Laserfiche WebLink
<br />27 <br /> <br />But do these statements amount to congressional intent to quantify Navajo Winters <br /> <br /> <br />claims? First, they are contradictory on the size of Indian claims and ambiguous on <br /> <br /> <br />the geographical extent of the limitation. Reynolds's statement suggests, as section <br /> <br />12(a) does, that Winters claims under the two projects (NIIP and San Juan-Chama) <br /> <br />are limited to New Mexico's and Arizona's entitlements, which, under contemporary <br /> <br />estimates, exceeded the allocation for NllP alone. Aspinall's statement, to which <br /> <br /> <br />Mecham assented, limits the Indian claim to NIIP's allocation. But it implies (as does <br /> <br /> <br />Reynolds's statement) that all Indian claims in New Mexico are folded into NIIP. This <br /> <br />ignores the potential claims of the Jicarilla Apache, east and north of the Navajo <br /> <br /> <br />Reservation but touching tributaries to the San Juan, as well as the many Pueblo <br /> <br /> <br />tribes along the Rio Grande.71 Surely it is not possible to quantify the Winters claims <br /> <br />of Indians absent from the negotiation and never mentioned by any party. Thus, as <br /> <br />clear as these statements are in their reference to limitation of Indian water claims, it <br /> <br />is hard to conclude that they limit Navajo Winters claims to the NllP allocation. <br /> <br />Another difficulty with the statements is their status as expressions of individual state. <br /> <br /> <br />rather than federal views. Is it possible to take as an expression of congressional <br /> <br /> <br />intent, meaning the intent of congress as a whole, the view of state-level <br /> <br />7'The Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation touches the Navajo River, a tributary to <br />the San Juan. See. e.~., Automobile Club of Southern California, Map of Indian Country <br />in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado (1989). Under Winters. the tribe has <br />claims. They are at issue in two pending cases, New Mexico v. United States. Civ. No. <br />75.184, and Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. United States. No. CN-82-1327-C (D.N.M., filed <br />Nov. 12, 1982). See also Whiteing, supra. note 28. Water claims of the numerous Rio <br />Grande Pueblos are complex. ~ Getches and Wilkinson,.SJ.lJ2m note 3 at 662 and C. <br />DuMars, M. O'leary, and A Utton, Pueblo Indian Water Ri~hts (1984). <br />