Indigenous Rights and Climate Change: The Influence of Climate Change on the Quantification of Reserved Instream Water Rights for American Indian Tribes

The people indigenous to the Western portion of the lands now referred to as North America have relied on aquatic species for physical, cultural, and spiritual sustenance for millenia. Such indigenous peoples, referred to in the American legal system as Indian tribes, are entitled to water rights for fish habitat pursuant to the Winters Doctrine, which holds that the federal government impliedly reserved water rights for tribes when reservations were created. Recently, the methodology for quantifying these rights has been the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) and/or one of its major components, the Physical Habitat Simulation Model (PHABSIM). These models result in water right claims for fixed quantities of water, which—although not required by law—result in instream water rights that are decreed without any means for adjustment to account for changing conditions. Ultimately, climate change will likely alter the amount of water necessary to protect aquatic habitat, rendering obsolete any water right that is based on a fixed quantity. As climate change continues to worsen, we argue that quantifying reserved water rights for inflexible fixed quantities imposes an unreasonable burden on American Indian tribes. Instead, we suggest the application of a number of integrated technical and legal solutions to mitigate the uncertainty Indian tribes currently face from climate change as they seek to protect their rights, resources, and homelands

Indigenous Rights and Climate Change: The Influence of Climate Change on the Quantification of Reserved Instream Water Rights for American Indian Tribes

The people indigenous to the Western portion of the lands now referred to as North America have relied on aquatic species for physical, cultural, and spiritual sustenance for millenia. Such indigenous peoples, referred to in the American legal system as Indian tribes, are entitled to water rights for fish habitat pursuant to the Winters Doctrine, which holds that the federal government impliedly reserved water rights for tribes when reservations were created. Recently, the methodology for quantifying these rights has been the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) and/or one of its major components, the Physical Habitat Simulation Model (PHABSIM). These models result in water right claims for fixed quantities of water, which—although not required by law—result in instream water rights that are decreed without any means for adjustment to account for changing conditions. Ultimately, climate change will likely alter the amount of water necessary to protect aquatic habitat, rendering obsolete any water right that is based on a fixed quantity. As climate change continues to worsen, we argue that quantifying reserved water rights for inflexible fixed quantities imposes an unreasonable burden on American Indian tribes. Instead, we suggest the application of a number of integrated technical and legal solutions to mitigate the uncertainty Indian tribes currently face from climate change as they seek to protect their rights, resources, and homelands

Plasma nesfatin-1 is not affected by long-term food restriction and does not predict rematuration among iteroparous female rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

The metabolic peptide hormone nesfatin-1 has been linked to the reproductive axis in fishes. The purpose of this study was to determine how energy availability after spawning affects plasma levels of nesfatin-1, the metabolic peptide hormone ghrelin, and sex steroid hormones in rematuring female rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). To limit reproductive maturation, a group of female trout was food-restricted after spawning and compared with a control group that was fed a standard broodstock ration. The experiment was conducted twice, once using two-year-old trout (second-time spawners) and once using three-year-old trout (third-time spawners). During monthly sampling, blood was collected from all fish, and a subset of fish from each treatment was sacrificed for pituitaries. Pituitary follicle-stimulating hormone-beta (fsh-β) mRNA expression was analyzed with q-RT-PCR; plasma hormone levels were quantified by radioimmunoassay (17β-estradiol and ghrelin) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (11-keto-testosterone and nesfatin-1). Although plasma nesfatin-1 levels increased significantly in the months immediately after spawning within both feeding treatments, plasma nesfatin-1 did not differ significantly between the two treatments at any point. Similarly, plasma ghrelin levels did not differ significantly between the two treatments at any point. Food restriction arrested ovarian development by 15-20 weeks after spawning, shown by significantly lower plasma E2 levels among restricted-ration fish. Pituitary fsh-β mRNA levels were higher among control-ration fish than restricted-ration fish starting at 20 weeks, but did not differ significantly between treatment groups until 30 weeks after spawning. Within both treatment groups, plasma 11-KT was elevated immediately after spawning and rapidly decreased to and persisted at low levels; starting between 20 and 25 weeks after spawning, plasma 11-KT was higher among control-ration fish than restricted-ration fish. The results from these experiments do not provide support for plasma nesfatin-1 as a signal for the initiation of reproductive development in rematuring female rainbow trout

Plasma ghrelin concentrations in female rainbow trout recovering from spawning.

<p>Mean (±SEM) plasma acylated ghrelin levels over time in female rainbow trout (A: two-year-old; B: three-year-old) fed a control-ration or restricted-ration. See <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0085700#pone-0085700-g002" target="_blank">Figure 2</a> for an explanation of what each symbol signifies. Figure A: <i>n</i> = 6 per treatment. Figure B: Week <i>n</i> = 5 per treatment.</p

Plasma estrogen concentrations in female rainbow trout recovering from spawning.

