WSP08807 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

20 reliable evidence in the legislative history" must express the clear and plain intent of Congress to quantify Navajo Winters rights with NIJP for all time. Under the standard set by U.S. v. Dion. the record needs to show that Congress "actUally considered the conflict" between allowing the Navajo the full scope of their Winters rights (treaty rights) and limiting those rights to the NllP allocation. Under the canons of construction, language limiting Navajo water rights must be read strictly, while , ;:- language creating or preserving Navajo water rights must be construed liberally. Ambiguities in the statute (or the record) must be read to favor Navajo interests (the preservation of Winters rights or compensation for lost rights) and as the Navajo would have understood the language at the time. ~ ~-' ., " ., Section 12( a) and 'The Law of the River" r '-'-'.', The power to quantify Indian Winters rights lies with Congress. And the source of congressional action on the issue is legislative materials-NIJP's authorizing statute ~;,' L. r~ ~~~ {" and, in the event of ambiguities, the legislative history. In the authorizing legislation itself, the only language that explicitly mentions Indian water rights is section 12(a). It j-': ~~ ~'k F' provides: ":4 '1t1 i Os). t,i 1~;.1 Jo.1 None of the project works or structures authorized by this Act shall be so operated as to create, implement, or satisfy any preferential right in the United States or any Indian tribe to the waters impounded. diverted, or used by means of such project works or structures, other than contained in those rights to the uses of water granted to the States of New Mexico and Arizona pursuant to the provisions of tbe Upper Colorado River Basin compact.58 58NIIP Act, supra. note 1, Sec. 12(a).