legislative branch legislation no.: 0468-12 sponsor: honorable johnny naize · 2012-12-27 ·...

THE NAVAJO NATION LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

INTERNET PUBLIC REVIEW SUMMARY

LEGISLATION NO.: 0468-12

SPONSOR: Honorable Johnny Naize

TITLE: An Action Relating to Naa'bik'iyati Committee: Accepting the Invitation of the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior to Discuss Key Issues Impacting the Navajo Nation with respect to Federal Legislation S. 2109 and H.R. 4067 regarding Proposed Water Right Settlements of the Navajo Nation

Posted: November 2,2012 at 4:35pm

5 DAY Comment Period Ended: November 7, 2012

Digital Comments received:

1. Digital comments received on Saturday, November 3, 2012. Regarding upcoming meeting in Washington with Interior Sec. Ken Salazar. See attached comment.

2. Digital comments received on Sunday, November 4, 2012 from Jack Utter regarding Legislation 0468-12. Comments do not support Legislation 046812. Reasons are contained within.

3. Digital comments received on Monday, November 5, 2012 from Sharon Nelson regarding SB 2109. See attached comment.

4. Digital comments received on Monday, November 5,2012 from Jacques Seronde regarding Legislation 0468-12. See attached comments.

5. Digital comments received on Tuesday, November 6, 2012 from Angelene Yazzie regarding Legislation No. 0468-12. Comments do not support SB 2109 Reasons are contained within.

6. Digital comments received on Tuesday, November 6, 2012 from Faylene Begaye regarding 0468-12. Comments do not support SB 2109. Reasons are contained within.

Page Two Internet Public Review Publication

S'ignature

II . 01· 7-0\ '2

Date

upcoming meeting in Washington with Interior Sec. Ken Salazar Page 1 of 1

upcoming meeting in Washington with Interior Sec. Ken Salazar [email protected] Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 12:54 PM To: comments

Selling water rights is suicide. No human with a spirit would do such a thing. How will we live when there is no water to drink?

Blessings, Jane and _1\ ..1\- Denali's Legacy _1\ ..1\

Northern California Sled Dog Rescue www.norsled.org

When people say, "I couldn't foster because it would be too hard to give a dog up." We say, "How can it be harder than knowing a dog died because no foster home stepped up?" and that's why we do it time and time again.

At any given moment, you have the POWER to say this is NOT how the story is going to end.

https://webmail.navajo-nsn.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABCv2XiqRkpQ... 11/5/2012

Legislation 0468-12 Page 1 of 1

Legislation 0468-12 Jack Utter [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 7:06 PM To: comments Cc: Rita Gilmore [[email protected]]; Nicole Horseherder [[email protected]]

This legislation comes as a significant surprise. It is very different from my understanding of the recommendation and directive to the Department of Justice, arising from the Task Force and Advisory Group intensive efforts expended during the long meeting last Monday evening, October 29th.

I do not believe the legislation and Exhibit 2 represent the conceptual approach to the audience with Secretary of the Interior Salazar that we members of the Task Force and Advisory Group discussed and accepted.

I am curious to see who else from the Task Force and Advisory Group may be as surprised and disappointed as I am--and as many concerned Navajo citizens are who have contacted me about Legislation 0468-12.

I will reserve specific comments until I meet with Task Force and Advisory Group colleagues on Wednesday of this week, but I cannot support what I see has happened here with 0468-12.

Respectfully,

Jack Utter, Member Water Rights Task Force Advisory Group


SB 2109 Page 1 of 1

582109 Sharon Nelson [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 2:33 PM To: comments Cc: S. Rue Nelson [[email protected]]

To Whom It May Concern:

Senate Bill 2109, like most Senate Bills, is worded in such a manner that makes it difficult for the majority of people to understand, let alone respond with any comments by this wednesday. It takes a lot of time and research to truly understand the content and consequences of 5.2109. Modifications of a Senate Bill does not necessarily mean that the Bill has been modified.

under "sec .102. Water Rights (a) (1) Water Rights To Be Held in TrustNavajo Nation Rights-All water rights of the Navajo Nation for the Navajo Nation and allottees of the Navajo Nation and all NavajoNation CAP water shall be held in trust by the united States for the benefit of the Navajo Nation and the allottees of the Navajo Nation, respectively ... "

My question/comment is: If the Navajo Nation is a sovereign Nation, then why is the United States Government(and individual States ... such as Arizona) defining what is 'beneficial' for the Navajo Nation? The same wording applies to the Hopi Tribe. It would appear to be to the mutual benefit of the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe to put their differences aside and join forces-united you stand, divided youfall. A Water Rights partnership between the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe has the potential to 'dilute' potentially deleterious outside powers from 'defining' what is 'beneficial' to indigenouspeoples.

Ahe'hee'

S. Rue Nelson, BSN, MSN, FNP, MPH Federal HRSA Grant Reviewer


Re: Comments on LEGISLATION NO: 0468-12 Page 1 of4

Re: Comments on LEGISLATION NO: _0468-12 Jack Utter [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 9: 10 AM To: Jacques Seronde [[email protected]]; comments; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Elmer P. Begay; [email protected]; latergates@yahoo,com; Walter Phelps; [email protected]; [email protected]

Jacques,

Very well done.

Thank you. I hope we spread your two sets of comments far and wide. I will have them with me Wed.

Jack

From: Jacques Seronde <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "jaywalker_t20 11 @hotmail.com" <jaywalker_t20 11 @hotmail.com>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Elmer P. Begay <elmerbegay@navajonsn.gov>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Walter Phelps <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 5,20129:11 PM Subject: Comments on LEGISLATION NO: _0468-12

November 5, 2012

Ya'at'eeh Members of the Navajo Nation Council-

I am writing to you on behalf of my Dine children and grandchildren.

