WSP08807 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

29 sometime that year, the parties to the negotiations agreed to share shortages on the river in times of drought.74 The Tribal Council meeting at which the draft NllP bill, which included a shortage-sharing provision, was approved involved considerable discussion of the provision,1s Attorney Larry Davis led the discussion. He urged the Council to agree to the section for two reasons. One was that Congress would never pass a bill without the provision. The other was that the Tribe was interested in attracting industries to the basin, to build an economic base for that part of the reservation. Industries would have no incentive to locate in the San Juan Basin if their priorities to needed water were junior--and water claimants subsequent in time to NIIP and San Juan-Chama would have late priorities. Thus the Tribe agreed to share shortages in the river, in so doing relinquishing its prior claim under Winters to San Juan waters. Davis said, significantly, "Industrial development ... is just as imponant to the Navajo people as irrigation, maybe more SO.,,76 The first Senate report on the first NIIP bill reported out of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs explained the shortage-sharing provision. According to that report, it "provides adequate protection for irrigation requirements for the Navajo area and at the same time provides a method of cooperation in water uses for downstream 7+rhe Tribal Council first agreed to the draft bill on NIIPand San Juan-Chama, which included the shortage-sharing provision, in December 1957. ~ Resolution CD- 86-57, ~ note 39. As early as May of that year, the proposed projects did not include a shortage-sharing provision. ~ H. Doc. No. 424, .s.JU2Ill note 17 at 271-287. 75See note 43, ~. 76Minutes, supra. note 40, December 11, 1957 at 68-69.