The Western Shoshone case, based on the 1863 Ruby Valley Treaty, has taken totahy different directions with much broader implications . Thle to approximately 24 million acres in Nevada and California has yet to be conclusively decided. A 1979 Claims Commission award of $26 million, based on 1855 and 1872 land prices, has been made but no funds have been paid to Shoshone. A district court ruling holds that the award has extinguished Western Shoshone land claims, but the traditional Western Shoshone disputed this interpretation and the case is still being considered by an appellate court. The issue has been further complicated by the Dann Case, in which the Bureau of Land Management fled a 1973 court suit against two Western Shoshone women residing near Beowawe for grazing cattle on public lands without required permits or payment of fees . A 1974 countersuh by the Danns once again raised the land title question, which now has been in Federal courts for over eight years. In an attempt to end the seeming judicial deadlock, the Shoshone of Battle Mountain, Ely, Yomba and Duckwater formed the Western Shoshone Lands Federation in 1981. The organization’s function is to reach a negotiated settlement with the U. S. Government. The Moapa Paiute have recently sought to reclaim lands lost in the 1875 Executive Order action. A 1979 proposal for withdrawal of 70,000 acres was formally approved by Congress in December, 1980 .The recently acquired lands wih be used for grazing, expansion of alfalfa and barley fields, and commercial developments on the interstate highway which the reservation now straddles. The rural reservation tribes have established livestock grazing and farming as their major economic enterprises . Because of water scarcity, to be economicahy viable, these ventures require large tracts of land. Therefore,frambuesa y mora the remote Western Shoshone groups at Yomba and Duckwater are currently seeking expansion of theh present reservation boundaries. Livestock grazing has been the heart of both tribal economies in the past and reliance on B.L.M. grazing allotments has been paramount in providing sufficient land for sup-porting sizable herds.

The Yomba Reservation has applied for withdrawal of 20,000 acres in Reese River Valley, which it currently uses under permit from the B.L.M. . The Duckwater Reservation has similarly applied for several hundred thousand acres in 1976, corresponding to their grazing allotments . Similarly, the Fashion Reservation has expanded to 8,180 acres, from the 1907 total of 4,600 acres, due largely to a 1978 increase of 2,640 acres . Present plans to acquire land are not limited to currently recognized groups. The Southern Paiute at Pahrump are seeking Federal tribal status and have recently elected their own counch. An immediate goal of the group is the establishment of a reservation in their traditional lands . Associated closely with the lands issues are the continual struggles over establishment and retention of water rights in this desert country. The issue of Native American water rights is as complex as any issue in the west. The Winters Doctrine, established by court decision in 1908, states that sufficient water must be reserved to fulfill the purposes of the reservations. What constitutes “sufficient” has never been defined; the courts hold that Indians are entitled to water for future uses, not just present and past uses, but it is unclear what the purposes for which water must be used are with respect to reservations . The doctrine conflicts with many state laws, including Nevada’s, establishing priorities and the rights of existing users . The Nevada State law is based on the doctrine of appropriation, rights being acqulied by diverting water from a natural course for “beneficial” use . Early water development activity went unregulated . Details of water conflicts vary from region to region in the state, depending largely upon the nature of the water source involved. Some Nevada tribes, such as the Pyramid Lake and Walker River Paiute, rely on river water rights; others, such as the Moapa Paiute and remote Shoshone groups, rely on shallow wells, springs and surface streams. Presently nine court cases are under litigation involving the Pyramid Lake Paiute and the waters of the Tmckee River. Pyramid Lake, used by the Paiute for commercial fishing in the late 1800s and famous for its recreational trout fishing in the early 1900s, saw a general decline in the fisheries by 1970 due to the lowering of the lake level and pollution of the Truckee River . For decades a significant portion of the Truckee flow has been diverted to the Newlands Project in the Carson Sink area .

By the late 1930s, a delta had formed at the mouth of the Truckee River, blocking the fish from their spawning grounds upstream. The lake level has receded approximately one foot per year since 1880, a total thus far of about 86 feet . By 1974 the Paiute constructed their first hatchery for cutthroat trout and Cui-ui suckers, and have recently completed a second hatchery facility. In 1973 the Pyramid Lake Paiute flied a court suit claiming the U. S. Government had violated its trust responsibility by reducing the flow of the Tmckee River into Pyramid Lake . A U. S. District Court decision ruled that the Federal government had indeed diverted too much water for over 50 years, thus leading to extinction of cutthroat trout in the river and a decline in Pyramid Lake purity. The Northem Paiute were awarded an $8 million settlement in 1975. In a related case, water rights to Stampede Reservoir, constmcted in 1970 on the headwaters of the Tmckee River, have been contested since 1976. Sierra Pacific Power Company and the State of Nevada are suing the Pyramid Lake Paiute and the Interior Department for use of the water for purposes in addition to maintenance of reservation fisheries and Tmckee spawning runs. A U. S. District Court ruhng issued in 1982 has favored the Paiute, but more htigation is in store. Efforts by the Pyramid Lake Paiute to establish a guaranteed average annual flow for maintaining the lake level, reducing lake salinity and supporting the cutthroat trout fisheries, continue today with arguments to be presented soon before the U. S. Supreme Court. The Walker River Paiute began experiencing water shortages from upstream river diversions by the 1870s. The situation became increasingly serious after 1901 when major ranching interests bought out the smaller, independent operators in Smith and Mason vaheys, and initiated large-scale range improvements . Irrigation dams not only diverted water, but also blocked seasonal fish movement upstream. Finally, in 1924, a court suit was fhed over these diversions. In 1936 a judgment was issued favoring the upstream ranching interests , but the decision was appealed and the resulting verdict favored the Paiute. However, the decision granted only a very smah amount of water for reservation use. Fishing at the lake greatly declined during this period due to the lowered lake level ,pots with drainage holes and increased mineralization . Finahy, Weber Reservoir was constructed on the reservation in the 1930s, thus aheviating some of the water problems.