I am very worried and concerned that Stanley Pollack, , the Navajo Nation's primary water rights lawyer, is trying to close the door forever on the possibility of funding and realizing "wet water" irrigated agriculture and water conservation projects to heal and restore all Navajo watersheds; to grow the very best quality high-value income and employment-producing livestock and crops for Navajo and external markets; and to provide once again for healthy, diabetes- and obesity-free nutrition and active lifestyles for future generations.

I have worked for the Dine on agricultural development and natural resources management projects since 1976 - at the Chapter level in the Little Colorado River (LCR) Valley; in government Departments and Divisions in Window Rock, with Dine College's Land Grant Program, and with local conservation districts, grazing committees, farm boards and families.

I believe that Pollack and many of his attorney associates, have in the past and are now knowingly engaged in repeated professional mis-conduct, in their efforts to persuade the Navajo Nation's leadership and grassroots people to accept the proposed Little Colorado River Water Rights Settlement Agreement, and the proposed federal legislation that would ratify the Settlement Agreement.



We should have known this when we saw the dishonest and deliberately misleading backdrop photo behind Senator Kyl's introduction of the federal legislation - a photo that Stanley Pollack arranged and provided.

According to the American Bar Association's Rule of Conduct, II lawyers shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or mis-representation. "

Dishonesty includes "bad faith, deception, disposition to lie, lying, faithlessness, falseness, insincerity, lack of honesty, lack of integrity, treacherousness, untrustworthiness, and violation of trust,"

Fraud is "a false representation of a matter of fact-whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed-that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury." Deceit is "dishonest, fraudulent conduct and false statements made knowing them to be untrue, by which the liar intends to deceive a party receiving the statements and expects the party to believe and rely on them..." Mis-representation includes statements or conduct that are not in accord with the facts; that are relied on by the listener; and that the speaker knows that the listener is relying on and trusting such statements. Misrepresentation results in a fmancialloss to the victims. Stanley Pollack has repeatedly exploited his position of trust and confidence, his fiduciary relationship and responsibility to the Navajo Nation Council and President, and to the Navajo People, with fraudulent and misleading statements that take unfair and illegal advantage of his own superior knowledge of the complex details of water rights - and knowing that the Navajo Nation Council, and President, and the Navajo People have been and are relying and trusting that knowledge In the past months and years, over and over again, in public meetings and hearings, in newspapers and radio talks, and through the Water Commission's paid advertising and public information power-points and handouts - and now in his efforts to "amend" S.2109 without changing the poisonous substance ofthe Settlement Agreement which S.2109 would ratify-Stanley Pollack has made and is making repeated dishonest, deceitful, and fraudulent statements and mis-representations to the Navajo Nation Council; to President Shelly; and to the Navajo People. Remember these examples of Stanley's dishonest mis-leading information and lies (repeated in Water Commission power-points and advertisements; Navajo Times interviews; Leupp and other water hearings, reports to the Navajo Nation Council) :

II ... In this settlement we get all the water ... Navajo has the right to use as much water from the Little Colorado River as it can capture and use ... this settlement doesn't have limits for the Navajo Nation... we are essentially freezing the amount of water in the Little Colorado River that nonIndians have access to so the Navajo Nation can use it in the future ...Future non-Navajo uses of LCR water are restricted ..,"

Stanley knows that these are false representations intended to deceive. The settlement only provides Navajo with whatever water IIreaches" the Nation and is not already lIappropriated" by others ... and that the settlement allows upstream water users to divert or appropriate as much LCR and tributary surface water as they want for any and all purposes other than irrigation without legal recourse by Nav~jo or Hopi (Section 7.4).

https://webmaiI.navajo-nsn.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABCv2XiqRkpQ... 11/6/2012


" ...lhe settlement recognizes historic uses for irrigation ...The major problem is the difficulty of capturing and storing the surface waters of the LCR in order to use them ... lhere are no LCR surface water storage sites identified on the reservation..."

Yet Stanley knows these statements are misleading and untrue and conceal what should have been disclosed.

The settlement gives away Nav~jo priority water rights (Section 4.5.3). There are excellent storage sites identified along the LCR in Leupp (77,000 acre-foot reservoir site identified by MorrisonMaierle, 1982 - in the Water Resources department files in Fort Defiance). And the alluvium all along the River is a very large and full reservoir.

"We only have two choices -- either accept this settlement - or go back to expensive litigation... without the settlement, litigation will continue ... litigation can only result in limits on uses ... No agreement =no security for our water ... the agreement ensures Navajo people will keep what should rightfully be ours ..."

Stanley knows this is a false and misleading choice that conceals what should have been disclosed.

Instead of litigation, the Navajo Nation can re-open the negotiations with the Navajo and Hopi grassroots people represented at the table; provide for Full, Free and Informed discussion and understanding and consent of all desired pieces of the Settlement; eliminate the bad Sections; include provisions for Water Marketing and for N aquifer re-charge.

"The settlement does not include the mainstem Colorado river •.• the provisions for NGS and Peabody are in the legislation, not the settlement agreement ..• both of those provisions have nothing to do with the settlement agreement, those provisions are in the legislation..."

Stanley knows that these statements are lies that conceal what should have been disclosed. The settlement gives away over 40,000 acre-feet per year of Navajo water to NGS and Peabody for free. Section 13.14 of the settlement provides that "34,100 AFY of water <of Navajo Colorado River water> shall at all times be available for consumptive use by the Navajo Project Lessees in the operation of the Navajo Generating Station..." And that Section 13.17.1 allows Peabody to " ... retain the existing permanent mining structures included on Exhibit 13.17.1 as permanent Impoundments <these amount to almost 6,000 acre-feet capacity> within the Peabody leaseholds on the Navajo and Hopi Reservations after mining is completed..."

