Little Colorado River
Since the Navajos voted down the
Navajo-Hopi Little Colorado River Water Rights Settlement last
month, presumably stopping its progress, leaders from both
tribes have been lamenting the loss of a clear path to clean
drinking water that the settlement had promised.
But
the settlement also contained a hard-won agreement between
the Hopi and Navajo tribes that would have helped to regulate
the use of a shared aquifer. And as the dust settles,
representatives from both tribes are beginning to wonder whether
that plan could be rescued from the rubble.
The plan was outlined in four pages near the middle of the
100-page settlement, and it represented a rare consensus between
the tribes on an issue that more often brings out their
differences.
According to Hopi estimates, they’re using one sixteenth of
the N-aquifer water that the Navajo tribe is using. That differs
from a 2009 U.S. Geological Survey report showing the Navajos
withdraw just under four times what the Hopis do.
Jason John, principal hydrologist with the Water Management
Branch of the Navajo Nation Department of Water Resources, said
the truth could lie anywhere between those estimates; the USGS
survey doesn’t necessarily include the entire N-aquifer use
area.
Either way, the Hopi goal in an aquifer management plan would
be to establish a sustainable volume for use, and then allocate
40 percent of that figure for themselves. Such an effort is one
more aspect of securing a Hopi water future, said Micah
Loma’omvaya, chief of staff for Hopi Tribal Chairman LeRoy
Shingoitewa.
“We’re at the heart of the N aquifer. If all these other
straws deplete it … we’re stuck without a reliable water source
for our homeland,” he said.
Many more Navajo travel stops, restaurants, hotels and stores
dot the highways on the Navajo stretches of the roads that
bisect both reservations in the N-aquifer region – and the
Navajo Nation receives a significantly higher economic benefit
from industrial use of the aquifer by Peabody Coal.
“At Hopi we haven’t overused it for commercial or industrial
purposes,” Loma’omvaya observes.
John says discussions about fairness tend to get divisive
when it comes to the aquifer.
For example, “Right now, most of the mining activity is on
Navajo partition lands and Navajo trust lands, but the royalty
gets split 50/50 with the Hopi Tribe. That’s just one of the
discussions we’ve had about fairness,” he said. “The Navajo
population is much larger than Hopi in that area. The fact that
Navajo has a business at Pinyon and the fact that the Hopi tribe
doesn’t have businesses at their villages in Pinyon – is that
something that Navajo should be embarrassed about, or stop?”
Speculation abounds about the fate of the settlement: whether
the Navajo Nation Council’s denial of it will stop a decade of
negotiations in their tracks, or if it can be salvaged without
some of its more controversial provisions. If the settlement is
pronounced dead, both tribes could find themselves back in
court, where decades of tedious litigation have failed to
produce a settlement nearly as comprehensive as the two that
have been proposed so far.
The Hopi are wary of the legal system, given that they claim
no residents in the county where deliberations would take place.
“We don’t want to litigate,” Loma’omvaya said. “We don’t see
litigation in an Apache County courtroom as an appropriate
context to get what we need.”
On that point, the Navajo Nation’s John heartily agrees,
especially when it comes to something like managing a shared
aquifer: “If we don’t have these agreements now, as time goes on
both sides will continue to use more water,” he said. “If it
ends up in state court we’re afraid that a judge not familiar
with Navajo or Hopi could make a decision that would be
difficult for one or the other tribe.”
And, he points out, there’s an even bigger-picture concern
that could affect Indian country as a whole. As far as he knows,
no two tribes have ever gone to court to settle water priority
claims dating to time immemorial, as the standard is often used
for Native communities.
“It could be something that is precedent-setting in some
respects, and it could do a lot of damage to other tribes,” John
said.
© 1998 - 2012 Indian
Country Today. All Rights Reserved To subscribe or visit go to:
http://www.indiancountry.com