Laserfiche WebLink
illustration. The tribe was not getting enough water, and sought help to quantify and secure their <br />water rights. Their only apparent options were to litigate or enter settlement negotiations. Since <br />there was no litigation involved, the U.S. did not get involved. Labin urged the U.S. to get involved <br />and help the Tule Indians define their water rights now in order to prevent future problems. She said <br />that unless the tribes get their rights quantified, they will inevitably find themselves in the difficult <br />situation of fighting to claim already claimed water. When asked when parties ought to get the <br />federal government involved in negotiations, Labin responded as early on as possible as a courtesy <br />that helps things run more efficiently later. <br />Mike Quealy, Chief of the Natural Resources Division of the Utah Attorney General's Office, <br />shared two examples of successful water rights settlements in Utah: the Zion National Park water <br />settlement and Shivwits Indian Reservation water settlement. In his opinion, identifying the parties <br />is the most problematic stage in the negotiations process.. The use of public briefings and <br />publications of proposed decrees proved very helpful in identifying parties and concerns. In the case <br />of the Zion settlement, which is currently a little further along than the Shivwits settlement, there <br />were only six objectors to the settlement decree, and those were resolved within six weeks. He <br />accredited such success to informing as many parties as possible early on in the negotiation process. <br />Utah favors negotiations over litigation because they have the advantage of flexibility, so that all <br />parties can benefit in some way, rather than a "winner take all" scenario. He added technical people <br />have a strong role to play in the negotiation of settlements, and said that lawyers cannot do their job <br />without the "techies." Regarding when to involve the federal government in negotiations, Quealy <br />said that in Utah there are two views. First, once the U.S. is joined as a participating party, by <br />necessity it then has an obligation to voice all claims on the water involved. For efficiency purposes, <br />a second view, is not to join the U.S. until an agreement is already to go. <br />Susan Schneider, Department of Justice (DOJ), Indian Resources Division, shared a federal <br />approach to settlements. She said that the DOI criteria for settlements are an important tool, and that <br />the DOJ's role usually reflects the activity and size of the case. Schneider agreed that most of the <br />identification of the parties is done by the state, rather than the federal government. She is also <br />convinced that there are, as she put it, a "Christmas Tree" list of advantages that come out from <br />successful settlements as opposed to litigation. From a federal perspective, the federal government's <br />greatest interest is in the final decree. <br />Coordination of State and Tribal Water Quality Administration <br />Susan Williams, an attorney with Williams Janov and Conney, was the first panelist in a <br />discussion of coordination of state /tribal water quality administration. She expressed her view that <br />the area of water quality administration coordination is ripe for government action. She gave an <br />overview of § 518 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which allows EPA to grant tribes "treatment as <br />state" (TAS) status. However, in the absence of tribal regulation, EPA asserts the authority to step <br />in and regulate water quality on reservations. <br />Jim Uzzell, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, shared some experiences and <br />suggestions from a state perspective. He encouraged parties to avoid jurisdictional battles since they <br />take "exuberant amounts of time to resolve," using as an example the State of Wyoming and the <br />28 <br />