3 ms·

> the state of NM does not lay claim to all the water that falls here ... and other large parts are tribe owned. Yes. And when you finish reading the article

> the state of NM does not lay claim to all the water that falls here ... and other large parts are tribe owned. Yes. And when you finish reading the article you keep criticizing, you may learn that these are what the Navajo just successfully sued back from the state, after the state tried to lay claim to them. . > I said it was poorly written because I already told you once that you made me feel bad by trying to say this. I'm not interested. Thanks. . > > In addition, I do not believe it is the true to say: > The entities they are dealing with are soveirgn nations - entirely distinct countries That's nice. It is, though. . > > 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. No, I meant the words I said . > I think you might be imagining that I'm not aware of ... the tribes' arguments in this matter. The things you are saying are directly contradictory to a correct understanding of the matter, so I don't believe "imagining" is actually the right word here. I think it's "discovering." . > I entirely agree with the terms of the settlement Sir, the settlement is what was overturned. The thing that we're discussing is a judgment, not a settlement. This is like someone suing someone for breach of contract, and in attempting to support them, saying "I agree with the contract." If you support the settlement, that's saying New Mexico is right, and the water should continue to be taken. It's very difficult to take legal discussions seriously with someone when they misuse basic concepts.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
We seem to be reading different lawsuits. Here's the ABQ Journal again in 2018, describing an earlier phase of the legal process that was (almost certainly) settled in 2021: https://www.abqjournal.com/1186369/state-appealing-navajo-water-rights-ruling-although-it-favors-the-result.html https://www.abqjournal.com/1186369/state-appealing-navajo-wa... > State government recently got a big legal victory when the New Mexico Court of Appeals upheld a landmark water rights settlement with the Navajo Nation. [ ... ] Although the “result” of the April appeals court decision authored by Judge Pro Tem Bruce Black was correctly in favor of settlement, Black’s opinion held incorrectly that water in the San Juan River through New Mexico “is ultimately subject” to federal government control and “denies the State’s jurisdiction over its own waters,” says the petition filed Friday at the high court. From the 2021 article that you cited: > The New Mexico Supreme Court recently decided to let stand a Court of Appeals decision that the Engineer’s Office says would rob the state of its ability to regulate water rights in New Mexico. Here's you, just now: > Sir, the settlement is what was overturned. The thing that we're discussing is a judgment, not a settlement. I do not see to square the reporting in the ABQ Journal with your claim that the settlement was overturned. Do you have some links to the suit you're saying was brought by the Navajo Nation? I have been unable to find anything about such a suit. The only one I can see is the suit against the federal government regarding access to water from the Colorado https://www.knau.org/knau-and-arizona-news/2021-04-29/navajo-nation-wins-court-victory-over-access-to-colorado-river-water https://www.knau.org/knau-and-arizona-news/2021-04-29/navajo... Note the paragraph at the end of the piece also: > It’s the second recent court victory for Navajo Nation water rights. Last month, all challenges were dropped from a settlement over the tribe’s access to the San Juan River. which, like the ABQ Journal pieces, suggests that the settlement was upheld, and the challenges to the settlement were denied. Separately, if you literally meant this: > 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. then I'd appreciate gaining an understanding of which of the tribal nations you've named, or any that you haven't named, lay claim to the source or basin of the Pecos. In my research on this, I couldn't see any sign of those tribes holding claims on that land. The same question would apply to the other rivers that flow out of the Sangre de Cristo. If any native people had a claim to that, I would expect it to be some/all of the Puebloans.
- JohnHaugeland 5y ago
  Even with it spelled out in your own quote, you can't admit the mistake This is not good faith and I have no interest in arguing with your most recent use of a search engine If you had no web browser you wouldn't be able to write a word about this You haven't read the articles about the lawsuit, much less the lawsuit itself No understanding is coming for you, because you'll just argue with it then ask for more until someone gives up, so that you can feel like you were right all along The quotation literally verbatim agrees with what I said about your error, word for word, and you're still pushing
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    I asked you for a single reference to the lawsuit you're referring to. It seems that's too much for you. My quote from the ABQ Journal said "upheld a landmark water rights settlement with the Navajo Nation". You said "Sir, the settlement is what was overturned". Then you avoid explaining this by claiming bad faith. Having now read a good chunk of your comment history on HN, I think it's time to bow out of any attempt to discuss this with you. A persistent failure to provide citations, frequent bad-faith style of discussion, hand-waving assertion-from-self-invented authority seem common. That said, if there actually is a lawuit by the Navajo Nation that overturns the settlement reached with NM, I would actually like to know more about it.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

