Some Arizona legislators want to wield tribal state gaming compacts as a stick to force tribes to settle outstanding water disputes with the state.
Tribes are seeking the right to have more slot machines and table games at their casinos, which they can only do with new compacts. Nine tribes have unsettled water rights, including the Navajo Nation, which is the largest. There are a total of 22 federally recognized tribes in Arizona, of which 16 have gaming and operate 24 casinos. Six have the right to offer slots which they can lease to other tribes.
A bill, HB 2447, whose sponsors include House Speaker Rusty Bowers and Senate President Karen Fann, would tie the settlement of water rights to the compacts, which expire in 2023.
Governor Doug Ducey is in the midst of protracted compact negotiations with the tribes that began in 2016. He said a deal is “close,” and added, “It’s been a give and take. We owe it to our tribes and our citizens to get it done.”
Another sponsor, Rep. Steve Pierce, told the Arizona Republic, “It needs to be resolved for the tribes and for the state.” He added, “What’s going to push them to settle? Who is making money is the lawyers. It’s not undoable. It’s not a burden. It has to be done some time.”
The section of HB 2447 relating to water rights reads: “This state may not enter into, negotiate, execute, extend or renew any tribal-state gaming compact with a tribe that is a party to litigation regarding water rights in which this state is an adverse party.”
The governor hasn’t yet taken a stand on the bill. Opposition from the tribes is a given, Pierce concedes. “You’re probably right if they are upset, but it’s to help them, too,” he said. “The sooner they get things resolved, the bills from the lawyers offices go down.”
However, the reaction may be stronger than he had anticipated. Senator . Jamescita Peshlakai, a member of the Navajo Nation, told the Republic,
“They are going to consider it an attack on their very existence. And it really is.” Each water issues deserves to be treated individually, she said. “This bill would try to merge them together to address an Arizona state water crisis that the state itself has not prepared for. Each of those issues needs to be addressed on their own.”
Some lawmakers think the tribes don’t give as much in return for the compacts as they should, such as bill co-sponsor Rep. Mark Finchem, who says if the tribes don’t have the “impetus” to settle the disputes, “we’ll bring them to the table some other way.”
A major problem with that approach, says Sarah Porter, director of the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University’s Morrison Institute, is that water disputes frequently involve multiple parties and that tribes don’t often have the right to settle them unilaterally.
“They could deeply desire to settle, but there are lots of other parties and entities that have to participate,” she said.