Another example: Stanley repeatedly claims that the settlement does not and should not quantify Navajo water because to do so would set limits on how much water Navajo can use - and Stanley never mentions the fact that the settlement prohibits Navajo and Hopi marketing of our water. Yet Stanley knows this is mis-representation that conceals what should have been disclosed.

https:llwebmail.navajo-nsn.gov/owal?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABCv2XiqRkpQ... 11/6/2012

Re: Comments on LEGISLATION NO: 0468-12 Page 4 of 4

Clear statement of Navajo and Hopi property rights to all 340,000 acre-feet per year of the Little Colorado River at its confluence with the Colorado River would open the door to marketing of water, allowing Navajo and Hopi " ... to participate in something which is widespread now across the West ••• to recover the economic value of their water resources in cases where the tribe either is not yet in a position to put that water to use or wishes not to put it to use, benefits the tribe enormously in terms of economic development..." (Expert witness Judith Royster, Professor and Co-Director of Native American Law Center, University of Tulsa College of Law, Tulsa, at the Senate Hearings in March on SB.2109). Stanley Pollack has deceived and betrayed the trust of the Navajo Nation Council, President, and People long enough. For the sake of our children and grandchildren and the qua;ity of life that is their right, end Stanley Pollack's abuse of Dine trust. Thank you for listening. JacquesSeronde lsi Jacques Seronde 3108 N. Patterson Street Flagstaff, Arziona 86004 scrondc(tl gmail.com 9286071115


SB 2109 - I Vote against this bill. Page 1 of 1

58 2109 - I Vote against this bill. Yazzie, Angelene (CCI-Phoenix) [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 1:29 PM To: comments Importance: High

My name is Angelene Yazzie (maiden name: Nez-Hill), registered voter for the Navajo Nation Tribe out of Kitsilli (Black Mesa Chapter). My address is: PO Box 835, Pinon, Arizona 86510.

I am sending this email to let you know that I am against passing of the SB 2109 that takes water rights from the Navajo and Hopi tribes. Water is very important to our people not only for crops and drinking but for many other things.

I don't agree with how this process is being handled. I think there should be more opportunity for the PEOPLE to be heard. Not enough town meetings held to LISTEN to what the PEOPLE have to say about the Bill. I don't think President Shelly has handled this very professionally and I think he is doing this for the wrong reasons. I don't agree with Senator Kyl and McCain. I think for them to offer OUR water to Arizona as a birthday gift was very nice. That was a blatant disregard for the tribes that are going to be affected.

I will vote over and over again against passing SB2109. Don't give our water to the corporations who only look to make money, who will squander the water so that the Bellagio can continue to run their water fountains on the Las Vegas strip, or so that people can keep their cars washed and their lawns green.

Why not put your energy into re-education the PEOPLE on the proper usage of the water we are trying to save? Or encourage the use of more efficient water conservation. Don't just turn your back on the Navajo or Hopi PEOPLE.

Again, I VOTE against passing the S 2109 Bill.

My contact information is: [email protected] Cell Phone: 602-214-5901

https://webmai1.navajo-nsn.gov/owa/?ae=ltem&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABCv2XiqRkpQ... 11/7/2012

No to SB2109 Page 1 of 1

No to 582109 [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, November 06,20125:55 PM To: comments

This bill takes away our precious life the people need wateR our crops need water our life stock need water water is life ! Do Not Pass This Bill my sOn is 3months old now and he needs water in the future don't give in to the white people's greeD. The white people already took our land kill our people with disease and cancer from their selfish greed for uranium mining and coal mining degraded the people with lies imprisoned our ancestors during the long walk and their main purpose was to kill off all the dine' they are still the same people in different times with the same purpose in mind to this day trying to take our precious life by taking our precious water! Say no they are nothing but sly back stabbing greedy selfish heartless coyotes that are trying to try the DINE' out of their life! Open your eyes dO what's right for our children that will have to live with the decisions we make today so NO to SB2109! Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry


--NABIN-87-12�

RESOLUTION OF THE NAA'BIKIYATI' COMMITTEE OF THE

22~ NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL

22~ NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL - Second Year, 2012

AN ACTION

RELATING TO NAABIK'IYATI' COMMITTEE; ACCEPTING THE INVITATION OF� THE SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO�

DISCUSS THE PROPOSED WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS OF THE NAVAJO NATION�

BE IT ENACTED:

1.� The Navajo Nation hereby accepts the invitation, Exhibit "No.1" , from the Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, as extended to Speaker Naize, on behalf of the Navajo Nation Council and hereby authorizes Speaker Naize and his designee(s) to represent the Council at this meeting to be held on November 14, 2012, for the purposes of communicating the Position Statement of the Navaj 0 Nation on Comprehensive Water Rights Settlements; and to report back to the Committee as to the accomplishments of that meeting.

2.� The Navajo Nation Water Rights Task Force developed and the Naabik'iyati' Committee hereby approves the Position Statement of the Navajo Nation on Comprehensive Water Rights Settlements, Exhibit 2, for presentation to Secretary Salazar.

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly considered by the Naabik'iyati' Committee of the Navajo Nation Council at a duly called meeting held at Window Rock, Navajo Nation (Arizona), at which a quorum was present and that the same was passed by a vote of 14 in favor, 0 opposed, this 9th day of November, 2012.

Duane Tsinigine, Pro Tern Chairperson Naabik'iyati' Committee

Motion: Walter Phelps Second: Charles Damon, II





TITLE: An Action Relatine; to Naa'bik'iyati Committee; Accepting the Invitation of the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior to Discuss Key Issues Impacting the Navajo Nation with Respect to Federal Legislation S.2109 and H.R.4067 Regarding Proposed Water Rights Settlements of the Navajo Nation

POSTED: November 02, 2012 at 4:35pm



1. Comments received on Saturday, November 03, 2012 from Jane, Northern California Sled Dog Rescue, regarding Legislation 0468-12. Comments do not support Legislation 0468-12. Reasons are contained within.

