IGA axes water pacts
Panel wants water to go to Navajo, not Gallup

By Kathy Helms
Dine Bureau

WINDOW ROCK — Two resolutions pertaining to the future development of Navajo water came to a screeching halt Monday before the Intergovernmental Relations Committee, at least temporarily.

A proposed Memorandum of Understanding between the Navajo Nation, the city of Gallup and the Jicarilla Apache regarding the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project failed 2-5, and a MOU which would have allowed Navajo and the city of Flagstaff to explore mutually beneficial solutions for future water development in Northern Arizona was tabled, 4-2.

In his motion to table the Navajo/Flagstaff MOU, Delegate Ervin Keeswood included a directive that the legislation's sponsors, Raymond Maxx and Harry Williams, take the proposed MOU back to all chapters that would be affected by the C-aquifer development, explain the MOU to the people, and then have them vote on it before bringing it back to IGR.

Coalmine Canyon, which sits atop the C-aquifer, voted against its passage in a chapter meeting on Sunday.

Both legislations were designed to require only the approval of the Resources Committee and IGR, and would not have gone before the Navajo Nation Council for a vote.

Because nine of the Council's standing committees, including IGR, all were scheduled to meet at 10 a.m. Monday, and the IGR Committee is made up of the chair or vice chair from those committees, the special meeting did not obtain a quorum and get under way until 11:50 a.m.

Stanley Pollack, Navajo water rights attorney, said that neither MOU binds anyone to do anything other than continue discussions that are already ongoing. Several IGR members disagreed, however, saying that language contained in the Navajo-Gallup MOU, in particular, is very specific and appears to indicate otherwise.

Pollack, agent for Delegate Ernest Yazzie Jr., who sponsored the legislation, said the Navajo Nation Water Rights Settlement passed in December 2004 included authorization for the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project.

There will be a hearing in front of the U.S. Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee either next week or the following week on that piece of legislation and that authorization, he said.

U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., chair of the committee when the settlement was passed and now ranking Republican, said previously that he would not support the settlement unless it included a water supply for Gallup.

"Congress is reluctant to pass legislation to authorize water projects unless they're assured that all of the beneficiaries in that project will have a water supply. What this MOU is intended to do is to demonstrate to Congress and the Senate, and in opposition to the position that we expect the administration to take that the administration will say there's no need to authorize this settlement or this project because Gallup does not have a water supply," he said.

"What the (MOU) simply says is that the three parties are committed to finding a water supply for the city of Gallup. That water supply could come either from some of the water that the Jicarilla Apache Nation received in its water rights settlement, or it conceivably come from water that the Navajo Nation would obtain in its settlement, or some combination of the two," he said.

Political suicide
Resources Committee Chairman George Arthur said he and Pollack discussed the legislation a few weeks ago. "At the time, I jokingly said that whoever sponsors this is stepping into political suicide. I guess you found your man."

Arthur said that since early discussions on the settlement, he has gone on record numerous times as stating, "At no time is Gallup getting Navajo water." However, he added, "I think that's why we're doing this. In the purpose, right off, it states that the participants, meaning the city of Gallup, the Navajo Nation, and the Jicarilla, their purpose is to identify a water supply for the city."

The Jicarilla already have gotten their settlement through the system, he added. "In the Jicarilla discussions, they were never given any criteria about having to supply water to somebody else. In Navajo's case, it's become an unspoken expectation that Navajo is supposed to supply water to Gallup."

Among other issues, Arthur questioned one of the principles of the agreement which states that any unused portion of water under the agreement may be used by the Jicarilla Apache and Navajo Nation until requested for delivery by the city.

"I know, Mr. Pollack, you said one time, that it's very difficult to get back something, especially water. So once we get all this in place, if Navajo has need for whatever is being delivered to Gallup, it would be practically impossible."

Pollack agreed, saying, "I have often advised against water marketing because it is difficult to get the water back once water goes to a municipality and I stand by those words. I'm not saying today that you agree to lease water to Gallup, but I agree that it would be very difficult to get the water back."

Arthur also said that he has been approached by Jicarilla governmental representatives to have discussions on the water supply project.

"They have expressed concern about their status of involvement, or non-involvement, as the case may be," he said.

Nothing for Navajo
Delegate Keeswood said the MOU was not surprising, but disappointing. "It takes away from Navajo. This is the reason why I voted against it initially and I still oppose it, and I will oppose it again today. This agreement gives nothing to the Navajo people that live in New Mexico where this route is.

"There is no development from the main trunk line to the communities in this agreement, yet, we want to bend over backward for Gallup," he said. "I'm disappointed in Mr. Pollack and the Department of Justice for promoting something that is devastating to not only our communities, but our people.

"Maybe it's high time that we get more people who have real interest on behalf of the Navajo people. I don't see it in this document at all. It's promoting non-Indians. I'm disappointed that our own employees are doing something that is devastating to our people."

Keeswood said he needed to go on record to say that he opposes the MOU. "Our people in New Mexico and Arizona have to be notified, to tell them that at one time the issue was Navajo water. This was a Navajo agreement; but all the sudden, now, it's promoting Gallup."

Navajo communities outside Gallup are not mentioned in the agreement, he said. "The sponsor's community is not mentioned here. I think that's where Mr. Arthur came across with the thought that, 'Who in their right mind would input a document here not even including their own community?'"

He said the Nation needs to find some people that will promote Navajo issues for Navajo people.

Sponsor Yazzie took issue with Keeswood's observation. "I think us, as Navajos, we need to stop saying non-Indian issues. I don't want to hear non-Navajo issues anymore."

Delegate Hope MacDonald-LoneTree then took exception to Yazzie's comments.

"I'm not sure, because I'm not in your community, who was allowed to vote and elect leaders from there, but I'm aware, or hope I'm aware, that the 88 members that were elected to the council were elected by Navajo people and to protect Navajo interests and uphold the Treaty of 1868.

"The individuals that are mentioned, the non-Navajos that you're talking about, elect their own leaders. Those leaders, obviously, are doing everything they can through this agreement to further their interest, which is non-Navajo.

"We are here to protect Navajo interests. So, I am a little bit taken aback by your comments, because I was under the assumption that everyone here was elected by Navajo people to protect their interests. I would appreciate your comments to follow those lines."

Pollack again reminded the committee, "This is not an agreement with Gallup and the Jicarilla to supply water. This is an agreement to explore possibilities for a water supply. It's premature to even get into the details of this.

"We are not asking the IGR to bless a water agreement today. We are asking the IGR to bless the idea of discussions so that we may try to move the Navajo Nation settlement forward."