We seem to be reading different lawsuits. Here's the ABQ Journal again in 2018, describing an earlier phase of the legal process that was (almost certainly) settled in 2021: https://www.abqjournal.com/1186369/state-appealing-navajo-water-rights-ruling-although-it-favors-the-result.html https://www.abqjournal.com/1186369/state-appealing-navajo-wa... > State government recently got a big legal victory when the New Mexico Court of Appeals upheld a landmark water rights settlement with the Navajo Nation. [ ... ] Although the “result” of the April appeals court decision authored by Judge Pro Tem Bruce Black was correctly in favor of settlement, Black’s opinion held incorrectly that water in the San Juan River through New Mexico “is ultimately subject” to federal government control and “denies the State’s jurisdiction over its own waters,” says the petition filed Friday at the high court. From the 2021 article that you cited: > The New Mexico Supreme Court recently decided to let stand a Court of Appeals decision that the Engineer’s Office says would rob the state of its ability to regulate water rights in New Mexico. Here's you, just now: > Sir, the settlement is what was overturned. The thing that we're discussing is a judgment, not a settlement. I do not see to square the reporting in the ABQ Journal with your claim that the settlement was overturned. Do you have some links to the suit you're saying was brought by the Navajo Nation? I have been unable to find anything about such a suit. The only one I can see is the suit against the federal government regarding access to water from the Colorado https://www.knau.org/knau-and-arizona-news/2021-04-29/navajo-nation-wins-court-victory-over-access-to-colorado-river-water https://www.knau.org/knau-and-arizona-news/2021-04-29/navajo... Note the paragraph at the end of the piece also: > It’s the second recent court victory for Navajo Nation water rights. Last month, all challenges were dropped from a settlement over the tribe’s access to the San Juan River. which, like the ABQ Journal pieces, suggests that the settlement was upheld, and the challenges to the settlement were denied. Separately, if you literally meant this: > 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. then I'd appreciate gaining an understanding of which of the tribal nations you've named, or any that you haven't named, lay claim to the source or basin of the Pecos. In my research on this, I couldn't see any sign of those tribes holding claims on that land. The same question would apply to the other rivers that flow out of the Sangre de Cristo. If any native people had a claim to that, I would expect it to be some/all of the Puebloans.

JohnHaugeland 5y ago
Even with it spelled out in your own quote, you can't admit the mistake This is not good faith and I have no interest in arguing with your most recent use of a search engine If you had no web browser you wouldn't be able to write a word about this You haven't read the articles about the lawsuit, much less the lawsuit itself No understanding is coming for you, because you'll just argue with it then ask for more until someone gives up, so that you can feel like you were right all along The quotation literally verbatim agrees with what I said about your error, word for word, and you're still pushing
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  I asked you for a single reference to the lawsuit you're referring to. It seems that's too much for you. My quote from the ABQ Journal said "upheld a landmark water rights settlement with the Navajo Nation". You said "Sir, the settlement is what was overturned". Then you avoid explaining this by claiming bad faith. Having now read a good chunk of your comment history on HN, I think it's time to bow out of any attempt to discuss this with you. A persistent failure to provide citations, frequent bad-faith style of discussion, hand-waving assertion-from-self-invented authority seem common. That said, if there actually is a lawuit by the Navajo Nation that overturns the settlement reached with NM, I would actually like to know more about it.