Western States Water Council 2001 Report

Home Browse Search

scrapped, as they allow too narrow a view of federal responsibility and the respective financial contributions that should be made. Her last point was that "finality" is undesirable and, in any event, cannot be achieved. The goal of settlements should be to resolve as many issues as possible, but negotiators must recognize that issues will arise in the future and negotiate their terms with that understanding. Professor Cosens' remarks were followed by panels that have traditionally been held on the opening day of the symposium, designed to provide information on the basics ofputting a settlement together. The first panel was entitled, "Gathering Background Information and the Role of Technicians in Negotiations." The featured speakers on the panel were: Chris Kenney, Director of the Native American Affairs Office in the Department of Interior; Gregory Ridgley, Deputy Chief Counsel in the Office of the New Mexico State Engineer; and Susan Williams of Williams & Works, a law firm located in Corrales, New Mexico. Mr. Kenney, who has been participating at these symposia for several years now, presented a slideshow describing the basic process under which the federal government becomes involved, and the expertise that can be brought to bear in negotiations. Mr. Ridgley spoke of his experience in New Mexico, emphasizing the desirability of assembling a common database among the negotiating parties. Susan Williams felt it was particularly important for tribes to employ technicians and experts who are very familiar with tribes, their culture and heritage, as well as their water needs. In the afternoon, a panel discussed, "Identifying Parties and Issues and HowNegotiations Bind Larger Groups." Bill Staudenmaier, WSWC Legal Committee Chair and an attorney for Ryley, Carlock and Applewhite in Arizona, described his involvement in the Arizona Water Settlement. He emphasized in particular a process that Arizona has adopted for identifying parties who should be part of any negotiations. The decades long process of arriving at the Arizona Water Settlement resulted in a long and complex document, which he thought had little chance for passage when introduced in Congress last year. But the political strength of the parties involved in the negotiations, and the dedication of the congressional delegation from Arizona worked to secure passage last December. Rodney Lewis, Counsel to the Gila River Indian Community, the driving entity behind the Arizona settlement, described his perspectives on the process, as well as the outcome. He emphasized that success in the courts at various stages in the process was a chief reason for the success of the outcome for his tribe. Susan Schneider, Senior Tribal Attorney for the Environment and Natural Resources Section of the Department of Justice, described how the section is organized, how many lawyers are assigned to Indian water rights claims, and the general approach of the Department of Justice, both as negotiations proceed and after they culminate. The last panel of the day explored a new issue for the symposium; that is, "Post- Settlement Management Issues." Jay Weiner, Legal Counsel for the Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission, noted that while the mechanism had not yet been tested, a formal procedure had been adopted to address issues that arise post - settlement. Bruce Sunchild, Chairman of the Water Resources Committee of the Chippewa Cree Tribe in Montana, addressed the process and outcomes of his settlement, noting that the trust that had been established with others in the negotiations would serve them well in the future. Duane Mecham of the Office of the Solicitor of the Department of Interior described the issue primarily in the context of the Nez Perce Settlement (also approved last year at the end of the congressional session) noting that from the time the "term sheet" was agreed to among the negotiating parties, three months were given to prepare the appropriate executing instruments and other documentation. Seeing this as essentially a "post- settlement" phase of the negotiations, he offered his perspectives on how the parties were successful in this short timeframe. Indeed, he felt the short time in some ways served them well. The next morning featured a presentation on the Administration's settlement policy by Jennifer Gimbel, Counselor to the Secretary of the Interior and Chair of the Indian Water Rights Settlement 27