WSP08807 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

35 But in an important sense, Reynolds. himself was the author of Jones's worry. And why did Larry Davis tell the Tribal Council that Congress would probably not pass the NIIP bill without a shortage-sharing provision? The implication is that important interests other than the Navajo favored equalizing priorities on the river. Rio Grande interests, for example, would benefit from Navajo relinquishment of first priority. This spin on the history of the shortage-sharing provision turns it very much into a situation in which the Navajo are told that they have to limit their water claims to NIIP because additional water, beyond NIIP, is not theirs. But this situation begs the question of Navajo quantification, saying that it happened because there was no other water for the tribe.91 Thus the conclusion that the shortage-sharing provision quantifies Navajo Winters rights stumbles against two obstacles: the wide reference to state law and surrounding facts and circumstances required to reach the conclusion and New Mexico's control of that law and those facts and circumstances. Several other obstacles stand in the way of the conclusion that any provision of NIIP's authorizing legislation quantified Navajo Winters rights. Those obstacles are that Congress did not, as required by Dim1 appreciate the conflict between existing Navajo rights and quantification; that in 1962, Congress could not have formed the intent to quantify Winters rights; that the NIIP record is peppered with statements of concern that Navajo rights be protected; that 9lIn fact, it is arguable that any uses of water on the San Juan other than NIIP (and San Juan-Chama, to which the tribe clearly consented) were illegal usurpations of Navajo rights.