Trump-owned properties, along with tens of millions spent on military deployments in U.S. cities.
The pattern is familiar: the federal government moves quickly when it decides something matters. For many tribal communities, access to water still does not meet that test.
What makes this disparity even more troubling is that Indian water settlements are, in many ways, cost-saving measures. They resolve decades of litigation, clarify rights, and create certainty for states, municipalities, and agricultural users.
The issue is not whether the United States can afford $13 billion. It clearly can. The issue is whether it chooses to honor its commitments to Native nations with the same urgency it applies elsewhere.
When the federal government prioritizes war spending, ad campaigns, and trips to Mar-a-Lago over treaty obligations, it sends a clear message about whose needs matter—and whose can wait.
That message has been heard for generations in Indian Country. It is long past time for the federal government to answer with action.
Water is life. War is death.
Thayék gde nwéndëmen — We are all related