2. Comments received on Sunday, November 04, 2012 from Jack Utter, Water Rights Advisory Task Force, regarding Legislation 0468-12. Comments do not support Legislation 0468-12. Reasons are contained within.

3. Comments received on Monday, November 05, 2012 from S. Rue Nelson, Federal HRSA Grant Reviewer, regarding Legislation 0468-12. Comments do not support Legislation 0468-12. Reasons are contained within.

4. Comments received on Tuesday, November 05, 2012 from Jacques Seronde regarding Legislation 0468-12. Comments do not sUl'Port Legislation 0468-12. Reasons are contained within.

5. Comments received on Tuesday, November 06, 2012 from Angelene Yazzie regarding Legislation 0468-12. Comments do not support Legislation 0468-12. Reasons are contained within.

6. Comments received on Tuesday, November 06, 2012 from Faylene Begaye regarding Legislation 0468-12. Comments do not support Legislation 0468-12. Reasons are contained within.

7. Comments received on Wednesday, November 07, 2012 from Calvin Lee, jr., Esq., regarding Legislation 0468-12. Comments do not support Legislation 0468-12. Reasons are contained within.

8. Comments received on Wednesday, November 07, 2012 from Vincent Yazzie regarding Legislation 0468-12. Comments do not support Legislation 0468-12. Reasons are contained within.

9. Comments received on Wednesday, November 07, 2012 from Ed Becenti regarding Legislation 0468-12. Comments do not support Legislation 0468-12. Reasons are contained within.

a. Attached is page 7 & 8 of the Mescalero Apache Leasing Authorization Act.

10. Comments received on Wednesday, November 07, 2012 from Chili Yazzie, Shiprock, New Mexico, regarding Legislation 046812. Comments do not support Legislation 0468-12. Reasons are contained within.

11. Comments received on Wednesday, November 07, 2012 from Tara Rankin Comer, Seattle, WA, regarding Legislation 0468-12. Comments do not support Legislation 0468-12. Reasons are contained within.

12. Comments received on Wednesday, November 07, 2012 from Sue Sutter, Cameron Chapter, regarding Legislation 0468-12. Comments do not support Legislation 0468-12. Reasons are contained within.

13. Comments received on Wednesday, November 07, 2012 from Kimberly Smith, St. Michaels, AZ, regarding Legislation 046812. Comments do not support Legislation 0468-12. Reasons are contained within.

14. Comments received on Wednesday, November 07, 2012 from Angela Marie Davis regarding Legislation 0468-12. Comments do not support Legislation 0468-12. Reasons are contained within.

15. Comments received on Wednesday, November 07, 2012 from Renae Yellowhorse, Tuba City, regarding Legislation 0468-12. Comments do not support Legislation 0468-12. Reasons are contained within.

16. Comments received on Wednesday, November 07, 2012 from Timothy Lewis regarding Legislation 0468-12. Comments do not support Legislation 0468-12. Reasons are contained within.

17. Comments received on Wednesday, November 07, 2012 from Sarana Riggs, Tuba City, regarding Legislation 0468-12. Comments do not support Legislation 0468-12. Reasons are contained within.

18. Comments received on Wednesday, November 07, 2012 from Darlene Martin, Tuba City, regarding Legislation 0468-12. Comments do not support Legislation 0468-12. Reasons are contained within.

19. Comments received on Wednesday, November 07, 2012 from Jihan Gearon, Sawmill Chapter, regarding Legislation 0468-12. Comments do not support Legislation 0468-12. Reasons are contained within.

20. Comments received on Wednesday, November 07, 2012 from Janene Yazzie regarding Legislation 0468-12. Comments do not support Legislation 0468-12. Reasons are contained within.

21. Comments received on Wednesday, November 07, 2012 from ,.-~City, regarding Legislation 0468-12. Comments

---('

do not support Legislation 0468-12. Reasons are contained within.

upcoming meeting in Washington with Interior Sec. Ken Salazar Page 1 of 1

upcoming meeting in Washington with Interior Sec. Ken Salazar [email protected] Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 12:54 PM To: comments

Selling water rights is suicide. No human with a spirit would do such a thing. How will we live when there is no water to drink?

Blessings, Jane and -".."- Denali's Legacy -".."Northern California Sled Dog Rescue www.norsled.org

When people say, "I couldn't foster because it would be too hard to give a dog up." We say, "How can it be harder than knowing a dog died because no foster home stepped up?" and that's why we do it time and time again.

At any given moment, you have the POWER to say this is NOT how the story is going to end.

https://webmail.navajo-nsn.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABCv2XiqRkp... 11/13/2012


Legislation 0468-12 Jack Utter [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, November 04,20127:06 PM To: comments Cc: Rita Gilmore [[email protected]]; Nicole Horseherder [[email protected]]

This legislation comes as a significant surprise. It is very different from my understanding of the recommendation and directive to the Department of Justice, arising from the Task Force and Advisory Group intensive efforts expended during the long meeting last Monday evening, October 29th.

I do not believe the legislation and Exhibit 2 represent the conceptual approach to the audience with Secretary of the Interior Salazar that we members of the Task Force and Advisory Group discussed and accepted.

I am curious to see who else from the Task Force and Advisory Group may be as surprised and disappointed as I am--and as many concerned Navajo citizens are who have contacted me about Legislation 0468-12.

I will reserve specific comments until I meet with Task Force and Advisory Group colleagues on Wednesday of this week, but I cannot support what I see has happened here with 0468-12.

