WSPC01188 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I ., I I I I I I I I I l 2248 CONFLICTS. TRENDS & CHAlLENGES t1 new promises alike will be modified or broken as competition for scarce water and public subsidy heightens and courts and legislative bodies make hard decisions. Litigation v. Negotiation: Shifling Sands Many water rights in the West, particularly reserved rights, have not been "quanti fied"; that is, the amount of water that lawfully can be used under the right has not been recognized officially. Quantification normally results from litigation, as in a stream adjudication, where a coun issues a decree defining the scope, limits and priorities of the water rights of the panies in the lawsuit. Such litigation is expensive and lengthy, and often it is risky. For mose reasons, efforts frequently are made to settle as much of the controversy as possible through negotiation. Negotiation has been viewed as a method to quantify Indian water claims independent of litigation. In 1958 the Navajos reached an agreement with non-Indian water interests that led to the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project. In 1979, the state of Montana established the Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission to negotiate and settle reserved rights. Although the Fon Peck Indian Reservation and the state of Montana finalized the Fon Peck-Montana Compact in 1985, the Montana effon has been slow in its progress and is not yet completed. In 1982 the Tohono O'odham Nation (formerly called the Papago Tribe) reached a negotiated settlement in the context of an act of Congress involving federal payments and guarantees. The Ak- Chin Community was a party to settlement legislation in ] 984. The status of federal funding may impact whether tribes take the settlement route. Unfonunately, the outlook for federal funding to make settlement attractive is bleak. The catalyst of capital, so necessary in the Tohono O'odham and Ak-Chin settlements, now appears unavailable from the federal government for the other tribes currently involved in negotiations. Whether litigation or negotiation will be favored in the future will depend on each tribe's assessment of the costs and risks inherent in its particular situation. Old Boys v, New Vokes: Information and ParlU:ipation Most water decisions affecting the West have been made by representatives of people and interests benefitted by water projects. During the early decades of water development, the public generally supponed public works projects that held the promise of increased settlement and economic growth and rarely questioned how water was allocated or how water project funds were spent. As a result. a few water leaders in each region came to wield great influence. Today, more people recognize that every water decision produces winners and losers. Overall, some people receive more water while paying less, others pay more while receiving less. The growing scarcity of both water and public subsidies makes it easier to distinguish the winners from the losen;. More people, panicularly those who have lost in the past. are becoming better informed on water matters and are realizing that they have a stake in water decisions. They want to panicipate, to be heard, and to be represented. Gradually, water management is likely to become more "democratized" as a result of those new voices.