Laserfiche WebLink
ourselves to the work -- even though Indian water rights settlements may not be a high priority <br />during this time of war. She reminded attendees that Klamath Basin type conflicts exist in most <br />watersheds throughout the West.16 She proposed the idea of concluding settlements by the 100th . <br />anniversary of the 1908 Winters decision and shared her ideas regarding this quite ambitious, but <br />intriguing goal which is worth pursuing. <br />Negotiation of Indian Water Rights Claims: The Basics <br />A panel discussed gathering background information in preparation for Indian water rights <br />settlements. Christopher Kenney, Director of the Office of Native American Affairs, Bureau of <br />Reclamation (BOR), spoke of the importance of a technical analysis, and the consideration of the <br />needs of the tribe, neighbors, federal and local governments, and other involved parties. He sought <br />to dispel the myth that settlements cost less than litigation. He weighed the difficulty that the Bureau <br />of Indian Affairs (BIA), as trustee for the tribes, has had in moving settlements forward due to the <br />lack of available federal funds. He agreed with the introductory remarks lamenting a lag in <br />settlement efforts during the Clinton years, and expressed his hope for many successful negotiations <br />and settlements in the future. In response to a question regarding inadequate support for settlement <br />negotiations in California, Kenney recognized the problem, saying that the BOR is working on it, <br />but has not attended to the problem as well as it should have. Regarding funding for Indian water <br />rights settlements generally, Kenney affirmed it often comes from the BIA budget at the expense of <br />other BIA programs, and that only the Congress could address this problem. <br />Greg Houtz, with Arizona's Office of Indian Water Rights Settlements Facilitation, <br />Department of Water Resources, explained that from a state's perspective, due to the complexity and <br />the importance of all the hydrologic data involved in negotiations, many may use the lack of data as <br />an excuse to avoid having to answer detailed questions. He highlighted the importance of letting <br />technicians help resolve the conflicts. Houtz shared three examples of successful negotiations where <br />the lawyers were not involved in the process, concluding that attorneys usually make negotiations <br />more difficult. The most important benefit of settlements over litigation is promoting good relations, <br />as competing water users become neighbors rather than enemies. <br />Karen Fagg, President of HKM Engineering, voiced her opinion that it is far more beneficial <br />for parties to negotiate than to litigate. It is essential, she said, to be able to trust that the technical <br />information is accurate since it will be the basis on which negotiations will be carried out and <br />presented to the Congress. Fagg said that water systems must be modeled in order to accurately <br />assess the situation and to come out with an acceptable solution. Lastly, she said that it is vital to <br />build in as much flexibility as possible since the solution has to work for years to come. During a <br />question and answer period, she asserted that for a technician to claim that he needs more data is just <br />a "cop out," and such an answer should not be acceptable. <br />Tracy Labin, NARF staff attorney, opened a discussion on identifying parties, issues, and how <br />negotiations bind larger groups. She used the Tule River Indian Reservation situation as an <br />16Western States Water Council, Issue #1431, October 19, 2001. <br />27 <br />