Respectfully,

Jack Utter, Member Water Rights Task Force Advisory Group


SB 2109 Page 1 of 1

582109 Sharon Nelson [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November OS, 2012 2:33 PM To: comments Cc: S. Rue Nelson [[email protected]]

TO Whom It May Concern:

Senate Bill 2109, like most Senate Bills, is worded in such a manner that makes it difficult for the majority of people to understand, let alone respond with any comments by this wednesday. It takes a lot of time and research to truly understand the content and consequences of 5.2109. Modifications of a Senate Bill does not necessarily mean that the Bill has been modified.

under "Sec.102. Water Rights (a) (1) Water Rights To Be Held in TrustNavajo Nation Rights-All water rights of the Navajo Nation for the Navajo Nation and allottees of the Navajo Nation and all NavajoNation CAP water shall be held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Navajo Nation and the allottees of the Navajo Nation, respecti ve1y... "

My question/comment is: If the Navajo Nation is a sovereign Nation, then why is the united States Government(and individual States ... such as Arizona) defining what is Ibeneficial l for the Navajo Nation? The same wording applies to the Hopi Tribe. It would appear to be to the mutual benefit of the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe to put their differences aside and join forces-united you stand, divided youfall. A Water Rights partnership between the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe has the potential to 'dilute' potentially deleterious outside powers from 'defining' what is 'beneficial' to indigenouspeoples.

Ahe'hee'

S. Rue Nelson, BSN, MSN, FNP, MPH Federal HRSA Grant Reviewer

https://webmai1.navajo-nsn.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABCv2XiqRkp... 11/13/2012

Re: Comments on LEGISLAnON NO: 0468-12 Page 1 of 4

Re: Comments on LEGISLATION NO: _0468-12 Jack Utter [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 06,20129:10 AM To: Jacques Seronde [[email protected]); comments; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Elmer P. Begay; [email protected]; [email protected]; Walter Phelps; [email protected]; [email protected]

Jacques,

Very well done.

Thank you. I hope we spread your two sets of comments far and wide. I will have them with me Wed.

Jack

From: Jacques Seronde <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Elmer P. Begay <elmerbegay@navajonsn.gov>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Walter Phelps <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 5,20129:11 PM Subject: Comments on LEGISLATION NO: _0468-12

November 5, 2012

Ya'at'eeh Members of the Navajo Nation Council-

I am writing to you on behalf of my Dine children and grandchildren.

I am very worried and concerned that Stanley Pollack, , the Navajo Nation's primary water rights lawyer, is trying to close the door forever on the possibility of funding and realizing "wet water" irrigated agriculture and water conservation projects to heal and restore all Navajo watersheds; to grow the very best quality high-value income and employment-producing livestock and crops for Navajo and external markets; and to provide once again for healthy, diabetes- and obesity-free nutrition and active lifestyles for future generations.

I have worked for the Dine on agricultural development and natural resources management projects since 1976 - at the Chapter level in the Little Colorado River (LCR) Valley; in government Departments and Divisions in Window Rock, with Dine College's Land Grant Program, and with local conservation districts, grazing committees, farm boards and families.

I believe that Pollack and many of his attorney associates, have in the past and are now knowingly engaged in repeated professional mis-conduct, in their efforts to persuade the Navajo Nation's leadership and grassroots people to accept the proposed Little Colorado River Water Rights Settlement Agreement, and the proposed federal legislation that would ratify the Settlement Agreement.

https:llwebmail.navajo-nsn.gov/owal?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABCv2XiqRkp... 11/13/2012

Re: Comments on LEGISLATION NO: 0468-12 Page 20[4

We should have known this when we saw the dishonest and deliberately misleading backdrop photo behind Senator Kyl's introduction of the federal legislation - a photo that Stanley Pollack arranged and provided.

According to the American Bar Association's Rule of Conduct, " lawyers shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or mis-representation. "

Dishonesty includes "bad faith, deception, disposition to lie, lying, faithlessness, falseness, insincerity, lack of honesty, lack of integrity, treacherousness, untrustworthiness, and violation of trust."

Fraud is "a false representation of a matter of fact-whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed-that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury." Deceit is "dishonest, fraudulent conduct and false statements made knowing them to be untrue, by which the liar intends to deceive a party receiving the statements and expects the party to believe and rely on them..." Mis-representation includes statements or conduct that are not in accord with the facts; that are relied on by the listener; and that the speaker knows that the listener is relying on and trusting such statements. Misrepresentation results in a financial loss to the victims. Stanley Pollack has repeatedly exploited his position of trust and confidence, his fiduciary relationship and responsibility to the Navajo Nation Council and President, and to the Navajo People, with fraudulent and misleading statements that take unfair and illegal advantage of his own superior knowledge of the complex details of water rights - and knowing that the Navajo Nation Council, and President, and the Navajo People have been and are relying and trusting that knowledge In the past months and years, over and over again, in public meetings and hearings, in newspapers and radio talks, and through the Water Commission's paid advertising and public information power-points and handouts - and now in his efforts to "amend" S.2109 without changing the poisonous substance of the Settlement Agreement which S.2109 would ratify -Stanley Pollack has made and is making repeated dishonest, deceitful, and fraudulent statements and mis-representations to the Navajo Nation Council; to President Shelly; and to the Navajo People. Remember these examples of Stanley's dishonest mis-leading information and lies (repeated in Water Commission power-points and advertisements; Navajo Times interviews; Leupp and other water hearings, reports to the Navajo Nation Council) :

" ... In this settlement we get all the water ... Navajo has the right to use as much water from the Little Colorado River as it can capture and use ... this settlement doesn't have limits for the Navajo Nation... we are essentially freezing the amount of water in the Little Colorado River that nonIndians have access to so the Navajo Nation can use it in the future ...Future non-Navajo uses of LCR water are restricted..."

Stanley knows that these are false representations intended to deceive. The settlement only provides Navajo with whatever water "reaches" the Nation and is not already "appropriated" by others ... and that the settlement allows upstream water users to divert or appropriate as much LCR and tributary surface water as they want for any and all purposes other than irrigation without legal recourse by Navajo or Hopi (Section 7.4).

https:llwebmail.navajo-nsn.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABCv2XiqRkp... 11/13/2012

Re: Comments on LEGISLATION NO: 0468-12 Page 3 of 4

" ...The settlement recognizes historic uses for irrigation ...The major problem is the difficulty of capturing and storing the surface waters of the lCR in order to use them ... There are no lCR surface water storage sites identified on the reservation ..."

