A. Upon congressional authorization of funding of the federal government's portion of the costs of an Indian water rights settlement, the state engineer shall notify the legislature of the amount of the state's portion of the costs necessary to implement the settlement. Upon joint resolution of the legislature, the interstate stream commission may expend money in the Indian water rights settlement fund to implement the terms of the approved settlement.
B. On or before November 15 of each year, the state engineer and the interstate stream commission shall report to the appropriate legislative interim committee dealing with Indian affairs and to the legislative finance committee on:
(1) the status of proposed Indian water rights settlements requiring state financing;
(2) the distribution of funds from the Indian water rights settlement fund to implement approved settlements; and
(3) recommendations on the level of funding for the Indian water rights settlement fund necessary to timely implement Indian water rights settlements.
C. As used in Sections 1 and 2 of this act:
(1) "Indian water rights settlement" means an agreement between the state and a tribe, but not exclusive of any other party as appropriate, that resolves all of the tribe's water rights claims and that has been approved by the United States congress; and
(2) "tribe" means a federally recognized Indian nation, tribe or pueblo.
History: Laws 2005, ch. 172, § 1.
ANNOTATIONSEffective dates. — Laws 2005, ch. 172, § 3 made the act effective July 1, 2005.
Settlement of Indian water rights did not require state legislative approval. — Where the Navajo Nation, the United States, and the state of New Mexico reached an agreement settling the Navajo Nation's claims to water in the San Juan river basin, and where federal legislation to approve and implement the settlement agreement was enacted by congress, and where the New Mexico legislature appropriated funds to pay New Mexico's cost of the settlement agreement and authorized the New Mexico state engineer to seek judicial approval regarding the state's share of the water, and where the district court approved the settlement agreement, concluding that the settlement agreement was fair, adequate, reasonable, and consistent with the public interests as well as all applicable laws, appellants' claim that the settlement required the express approval of the New Mexico legislature was without merit, because interstate bodies of water, like the San Juan river, are ultimately subject to the control of the federal, not the state, government, and because Indian tribes have a proprietary interest in waters recognized by federal reservation treaties, it is federal, not state, law that governs the validity and interpretation of water settlements between states and tribes. State ex rel. State Engineer v. San Juan Agricultural Water Users Ass'n, 2018-NMCA-053, cert. granted.
Settlement of Indian water rights did not require Indian tribes to prove immediate beneficial use to quantify their water rights. — Where the Navajo Nation, the United States, and the state of New Mexico reached an agreement settling the Navajo Nation's claims to water in the San Juan river basin, and where federal legislation to approve and implement the settlement agreement was enacted by congress, and where the New Mexico legislature appropriated funds to pay New Mexico's cost of the settlement agreement and authorized the New Mexico state engineer to seek judicial approval regarding the state's share of the water, and where the district court approved the settlement agreement, concluding that the settlement agreement was fair, adequate, reasonable, and consistent with the public interests as well as all applicable laws, appellants' claim that the Navajo Nation was required to prove immediate beneficial use to quantify their water rights and that beneficial use is an essential requirement of every federal law governing the allocation of water was without merit, because Indian water rights are proprietary rights that have a priority date, the date of the creation of the reservation, but they are not dependent on the application of water to beneficial use. State ex rel. State Engineer v. San Juan Agricultural Water Users Ass'n, 2018-NMCA-053, cert. granted.
The district court did not err in determining the proper measure of reservation water. — Where the Navajo Nation, the United States, and the state of New Mexico reached an agreement settling the Navajo Nation's claims to water in the San Juan river basin, and where federal legislation to approve and implement the settlement agreement was enacted by congress, and where the New Mexico legislature appropriated funds to pay New Mexico's cost of the settlement agreement and authorized the New Mexico state engineer to seek judicial approval regarding the state's share of the water, and where the district court approved the settlement agreement, concluding that the settlement agreement was fair, adequate, reasonable, and consistent with the public interests as well as all applicable laws, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the proper measure of reservation water should not be limited to only an amount of water sufficient to support the pastoral life often contemplated in the nineteenth century, but rather, but should be calculated to provide the tribes with water in quantities sufficient to promote survival and the success of the reservations. State ex rel. State Engineer v. San Juan Agricultural Water Users Ass'n, 2018-NMCA-053, cert. granted.
Notice of inter se proceeding satisfied constitutional due process.- Where the Navajo Nation, the United States, and the state of New Mexico reached an agreement settling the Navajo Nation's claims to water in the San Juan river basin, and where federal legislation to approve and implement the settlement agreement was enacted by congress, and where the New Mexico legislature appropriated funds to pay New Mexico's cost of the settlement agreement and authorized the New Mexico state engineer to seek judicial approval regarding the state's share of the water, and where the district court approved the settlement agreement, concluding that the settlement agreement was fair, adequate, reasonable, and consistent with the public interests as well as all applicable laws, no due process violation occurred because the threshold question in evaluating a due process challenge is whether there is a deprivation of liberty or property, and in this case, appellants could not have suffered any loss of property rights where there was a reasonable basis to conclude that the settlement agreement provided the Navajo Nation with an amount of water less than the amount that was federally authorized. Moreover, the measures taken by the state satisfied the procedural requirements of due process. State ex rel. State Engineer v. San Juan Agricultural Water Users Ass'n, 2018-NMCA-053, cert. granted.