Laserfiche WebLink
<br />37 <br /> <br />state." Indeed, the entire issue of "Indian Rights" receives 11 lines in this report, a <br /> <br /> <br />treatment following nearly nine pages on state and federal law, the compacts, and <br /> <br /> <br />international law considered "applicable" to the San Juan issue.93 Reynolds claimed in <br /> <br /> <br />1988 that the state hardly took potential Navajo Winters claims into account in the <br /> <br /> <br />course of negotiating over NIIP. "We didn't feel we had to defend against Winters <br /> <br />doctrine rights," he said.94 <br /> <br />Throughout the hearing record, non-Navajo witnesses and legislators continually refer <br /> <br /> <br />to the "so-called Winters doctrine,n95 revealing their doubt about its viability. And in <br /> <br /> <br />his testimony, Felix Sparks did not even call the case by name; he referred only to <br /> <br /> <br />"various federal theories.,,96 In one exchange, between Wayne Aspinall and fellow <br /> <br />committee member James Haley of Florida, there is a vague reference to the idea <br /> <br />that with NllP, the Navajo were both giving something up and gaining something. <br />Haley was questioning William Utton, Vice President of the San Juan, New Mexico, <br />County Farm and Livestock Bureau, who was speaking in opposition to the Chama <br /> <br />Diversion. For reasons that are not clear-Utton was not identified as an expert on <br /> <br />Indian water law-Halev suddenly asked Utton if NIIP would "take away from the <br />. . <br /> <br />93State Engineer of New Mexico, A Review of the San Juan River Problem in New <br />Mexico 13-14 (1953). <br /> <br />94Interview with Steven Reynolds, supra. note 89. <br /> <br />95See. e.!;l., 108 Congo Rec., ~ note 82 at H8876 and House Hearin~ 1961. <br />.slll2m note 14 at 37. <br /> <br />96Id, at 192. <br />