Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,j,,, ' <br /> <br />.\. <br /> <br />~ <br />-- <br /> <br />.l <br /> <br />previously unfarmed lands, or to augment existing uses. This cecreases <br />their needs for Federal/State help from welfare and other assistance <br />programs and encourages them to be more independent. This adds to the <br />goal of helping the Indians determine their o,m destinies. <br /> <br />In negotiating, parties are enccuraged to lock for new solutions to old, <br />long-standing problems. The beauty is that they can look for innovative <br />ways to meet the needs of the parties rather than protecting their legal <br />rights or living within historical precedent. They become active par- <br />ticipants in the process to rectify their own and their neighbors <br />situations, and after all, who is better suited? When you participate <br />in the decisionmaking and have a stake in the outcome, you are more <br />likely to support the final decision. <br /> <br />Decreased litigation costs through negotiations can be an important fac- <br />tor. Fcr example, in Hyoming's, Wind River Basin, litigation costs have <br />been in the tens of millions of dollars. These "avoided costs" cf liti- <br />gation can be contributed to negotiated settlements. Therefore, the <br />money goes for a positive outccme, rather than a negative one. <br />Everyone's a winner. <br /> <br />This leads to a very important point. Fcr negotiations to be fruitful, <br />there needs to be available for division more assets than the parties <br />bring to the table individually. Sociolgists would say that it can't be <br />a "zero sum game" or else someone has to lose. If everyone is to win, <br />the pie must be expanded before it is cut. Typically, the way the pie. <br />is expanded is through adding money or real assets such as wate" land, <br />power, or the agreement to defer for a period of time the use of assets. <br />Classically, in addition to the directly involved parties, local govern- <br />ments, states, and the Federal Government are considered as possible <br />contributors to settlements. For example, fcr over 100 years arguments <br />have raged as to whether the State cr Federal governments are respon- <br />sible for the Indians. The Ak-Chin settlement is regarded as a prece- <br />dent which now calls for non-Federal contributions, toward Indian water <br />rights settlements. The rationale for this policy lies in the fact that <br />the non-Indian parties benefit from settlement and as beneficiaries need <br /> <br />O~11 <br /> <br />2 <br />