The Moapa Paiute rely on groundwater discharge from a series of geothermal springs as well as on springs on recently acquired ranches adjoining the reservation. Efforts toward economic self-sufficiency, including assumption from the B.l.A. in 1968 of farming responsibilities on reservation lands and the construction of SVi acres of hydroponic greenhouses in 1978, have placed increasing demands on the water supply. More greenhouses, which use large quantities of water, are planned for the future as the Moapa enter the vegetable markets in Las Vegas and Phoenix . The Western Shoshone at Yomba, Duckwater and South Fork have established livestock associations to initiate and coordinate range improvement projects and to issue grazing permits to non-Indian users of tribal lands. Water rights, primarily to springs and small, intermittent streams, were acquired through the purchases of ranches in the 1930s when the reservations were first established. Water sources on ahotments leased from the B.L.M. are also relied upon. For those groups—such as the Moapa and Western Shoshone—who rely on water from spring discharges, the depletion of the water table through off reservation subsurface groundwater pumping is viewed as a threat to tribal economic plans . As a resuh, the fihng for water rights by the U. S. Air Force on public lands in Dry Lake Valley in 1980 was formally challenged by the Duckwater Shoshone. Current State and Federal management of Nevada’s resources has been viewed with increasing concern by Native American groups over the past few decades. This concern derives from two factors: public laws and pohcies continue to be considered as infringements of native rights; and, some forms of resource use are likely to compromise land and resource values on lands currently contested for ownership or sought for expansion. Obviously, the recent MX Missile Project, a plan for withdrawal and development of vast portions of Nevada and Utah, posed a paramount threat, not only to lands sought for expansion, but also to the very existence of Native American cultural integrity . Aside from current and proposed millitary use of Nevada’s lands, a number of Federal and State actions provide additional grounds for contention. Transfer of Federal lands to private and State ownership further erode the amount of land available for Indian use as weh as detracting from tribal land expansion opportunities. As noted above, the 1863 Ruby Valley Treaty, although faihng to concede title of Western Shoshone lands to the United States, did provide open-ended allowances for white settlement in Shoshone territory for a number of purposes. Consequently, continued acquisition of contested public lands by nonFederal interests appears to further exercise that option. This threat of reduction to the land base is a major one, both in relative and absolute terms. Since 1979, private individuals have filed for thousands of 320-acre parcels under the 1877 Desert Land Act. Many parcels he on grazing lands leased to Indian ranchers, particularly in Elko County. The Shoshone and other groups view the action as a threat to their livelihood and an abdication by the Federal government of its trust responsibilities . Other land actions include current Reagan administration plans for selhng “excess” public lands to retire the national debt, and recent “Sagebaish Rebelhon” efforts by the Nevada State government.

In most cases, activities by land developers could result in reduction in the availability of natural resources . Conflicts over grazing practices on public lands fall into two categories, one of which is closely tied to the lands issue. Given the Western Shoshone assumption that much of Nevada is still in their ownership, it follows that B.L.M. grazing permits are invalid. This conclusion has led to the Dann Case as well as to other confrontations, including refusal by Duckwater Shoshone to acquire grazing permits from the B.L.M. in eastern Nevada and the improvement of water sources on public lands without fihng for water rights. Secondly, the application of Federal “range improvement” programs on public lands is viewed by many Native Americans as destmctive of the integrity of the environment. Recent controversies have focused on such issues as government regulation of Indian grazing rights on public lands as weh as on such Federal management practices as brush clearing, reseeding, and pinyon-juniper chaining . The use of a 150-foot anchor chain, pulled between two crawler tractors for the purpose of ripping up trees, is particularly disliked because of its application to thousands of acres at a time . In addition to chaining, actions viewed as compromising pinyon nut resources include Federal Christmas tree sales, firewood cutting and commercial pine nut harvesting . These activities not only lead to depletion of the pine nut crops but also encourage white trespass on Indian lands, as, for example, on the Washo Tmst Allotments in the Pine Nut Mountains . Mechanical nut harvesting was prohibited by State law in 1961 . Disputes over plant gathering limitations and hunting and fishing rights have involved both the State of Nevada and the Federal government. Nevada Indian peoples are exempt from a 1937 State law prohibiting collection of whd plants . Another point of contention concerning food gathering involves Federal regulations restricthig access by people to desired plants for use as cordage and medicinal purposes and the levying of taxes on conected pine nuts .