<p>Mean (±SEM) plasma 17β-estradiol concentration over time in female rainbow trout (A: two-year-old; B: three-year-old) fed a control-ration or restricted-ration. See <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0085700#pone-0085700-g002" target="_blank">figure 2</a> for an explanation of what each symbol signifies. Figure A: Week 0, <i>n</i> = 42 per treatment; Week 5, <i>n</i> = 36 per treatment; Week 10, <i>n</i> = 30 per treatment; Week 15, <i>n</i> = 24 per treatment; Week 20, <i>n</i> = 18 per treatment; Week 25, <i>n</i> = 12 per treatment; Week 30, <i>n</i> = 6 per treatment. Figure B: Week 0, <i>n</i> = 25 per treatment; Week 4, <i>n</i> = 20 per treatment; Week 8, <i>n</i> = 15 per treatment; Week 12, <i>n</i> = 10 per treatment; Week 16, <i>n</i> = 5 per treatment.</p

Pituitary <i>fsh-β</i> mRNA expression in female rainbow trout recovering from spawning.

<p>Mean (±SEM) normalized ratio of pituitary <i>fsh-β</i> to <i>β-actin</i> mRNA levels over time in female rainbow trout (A: two-year-old; B: three-year-old) fed a control-ration or restricted-ration. See <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0085700#pone-0085700-g002" target="_blank">Figure 2</a> for an explanation of what each symbol signifies. Figure A: <i>n</i> = 6 per treatment at all time points. Figure B: <i>n</i> = 5 per treatment at all time points.</p

Plasma nesfatin-1 concentrations in female rainbow trout recovering from spawning.

<p>Mean (±SEM) plasma nesfatin-1 concentration over time in female rainbow trout (A: two-year-old; B: three-year-old) fed a control-ration or restricted-ration. When comparing treatment groups, mean values differ significantly (two-tailed <i>t</i>-test, <i>p</i><0.05) at time-points marked “*” and marginally (two-tailed <i>t</i>-test, <i>p</i><0.1) at time points marked “^‡”. Within each figure, time-points sharing the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, <i>p</i>≥0.05). Latin letters (a, b, c, …) refer to control treatment fish; Greek letters (α, β, γ, …) refer to restricted ration fish. Figure A: Week 0, <i>n</i> = 42 per treatment; Week 5, <i>n</i> = 36 per treatment; Week 10, <i>n</i> = 30 per treatment; Week 15, <i>n</i> = 24 per treatment; Week 20, <i>n</i> = 18 per treatment; Week 25, <i>n</i> = 12 per treatment; Week 30, <i>n</i> = 6 per treatment. Figure B: Week 0, <i>n</i> = 25 per treatment; Week 4, <i>n</i> = 20 per treatment; Week 8, <i>n</i> = 15 per treatment; Week 12, <i>n</i> = 10 per treatment; Week 16, <i>n</i> = 5 per treatment.</p

Primer sequence data for q-RT-PCRs.

<p>Primer sequence data for q-RT-PCRs.</p

Plasma androgen concentrations in female rainbow trout recovering from spawning.

<p>Mean (±SEM) plasma 11-keto testosterone concentration over time in female rainbow trout (A: two-year-old; B: three-year-old) fed a control-ration or restricted-ration. See <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0085700#pone-0085700-g002" target="_blank">Figure 2</a> for an explanation of what each symbol signifies. Figure A: Week 0, <i>n</i> = 42 per treatment; Week 5, <i>n</i> = 36 per treatment; Week 10, <i>n</i> = 30 per treatment; Week 15, <i>n</i> = 24 per treatment; Week 20, <i>n</i> = 18 per treatment; Week 25, <i>n</i> = 12 per treatment; Week 30, <i>n</i> = 6 per treatment. Figure B: Week 0, <i>n</i> = 25 per treatment; Week 4, <i>n</i> = 20 per treatment; Week 8, <i>n</i> = 15 per treatment; Week 12, <i>n</i> = 10 per treatment; Week 16, <i>n</i> = 5 per treatment.</p

Parallel displacement of rat nesfatin-1 by a serial dilution of trout plasma.

<p>Displacement curve showing parallelism of the rat nesfatin-1 standard curve (circle points, solid line) and a dilution series of female rainbow trout plasma displacing rat-nesfatin-1 (triangle points, dashed line) in the nesfatin-1 EIA. Horizontal axis depicts volume of trout plasma (µL) used in the assay or concentration of rat-nesfatin-1 standard (ng⋅mL⁻¹).</p