Yet Stanley knows these statements are misleading and untrue and conceal what should have been disclosed.

The settlement gives away Navajo priority water rights (Section 4.5.3). There are excellent storage sites identified along the lCR in leupp (77,000 acre-foot reservoir site identified by MorrisonMaierle, 1982 - in the Water Resources department files in Fort Defiance). And the alluvium all along the River is a very large and full reservoir.

"We only have two choices -- either accept this settlement - or go back to expensive litigation... without the settlement, litigation will continue ...Iitigation can only result in limits on uses ... No agreement =no security for our water ... the agreement ensures Navajo people will keep what should rightfully be ours ..."

Stanley knows this is a false and misleading choice that conceals what should have been disclosed.

Instead of litigation, the Nav~jo Nation can re-open the negotiations with the Navajo and Hopi grassroots people represented at the table; provide for Full, Free and Informed discussion and understanding and consent of all desired pieces of the Settlement; eliminate the bad Sections; include provisions for Water Marketing and for N aquifer re-charge.

"The settlement does not include the mainstem Colorado river the provisions for NGS and Peabody are in the legislation, not the settlement agreement both of those provisions have nothing to do with the settlement agreement, those provisions are in the legislation..."

Stanley knows that these statements are lies that conceal what should have been disclosed. The settlement gives away over 40,000 acre-feet per year of Navajo water to NGS and Peabody for free. Section 13.14 of the settlement provides that "34,100 AFY of water <of Navajo Colorado River water> shall at all times be available for consumptive use by the Navajo Project lessees in the operation of the Navajo Generating Station..." And that Section 13.17.1 allows Peabody to " ... retain the existing permanent mining structures included on Exhibit 13.17.1 as permanent Impoundments <these amount to almost 6,000 acre-feet capacity> within the Peabody leaseholds on the Navajo and Hopi Reservations after mining is completed..."

Another example: Stanley repeatedly claims that the settlement does not and should not quantify Navajo water because to do so would set limits on how much water Navajo can use - and Stanley never mentions the fact that the settlement prohibits Navajo and Hopi marketing of our water. Yet Stanley knows this is mis-representation that conceals what should have been disclosed.



Clear statement of Navajo and Hopi property rights to all 340,000 acre-feet per year of the Little Colorado River at its confluence with the Colorado River would open the door to marketing of water, allowing Navajo and Hopi" ... to participate in something which is widespread now across the West 000 to recover the economic value of their water resources in cases where the tribe either is not yet in a position to put that water to use or wishes not to put it to use, benefits the tribe enormously in terms of economic development..." (Expert witness Judith Royster, Professor and Co-Director of Native American Law Center, University of Tulsa College of Law, Tulsa, at the Senate Hearings in March on SB.2109). Stanley Pollack has deceived and betrayed the trust of the Navajo Nation Council, President, and People long enough. For the sake of our children and grandchildren and the qua;ity of life that is their right, end Stanley Pollack's abuse of Dine trust. Thank you for listening. JacquesSeronde lsi Jacques Seronde 3108 N. Patterson Street Flagstaff, Arziona 86004 sero nde(u,gill a i I.co 111

9286071115


SB 2109 - I Vote against this bill. Page 1 of 1

58 2109 - I Vote against this bill. Yazzie, Angelene (CCI-Phoenix) [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 06,2012 1:29 PM To: comments Importance: High

My name is Angelene Yazzie (maiden name: Nez-Hill), registered voter for the Navajo Nation Tribe out of Kitsilli (Black Mesa Chapter). My address is: PO Box 835, Pinon, Arizona 86510.

I am sending this email to let you know that I am against passing of the SB 2109 that takes water rights from the Navajo and Hopi tribes. Water is very important to our people not only for crops and drinking but for many other things.

I don't agree with how this process is being handled. I think there should be more opportunity for the PEOPLE to be heard. Not enough town meetings held to LISTEN to what the PEOPLE have to say about the Bill. I don't think President Shelly has handled this very professionally and I think he is doing this for the wrong reasons. I don't agree with Senator Kyl and McCain. I think for them to offer OUR water to Arizona as a birthday gift was very nice. That was a blatant disregard for the tribes that are going to be affected.

I will vote over and over again against passing SB2109. Don't give our water to the corporations who only look to make money, who will squander the water so that the Bellagio can continue to run their water fountains on the Las Vegas strip, or so that people can keep their cars washed and their lawns green.

Why not put your energy into re-education the PEOPLE on the proper usage of the water we are trying to save? Or encourage the use of more efficient water conservation. Don't just turn your back on the Navajo or Hopi PEOPLE.

Again, I VOTE against passing the S 2109 Bill.

My contact information is: [email protected] Cell Phone: 602-214-5901


No to SB2109 Page 1 of 1

No to 582109 [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 5:55 PM To: comments

This bill takes away our precious life the people need wateR our crops need water our life stock need water water is life ! Do Not Pass This Bill my sOn is 3months old now and he needs water in the future don't give in to the white people's greeD. The white people already took our land kill our people with disease and cancer from their selfish greed for uranium mining and coal mining degraded the people with lies imprisoned our ancestors during the long walk and their main purpose was to kill off all the dine' they are still the same people in different times with the same purpose in mind to this day trying to take our precious life by taking our precious waterl Say no they are nothing but sly back stabbing greedy selfish heartless coyotes that are trying to try the DINE' out of their life! Open your eyes dO what's right for our children that will have to live with the decisions we make today so NO to SB2l09l Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry


Legislation No: 0468-12 Page 1 of 1

Legislation No: 0468-12 o Lee [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 07,20128:19 AM To: comments

Honorable members of the nnd Navajo Nation Council. As a Navajo attorney and voter, I wish to join the comments of many of the grassroots organizations and specifically the comments submitted by Mr. Jacques Seronde of Flagstaff, Arizona in his email dated November 5, 2012.

