The Kansas City Chiefs plan to play Patrick Mahomes and the rest of their starters for the first half of their preseason game on Saturday night in Arizona

By David Milliken LONDON (Reuters) -Growth in British workers' regular pay - which is being watched closely by the Bank

An expert has lifted the lid on what happens to your body when you take part in Sober October. Sober October is a movement dedicated to ditching alcohol for the entire month and is often tied to raising money for charity. In the UK, people donate to Macmillan Cancer Support to provide "much-needed physical, financial and emotional support to the millions of people living with cancer." In Australia, the month is known as 'Ocsober', with funds going to the Life Education Australia organisation. When taking part in the initiative, Drinkaware CEO Karen Tyrel says people are able to sleep much better and overall boosts moods. Speaking to the Daily Mail, she said skin will be glowing by the second week, leaving a brighter, healthier complexion. By the third week, people may have shifted a few pounds in weight. "A typical pint of lager contains the same number of calories as a slice of pizza, and a large glass of wine the same as an ice cream sundae," she told the outlet. "Therefore, not drinking makes it easier to maintain a healthy weight." The fourth and final week is said to reduce your risk of cancer and liver disease. It comes after a staggering 40 per cent of Gen Zers said they would consider giving up booze for good. Data from Voxburner’s UK Youth Trends Report recently found that 40 per cent of 18–24-year-olds would consider giving up alcohol completely, while 60 per cent said they would abstain from alcohol specifically for health and wellness reasons. This is widely discussed across TikTok, with many sharing their experiences of 'hangxiety,' putting them off alcohol for good. Sign up for our free Indy100 weekly newsletter Have your say in our news democracy. Click the upvote icon at the top of the page to help raise this article through the indy100 rankings.

The automotive experts at Edmunds test SUVs of all shapes, sizes and prices

Chinese leader Xi Jinping said the United States and China can cooperate to “benefit our two countries” in a meeting Friday with Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates

'Sister Wives' star Janelle Brown approves of Christine Brown's fiance David Woolley

Memphis Grizzlies forward Kenneth Lofton Jr. is among several undrafted players making an impact in the Las Vegas summer league

What is a placebo? Technically, a Latin phrase meaning ‘I will please.’ It’s also a Catholic prayer and a clever insult.

Pete Davidson and his girlfriend Chase Sui Wonders, 27, were involved in a car accident in March

It was once a thriving maritime hub, including for the transatlantic slave trade, but after years of industrial decline, Liverpool's economy is getting a boost...

Damon said Affleck seemed hyped after appearing in a 1986 ABC afterschool special, revealing 'he was like the big star of our school'

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday against the Navajo Nation in a dispute concerning the tribe’s access to the drought-stricken Colorado River. Critics says the decision harms a community where an estimated one-third of tribal members lack running water and furthers the history of the US government breaking its promises to tribes. The case, Arizona v Navajo Nation, centres on the obligations of an 1868 treaty, which established the Navajo reservation as the tribe’s permanent home, following their forced removal from their ancestral lands by the United States military. The tribe argued that under the treaty, the US government has an obligation to evaluate the tribe’s need for water and factor that analysis into how it divides up water access to the Colorado River, which serves over 40 million people and passes through seven states. The US government, as well as the states of Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado, and various water districts in California, argued against the tribe in consolidated appeals. They claimed that the tribe’s interpretation of the treaty would undermine existing agreements on sharing the water from the Colorado and create and impose unsubstantiated obligations on the US government to develop water infrastructure for the tribe. In a 5-to-4 decision, all but one of the high court’s conservatives ruled against the tribe. “In light of the treaty’s text and history, we conclude that the treaty does not require the United States to take those affirmative steps,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. “And it is not the Judiciary’s role to rewrite and update this 155-year-old treaty. Rather, Congress and the President may enact — and often have enacted — laws to assist the citizens of the western United States, including the Navajos, with their water needs.” The court’s three liberal justices, as well as the Trump-appointed Neil Gorsuch, an advocate for tribal rights, dissented. “The Navajo have waited patiently for someone, anyone, to help them, only to be told (repeatedly) that they have been standing in the wrong line and must try another,” he wrote in his dissenting opinion. He argued, alongside the tribe, that the Navajo weren’t forcing the US government to immediately start building water infrastructure or changing water claims on the river, but rather begin the process of fully accounting for what the nation needed. Navajo representatives criticised the ruling. "My job as the president of the Navajo Nation is to represent and protect the Navajo people, our land, and our future,” Navajo Nation president Buu Nygren said in a statement after the ruling. “The only way to do that is with secure, quantified water rights to the Lower Basin of the Colorado River.” With a population of about 175,000 and a land mass larger than West Virginia, the Navajo Nation is the largest US tribal reservation, and the Colorado River and its tributaries flow alongside and through the tribe’s territory. “The US government excluded Navajo tribal citizens from receiving a share of water when the original apportioning occurred and today’s Supreme Court decision for Arizona v. Navajo Nation condoned this lack of accountability,” John Echohawk, executive director of the Native American Rights Fund, one of the many Indigenous groups that filed briefs in support of the Navajo Nation, said in a statement. “Despite today’s ruling, Tribal Nations will continue to assert their water rights and NARF remains committed to that fight.” In 2003, the Navajos sued the federal government regarding access to the Colorado River, while the tribe has also fought for access to a tributary, the Little Colorado River, in state court. As The Independent has reported, many on the Navajo nation struggle for basic water access. “If you run out [of water] in the evening, you have to get up earlier the next day to make sure that there’s water for the kids to wash hands, brush their teeth, make breakfast,” Tina Becenti told The Independent. “It was time-consuming and took a lot of energy.” Tribes were cut out of initial deals made to allocate the water on the Colorado River, leaving many to rely on thousands of unregulated wells, springs, and livestock troughs that are spread across the reservation, which can pose a serious health risk. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, these sources may contain bacterial or fecal contaminants, along with unsafe levels of uranium and arsenic – a legacy of mining on Navajo land which began with the US military’s Manhattan Project for nuclear weapons in 1944 and continued until 2005. The fate of the Colorado River has become increasingly contentious, as the vital waterway dwindles under heavy demand and a changing climate. In May, following years of tense negotiations, Arizona, California, and Nevada agreed to cut their use of water from the Colorado in exchange for $1.2bn in federal funding, a last-minute compromise that staved off catastrophic impacts to agriculture, electricity generation, and water supplies to major cities like Phoenix and Los Angeles. The high court decision follows a ruling this month on another topic with a long and complicated history involving tribal groups: adoption. Last week, a 7-2 majority ruled to preserve the Indian Child Welfare Act, defending the law’s preference for the foster care and adoption of Native children by their relatives and Tribes, which was implemented following investigations that revealed more than one-third of Native children were being removed from their homes and placed with non-Native families and institutions, cutting off important family and cultural ties. Louise Boyle and Alex Woodward contributed reporting to this story. Read More Father of 13 dies in Colorado rafting accident after saving his children from danger Feds announce start of public process to reshape key rules on Colorado River water use by 2027 Nevada fight over leaky irrigation canal and groundwater more complicated than appears on surface Supreme Court rules against Navajo Nation in Colorado River water rights case Feds announce start of public process to reshape key rules on Colorado River water use by 2027 Vegas water agency empowered to limit home water flows in future