4 ms·

No, it's the whole state. The concept here, which is clearly and correctly communicated by the article, is simple. New Mexico believes that it has the final s

No, it's the whole state. The concept here, which is clearly and correctly communicated by the article, is simple. New Mexico believes that it has the final say on its water. New Mexico believes that every drop of water that falls in New Mexico is under New Mexico's final control. For 50 years, New Mexico has been "negotiating" with the Native Americans in their land, by running their own courts and deciding in their own favor, over and over again. This is blatantly illegal. The entities they are dealing with are soveirgn nations - entirely distinct countries - and we have been very, very clear with the states that they do not have dominion. If you're American, just think about all those casino fights. Every single one, lost. All of them. Why? Because *the states are not the owners of that land.* Those are other countries, and they get to set their own rules. The problem is that New Mexico has been robbing the Native Americans of their water for almost a century, and has become entirely dependant on water that does not belong to them. Over the last fifteen years, the Navajo have been saying "this is going too far, we don't have electricity or sewage or schools, you can't keep taking our resources for free." So New Mexico offered them about five cents on the dollar for their water, which amounted to about $1.3 billion. Then New Mexico took three times as much water as they purchased, and reneged on half the money. The Navajo finally said "enough" and took them to court, because New Mexico in 2019 took so much water that Navajo people started dying of thirst. New Mexico runs sprinklers on lawns in the open air, while taking away so much water from the Native Americans that they're dying. Every one of those beautiful trees in the near forest city of Santa Fe is built on the corpses of Navajo who died of thirst. The Navajo won. The State Engineer's Office immediately paniced, because more than 70% of New Mexico's water is stolen from the other countries that New Mexico thought it owned. They will all win too, if they try. The State Engineer's Office went to the court of appeals and said "please let us continue to steal the Native Americans' water, we know they're dying and we know they're another country and we're just a state, but the trees in our city parks are thirsty." For once, the US courts did the right thing. They said "no, and you're not allowed to raise it further." It's the whole state. The reason this is important is that every single source of water to New Mexico flows through the land of either The Nuntzi, the Navajo, the Goshutes, the Shoshone, the Shivwits, or the Koosharem. If they all take the route that the Navajo did, then Santa Fe no longer has a water supply at all. This article, that you said was incredibly poorly written, got all of these topics correct. I'm sorry you felt the need to insult the writer. It also makes me feel pretty bad for having brought it up, because I thought this would be worth your time. In the balance, it seems like you didn't learn what the real situation is. Good luck to you.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
First of all, the state of NM does not lay claim to all the water that falls here. Large parts of the state are federally owned, and other large parts are tribe owned. As a result, the state only has claim to about 45% of the water that falls from the sky or flows across the land, the rest is already allocated. The article in the ABQ Journal does not, in fact, state any of the things you've mentioned above. I appreciate that you cited the article, I just think it was poorly written. What the article describes is this: a Court of Appeals judge said that because Congress was involved in the settlement between (at least) the Navajo and the state of NM, Congress is now in charge of water in NM and not the state (at least, this is one reasonable interpretation of the opinion). The SE Office appealed this on the basis that it contradicts decades of clear precedent. NMSC declined to hear the appeal, which potentially leaves the door to someone (potentially one of the tribes) forcing administrative action that forces Congress into active oversight of water allocation etc. I said it was poorly written because it lacks sufficient context, uses short out-of-context quotes from the court's opinion, and because it completely fails to explain the relationship between the SE Office/State, the tribes and the US Congress. The article does not describe the settlement reached with the Navajo, for example, it does not describe the general situation with water in the state, it does not describe the context of the settlement. In addition, I do not believe it is the true to say: > The entities they are dealing with are soveirgn nations - entirely distinct countries While the US (and to some extent, the Spanish) did grant significant sovereignty to (some of the) the nations already here during European colonization, the sovereignty of the tribes today is far more complex than is indicated by calling them "entirely distinct countries". Any serious challenge to the authority of the federal government would be harshly dealt with (challenges to state government, not so much). The Navajo and the Hopi utilized the federal government in their attempts to resolve their own disputes over land and access. While I believe that the tribes deserve more autonomy, more power and definitely more water, the actual legal situation is far more complex than the one that exists, for example, between the USA and Mexico or the USA and Canada. > every single source of water to New Mexico flows through the land of either The Nuntzi, the Navajo, the Goshutes, the Shoshone, the Shivwits, or the Koosharem. I think (but am not certain) that you're describing inflows to the area of the state. This does not describe the Pecos River, nor the rainfall nor the snow. In general, I think you might be imagining that I'm not aware of or sympathetic to the tribes' arguments in this matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. I entirely agree with the terms of the settlement, and think it should likely go further.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

First of all, the state of NM does not lay claim to all the water that falls here. Large parts of the state are federally owned, and other large parts are tribe owned. As a result, the state only has claim to about 45% of the water that falls from the sky or flows across the land, the rest is already allocated. The article in the ABQ Journal does not, in fact, state any of the things you've mentioned above. I appreciate that you cited the article, I just think it was poorly written. What the article describes is this: a Court of Appeals judge said that because Congress was involved in the settlement between (at least) the Navajo and the state of NM, Congress is now in charge of water in NM and not the state (at least, this is one reasonable interpretation of the opinion). The SE Office appealed this on the basis that it contradicts decades of clear precedent. NMSC declined to hear the appeal, which potentially leaves the door to someone (potentially one of the tribes) forcing administrative action that forces Congress into active oversight of water allocation etc. I said it was poorly written because it lacks sufficient context, uses short out-of-context quotes from the court's opinion, and because it completely fails to explain the relationship between the SE Office/State, the tribes and the US Congress. The article does not describe the settlement reached with the Navajo, for example, it does not describe the general situation with water in the state, it does not describe the context of the settlement. In addition, I do not believe it is the true to say: > The entities they are dealing with are soveirgn nations - entirely distinct countries While the US (and to some extent, the Spanish) did grant significant sovereignty to (some of the) the nations already here during European colonization, the sovereignty of the tribes today is far more complex than is indicated by calling them "entirely distinct countries". Any serious challenge to the authority of the federal government would be harshly dealt with (challenges to state government, not so much). The Navajo and the Hopi utilized the federal government in their attempts to resolve their own disputes over land and access. While I believe that the tribes deserve more autonomy, more power and definitely more water, the actual legal situation is far more complex than the one that exists, for example, between the USA and Mexico or the USA and Canada. > every single source of water to New Mexico flows through the land of either The Nuntzi, the Navajo, the Goshutes, the Shoshone, the Shivwits, or the Koosharem. I think (but am not certain) that you're describing inflows to the area of the state. This does not describe the Pecos River, nor the rainfall nor the snow. In general, I think you might be imagining that I'm not aware of or sympathetic to the tribes' arguments in this matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. I entirely agree with the terms of the settlement, and think it should likely go further.