I particularly agree that the above legislation is simply an end-run around the firm policy position expressed by the governing body disapproving of the Settlement Agreement sponsored by Senators Kyl and McCain. In addition, there are many provisions that should be struck from the Settlement Agreement especially Sections 4.15.1 and 5.9 which prohibit water marketing by the Navajo Nation. This provision is simply unreasonable as our Nation should be able to benefit fully from the economic development of our resources. I also agree that Section 11 is very suspicious as it appears to convey that all liability of the attorneys involved is fine with us since we fully understand and agree with the entire Settlement Agreement. This is simply not true, the Human Rights Commission has expressed that the full participation, knowledge, and informed consent of the Navajo People must be sought however this is not the case here. The fact of the matter is, the Utah settlement agreement has been kept from the people and many other provisions are not fully understood. Further, there are other "giveaways" that are without a doubt, insulting. Clearly, the Council has expressed that the Navajo People should also obtain an independent opinion from other attorneys and water law experts but this has not yet occurred. Plenty of funds have been spent on an aggressive propaganda effort and many politicos within the Nation were marshaled to drive home a single-minded point, which is that the previous Settlement Agreement was satisfactory and the People should simply believe those who are pushing this point and no questions should be asked. This is ridiculous and obviously the propaganda effort failed for good reason. The deal smells bad.

It's time to stop wasting further funds on any more biased campaigns and simply provide the People with an independent second opinion. Anything less would be a disservice to the l'Javajo People.

Calvin Lee, Jr. Esq. P.O. Box 4008 Yahtahey, NM 87375 505-728-7799


0468-12 Page 1 of3

0468-12 Vincent Yazzie [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 201211:11 AM To: comments Attachments: 0468-12 Response.pdf (42 KB)

Dear Sir,

Attached are my comments for 0468-12.

Vincent Yazzie

pdf attachment

November 7, 2012

Vincent Yazzie 10080 Palomino Road Flagstaff, Arizona 86004 [email protected] (928) 380-3198 Executive Director Office of Legislative Services P.O. Box 3390 Window Rock, AZ 86515 [email protected] (928) 871-7590 Subject: 0468-12, An Action Relatinq to Naa'bik'iyati' Committee: Accepting the Invitation of the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior to Discuss Key Issues Impacting the Navajo Nation With Respect To Federal Legislation S.2109 and H.R. 4067 Regarding Proposed Water Rights Settlements of the Navajo Nation

Dear Sir,

Do not accept the invitation from the Secretary of the

Interior Kenneth Salazar TO DISCUSS KEY ISSUES IMPACTING THE

https://webmail.navajo-nsn.gov/owal?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABCv2XiqRkp... 11/13/2012

0468-12 Page 2 of3

NAVAJO NATION WITH RESPECT TO FEDERAL LEGISLATION S.2l09 AND

H.R. 4067 REGARDING PROPOSED WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS OF THE

NAVAJO NATION.

In summary, 0468-12 lS incomplete and lots areas that need

to be revised. Sec. 108 Enforceability Date has to be

revised totally (incomplete work). Sec. 206, Retention of

Lower Colorado River Water for Future Lower Colorado River

Settlement is to be deleted as there will soon be a Lower

Colorado River Settlement (incomplete). More incomplete

work. Would your high school teacher or college professor

pass your paper with incomplete work? Sec. 105, Waivers,

Releases, and Retention of Claims in the side column note on

Sec. 105 (1) (l)A) (1), "'Water Rights for Navajolands' does

not include mainstem Upper and Lower Colorado River" tells

me we have given up the Mainstem Colorado River, but yet in

the document titled "TRACKING NO. 0468-12, AN ACTION

RELATING TO NAABIK'iyATI COMMITTEE; ACCEPTING THE INVITATION

OF THE SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR TO DISCUSS KEY ISSUES IMPACTING THE NAVAJO NATION

WITH RESPECT TO FEDERAL LEGISLATION S.2l09 AND H.R. 4067

REGARDING PROPOSED WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS OF THE NAVAJO

NATION, page 3 the Hopi's are going to get a piece of the

Colorado River "Hopi's allocation of Colorado River water to

the Hopi Villages." What kind of lawyers work for Navajo

https:/Iwebmai1.navajo-nsn.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABCv2XiqRkp... 11/13/2012

0468-12 Page 3 of3

that prepare incomplete legislation, give up Mainstem

Colorado River and let the Hopi's have the Colorado River.

Hopi's have some good lawyers working for them if they have

the Colorado River. Navajo's have lawyers that want to glve

away the Colorado River. Pollock and his water team need to

be fired or reassigned to criminal law cases. Pollock has

done enough damage by not appealing the adverse decision in

the Little Colorado River case regarding the Navajo's Motion

to Strike Hopi Evidence. The invitation to Secretary Salazar

must not be accepted.

Sincerely, Is/Vincent H. Yazzie Vincent H. Yazzie

https://webmail.navajo-nsn.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABCv2XiqRkp... 11/1312012

Re: Legislation 0468-12 Page 1 of 1

Re: Legislation 0468-12 Ed Becenti [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 12:07 PM To: comments Attachments: Nov LCR Comments.docx (25 KB)

Attached are my comments on Legislation 0468-12. Thank you.

