Laserfiche WebLink
<br />25 <br /> <br /> <br />In House testimony in 1961, Felix Sparks said that as far as Colorado was concerned, <br /> <br /> <br />all of the waters allocated to New Mexico or Arizona under the compacts could be <br /> <br /> <br />used for Indians or other federal uses. "[BJut we are attempting to say in plain <br /> <br /> <br />language," he continued, "that the Federal Government cannot claim waters allocated <br /> <br />to the State of Colorado for use in either New Mexico or ArizOna.,,68 <br /> <br />Thus section 12(a) protects Colorado's rights under the interstate compacts by placing <br /> <br /> <br />a ceiling on Indian water claims in New Mexico. While it attempts to limit Indian <br /> <br /> <br />claims in general, it does not specifically limit Navajo claims to the NIIP allocation. <br /> <br /> <br />To do so, the section would have to mention a specific amount of water and name <br /> <br /> <br />the Navajo. As it stands, it does neither. Placing a ceiling on Indian claims in New <br /> <br /> <br />Mexico at the state's compact allocation also conflicts, in part, with the San Juan- <br /> <br /> <br />Chama's diversion to chiefly non-Indian uses and with pre-existing non-Indian uses in <br /> <br /> <br />the state. Given the ambiguity surrounding section 12(a), the canons of construction <br /> <br /> <br />suggest that it should not be read as a limitation on Navajo rights. <br /> <br />Given the ambiguity, it is necessary to delve deeper into the legislative record for <br /> <br /> <br />further explication of the section. Deeper in the record--in the hearings--lie some <br /> <br /> <br />statements that specifically mention limiting Indian claims and appear to suggest that <br /> <br /> <br />section 12(a) was indeed intended, at least by some, to limit Navajo rights. <br /> <br />The starkest statement supporting quantification is in the testimony of New Mexico <br /> <br />68ljouse Hearing 1961. ~ note 14 at 192. <br />