WSP08807 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

36 great ambiguity exists over the size of the Navajo water claim, quantified or not; that in 1970, an imponant congressional player in NIIP's authorization publicly appeared to doubt that NIIP had limited Navajo water rights for all time; and that recognized settlements of Indian Winters claims achieve quantification with unambiguous, straightforward language, which contrasts sharply with the language available in the NIIP record. Each of these issues is discussed in the following section. Ari\lments Aiainst Ouantification k';: ?,". ~:... Under the rule aniculated in QiQn, for Congress to abrogate a treaty right, it must ,<;.~ '<. have "actually considered the conflict between its intended action on the one hand and Indian treaty rights on the other, and chose to resolve that conflict by abrogating the treaty.,,92 But from a close reading of the legislative record, it is not clear that ,. ,.. ;~:~: Congress had any notion of what Winters claims were, much less that by authorizing (;':~ NIIP it would be canceling a significant ponion of the tribe's Winters claims. '.-', For example, the state of New Mexico put together an imponant document in the early 1950's setting out options and equities involved in the development of the San Juan River. In that document, New Mexico states that is "has never acceded" to BIA and tribal interpretations of "the so-called Winters case," an interpretation that is not specified. New Mexico's position is that only "due process of law" can determine Indian rights, "whatever they may be," but that "this situation need not hinder or impede the orderly development of the water resources of the San Juan River in this , '-_'I 92QiQn, 476 U.S. 734 at 739-40.