Opinion of the Court
Fourth, the Tribe argues that, in 1868, the Navajos would have understood the treaty to mean that the United States must take affirmative steps to secure water for the Tribe. But the text of the treaty says nothing to that effect. And the historical record does not suggest that the United States agreed to undertake affirmative efforts to secure water for the Navajos—any more than the United States agreed to farm land, mine minerals, harvest timber, build roads, or construct bridges on the reservation. The record of the treaty negotiations makes no mention of any water-related obligations of the United States at all. See Treaty Between the United States of America and the Navajo Tribe of Indians With a Record of the Discussions That Led to Its Signing.[1] *** The 1868 treaty reserved necessary water to accomplish the purpose of the Navajo Reservation. See Winters v. United States, 207 U. S. 564, 576–577 (1908). But the treaty did not require the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Tribe. We reverse the judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- ↑ The intervenor States separately argue that the Navajo Tribe’s claimed remedies with respect to the Lower Colorado River would interfere with this Court’s decree in Arizona v. California, 547 U. S. 150 (2006). The question of whether certain remedies would violate the substance of this Court’s 2006 decree is a merits question, not a question of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because we conclude that the treaty imposes no duty on the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water in the first place, we need not reach the question of whether particular remedies would conflict with this Court’s 2006 decree.
Nation 33, 40. But as already explained, the Tribe has failed to identify any such duty in the 1868 treaty.
