Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Agenda Item 8e <br />September 24-25,2001 Board Meeting <br />Page 5 of5 <br /> <br />significant new water development projects in neighboring states that would rely on <br />unused apportionment in another? Should our general position be any different than <br />that which six basin states have imposed on California? <br /> <br />Staff sees a clear need for New Mexico, Utah and Arizona to bring closure to a <br />water rights settlement with the Navajo Nation. However, such settlement <br />should be done witbin the "Law of the River." We see no need to threat such a <br />settlement witb the Navajo's any differently than witb other Tribes and no need <br />to treat New Mexico any different than California when asldng th1!m to live <br />within their compact apportionment. <br /> <br />Observations <br /> <br />As staff reviews this project, there is a clear need for additional water supplies on Project <br />lands. Tl1e Gallup-Navajo Project is certainly one of the more feasible options, and the <br />Navl\ios and New Mexico clearly want to see some resolution of these issues that would <br />allow a Project to proceed. We need to continue to talk with the Navajo's and New <br />Mexico about solutions that would allow an Indian water rights settlement to occur and <br />for areas clearly in need of additional water to receive such. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />This remains an informational item for further discussion and direction from the <br />Board. Staff will continue working on a policy position for the Board's consideration at <br />either the November or January Board meeting. Staff would apprecillte any comments <br />from Board members on the direction that the policy is taking. <br /> <br />Attachments: <br />DRS <br /> <br />c:\mydocs\agendaGallupNav92001.bdmdoc <br />