WSPP00050 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . National Forest to that reflected in the original purpose of its congression- al mandate. In Nevada v. United States (1983). the Supreme Court refused to reconsider a previously argued case involving the claims of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Indian Tribe to additional water rights in the Truckee River in Nevada. Instead it held that the United States Government had had the opportunity in 1913 - sixty years earlier - to illuminate all the issues, and its failure to do so provided no grounds for further litigation. There are three approaches to resolving conflicts over Indian water rights: (1) litigation, which is time-consuming and expensive for all parties; (2) negotiation, which is less expensive but nonetheless time- consuming; and (3) legislation, which is actually a means of confirming what has already been achieved through negotiation. Should the Indians lose faith in the willingness of the United States Congress to provide the funding for the Animas-La Plata Project, it seems likely that they will pursue their interest in water entitlement through the courts. Not only is the I itigation costly to the state of Colorado, but the outcome may, in the long run, exceed the cost of the litigation. For example, in 1983, the annual diversions on the Mancos River were approximately 42,000 acre- feet. On the La Plata River the annual diversion amounted to approxi- mately 44,000 acre-feet. If the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, after winning the adjudication of its water rights on these rivers, were to impose a nominal charge of $10.00 per acre-foot per year, the annual cost would amount to $860,000.00. Negotiation leading to legislative affirmation of settlement has recog- nizable merits. The 1978 Water Settlement Act involving the Ak-Chin Indian Community in Arizona is a case in point. Ak-Chin is a ~mall . 0163 10 j