WSP09695 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. "\'6~41 . . / ! achieve the primary purposes of the reservation." Although Denver I did not deal directly with Indian reservations. and it did emphasize that the doctrine of implied reservation must be narrowly construed. the Colorado Supreme Court's decision on this aspect of the controversy has left little doubt about the central issues of Indian reserved water rights. Indicative of Indian tribal awareness of the significance of Denver I has been a succession of newspaper reports about the Southern Ute Indian Tribal Council's possible action to reopen the proceedings on its water rights. - Responding to these reports, Attorney General Woodard. in a letter dated December 2. 1984. appealed to the Chairmen of the Tribal Councils of the Southern Ute Indians and the Ute Mountain Ute Indians to seek a negotiated settlement, assisted by personnel of his own office and by the Federal Water Policy Advisory Group, a negotiating team appointed by the President to promote the settlement process without litigation. In a follow-up action. the Attorney General Woodard, in a letter dated Febru- ary 6, 1985, directed the attention of the Solicitor, U. S. Department of the Interior. to the seriousness of the dispute between the two tribes and neighboring non-Indian water users. and to the advantage of timely nego- tiations. Given the enormous expense of protracted litigation and the enduring animosity certain to be engendered by the proceedings. it is understandable that Governor Richard Lamm. in his 1985 State of the State address, specifically addressed the issue of Indian water rights and charged the Attorney General and the Department of Natural Resources with the task of reaching "a fair and just settlement of the Indian water right claims to avoid years of costly litigation." One can but hope that the dedicated and sincere efforts of the parties concerned will effect this worthy objective with minimum delay and with absence of ill will. ~;:.. - 11 ..~j~'i:,'-