WSP08807 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

45 designed more to stem the press of questions from Aspinall than to commit the tribe to quantification. And while Nakai is saying that the tribe will "take" water for NIIP, he significantly omits saying that it will take no other, In any case, the exchange shows that Aspinall had serious doubts that NIIP limited Navajo Winters claims when he, of all people, should knoW.'18 The second point drawn from outside NIIP's legislative record that weakens the. argument for quantification is the clarity of the language on quantification in the recognized negotiated settlements -of Indian- Winters claims. Of the handful of recognized, fully legal legislative settlements of Indian Winters rights, none is achieved by language as vague on the point of quantification as the NllP legislation or its. legislative history. In all five cases, the statutory language exhibits clear congressional intent to settle or quantify Indian water rights. The title of each act mentions water rights, water rights claims, or water rights settlement; 119 settlement of the Indian claims at issue is also mentioned elsewhere in the acts; 120 four of the five statutes 118Aspinall's uncertainty is all the more remarkable considering the exchange with Reynolds in that same year discussed in note 69 .sJ.U2m. 11~e titles of the acts are given in full in note 23 ~. It is interesting to note that in 1984, Barry Goldwater said of the 1978 Ak-Chin settlement act that it "represents the first legislative settlement of an Indian tribe's water rights." 138 Congo Rec, 511836 (daily ed. Sept. 25, 1984) (statement of Sen. Goldwater), l20pull citations to the acts are given in note 23, ~ The relevant sections are, for the Ale.Chin settlement, Sec. 1(b)(5) of the 1978 act; for the Papago, Sec. 301(4); for the Pima-Maricopa, Sec. 2(b); for the Utes, Sec. 2; and for the Mission Indians, Sec. 103(b ).