Laserfiche WebLink
<br />9 <br /> <br />California. 23 <br /> <br />Some commentators have included Navajo-New Mexico negotiations and the <br /> <br /> <br />subsequent authorization of NIIP in the set of quantifications or otherwise suggested <br /> <br /> <br />that NIIP involved the quantification of Winters rights.24 The purpose of this article is <br /> <br /> <br />to show how difficult it is to conclude decisively for or against quantification. <br /> <br /> <br />Ambiguities shroud the record, from the authorizing legislation through House and <br /> <br /> <br />Senate Reports to hearing transcripts. This article will analyze that record, against the <br /> <br />backdrop of federal Indian law relevant to quantification. <br /> <br />23For the Ak-Chin settlement, ~ "Water Rights C1aims--Ak-Chin Indian <br />Community," P.L No. 95-328, 42 Stat. 409 (1978), amended by P.L No. 98-530, 98 Stat. <br />2698 (1984). The Papago settlement is at "Southern Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act <br />of 1982," P.L No. 97-293, 96 Stat. 1274 (1982). The Salt River-Pima Maricopa <br />quantification is at "Salt-River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Water Rights Settlement <br />Act of 1988," P.L No. 100-512, 102 Stat. 2549 (1988). For the Ute Mountain Ute and <br />Southern Ute settlement, ~ "Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of <br />1988," P.L No. 100-585, 102 Stat. 2973 (1988). For the Mission Indians settlement, & <br />"San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988," P.L No. 100-675, 102 Stat. <br />4000 (1988). The Winters claims of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck <br />Reservation in Montana have also been quantified, through an innovative state <br />negotiation procedure. ~ S.B. 467, 49th Leg. 1985 Montana Laws, ch. 735. For <br />commentary on this approach, ~ Thorsen, .sJ.Uml note 3 at 37-41. Also, it has been <br />debated whether the water rights of the Ute Indians of the Uintah and Ouray <br />Reservation in Utah have been quantified. For the issues involved, ~ Getches and <br />Wilkinson, ~ note 3 at 701-702 and Thorsen,.sJ.Wrn note 3 at 34. There are also 14 <br />separate negotiations in progress to settle Indian Winters claims and six other <br />negotiations may be possible in the future. ~ Echohawk, .sJ.Wrn note 21. <br /> <br />2~ citations .sllI2m note 3. Significantly, in his 1990 review of Indian water rights <br />settlements, John Echohawk, Executive Director of the Native American Rights Fund, <br />does not include the Navajo or NIIP. Echohawk, .sJ.Wrn note 21. <br /> <br />.1 <br />I <br />