Ed Becenti St. Michaels, AZ 480-313-8070


November 5, 2012

Dear Members of the Navajo Nation Council and Naabik'iyati Committee:

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on proposed 11-2-2012 Naabik'iyati Committee

Resolution 0468-12 -- "Accepting The Invitation Of The Secretary Of The United States

Department Of The Interior To Discuss Key Issues Impacting The Navajo Nation With Respect To

Federal Legislation 5.2109 And H.R. 4067 Regarding Praposed Water Rights Settlements Of The

Navajo Nation II - which would approve specific proposed amendments to S.2109 /HR 4067 for

presentation to Secretary Salazar later this month.

This Resolution and the proposed amendments to S.2109 /HR 4067 (Exhibit "No.2") do not address the fundamental concerns ofthe grassroots Navajo people which were brought to the Navajo Nation Council and which caused the rejection of S.2019 by the Navajo Nation Council on July 7,2012.

Please note - if the 'amended' S.2109!HR4067 is passed, it will still authorize, ratify and confirm the Settlement Agreement -- which is a separate document that includes some very bad poisonous provisions -- and that leaves out some very important good and beneficial

potential provisions.

Title 1, Section 101, of S.2019/HR 4067 "authorizes, ratifies and confirms the settlement agreement" -- which is the NAVAJO-HOPI LITTLE COLORADO RIVER WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (the Settlement Agreement) which was developed and "completed" on March 8, 2012 by Stanley Pollack and DoJ without knowledge or understanding or input or approval of the grassroots people - in violation of the Dine Fundamental Law (see for example, 1 I'J.N.C. § 205 A and F), and of Dine Human Rights.

The proposed Naabik'iyati Committee and Water Rights Task Force S.2019/HR 4067 amendments do nothing to change the Settlement Agreement - they only change some but not all other bad provisions of S.2019/HR 4067.

Please remember the critically important reasons noted below for why the grassroots Navajo and Hopi people so strongly oppose the Settlement Agreement -- which Kyl and McCain and Pollack and his associates are trying to authorize, ratify and confirm through lame-duck pullthe-wool-over-our-eyes-again passage of S.2019/H R4067.

There must be no legislation authorizing and confirming and ratifying the Settlement Agreement until the Settlement Agreement itself is changed through re-opened transparent negotiations in which the grassroots participate fully.

This will not happen in this rushed 'lame-duck' time frame.

1

Son1e Major Concerns with the Navajo-Hopi Little Colorado River Water Rights

Settlement Agreement

Note: Passage of S.2109/HR 4067 will authorize and confirm the Settlement Agreement.

There are many other concerns with the Settlement Agreement. lhose noted below are representative of some of the most serious concerns - every detail of the Settlement Agreement and its Exhibits must be reviewed very closely and transparently with loyal trustworthy legal counsel -- and revised as needed.

* Settlement Agreement Sections 4.4 and 4.5 -- give the Navajo Nation the right only to

"divert and use any Surface Water from the Little Colorado River that reaches the Navajo

Reservation" - and only IF those waters "remain unappropriated" ...

The Settlement Agreement does NOT explicitly quantify Navajo and Hopi property rights to some 340,000 acre-feet annually of LCR surface flow, including-

(a) all 160,000 acre-feet average annual LCR flow at Cameron; and (b) Blue Springs' 180,000 acre-feet.

Therefore the Settlement Agreement takes away any possibility that Navajo and Hopi may gain economically from leasing our own water (see prohibition on water marketing, below).

This provision of the Settlement Agreement must be deleted -- and replaced with explicit

quantification of Navajo and Hopi property riqhts to all 340,000 acre feet averaqe annual

surface flow of the LCR.

* Settlement Agreement Section 4.5.3 -- forbids any Navajo priority in the use of LCR

surface waters.

This provision of the Settlement Agreement must be deleted and replaced with a full and clear

affirmation of Navajo and Hopi priority water riqhts over all other non-Indian users in the LCR

Basin and beyond.

2

* Settlement Agreement Sections 4.15.1 and 5.9 -- prohibit water marketing by the Navajo

Nation and Hopi Tribe. This provision of the Settlement Agreement must be deleted.

An expert witness at the Senate Hearings in March 2012 on SB.2109 -- Judith Royster, Professor

and Co-Director of Native American Law Center, University of Tulsa College of Law, Tulsa, OK-

stated:

II ...the marketing of water really allows the tribes to participate in something which is widespread now across the West ... to recover the economic value of their water resources in cases where the tribe either is not yet in a position to put that water to use or wishes not to put it to use, benefits the tribe enormously in terms of economic development and most of the settlements that allow this provide that the water will be sold to local municipalities ..." <emphasis added>

l\Iote that the Mescalero Apache just this year (see below) - and other Tribes before them have received Congressional authority to market their own waters. Why not Navajo and Hopi?

At minimum of $500!acre-foot!year value in Phoenix ("replenishment fees") for LEASED

water, that LCR sudace flow is potentially worth at least $170 MILLION per year to

Navajo and Hopi.

Respected and honorable members of the Navajo Nation Council- THIS IS IMPORTANT.

This is how the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe can finance all the "wet water" and community development projects so desperately needed.

The Navajo l\Iation and Hopi Tribe must assert Navajo and Hopi guantified property rights to

lease and market unused or surplus Little Colorado surface waters, and other surface waters,

to help finance all needed water systems, watershed restoration, irrigation projects, and

other community infrastructures.

Please note that many very detailed professional technical studies have already been

completed for many Navajo community-based irrigation, watershed and other beneficial

projects - including hundreds of thousands of acre feet of water rights quantified in the

Williams Brothers and Morrison-Maierle reports -- including tens of thousands of acres of

excellent irrigable soils and reservoir sites along the LCR in Leupp and other Chapters -- but that

information has been hidden from the Navajo Nation Council and from the Navajo People for

more than a decade, and has been excluded from any consideration in the proposed Settlement

Agreement.

3

* Settlement Agreement Section 7.4 -- forbids Navajo and Hopi to " ... object to, dispute, or

challenge ... the withdrawal and use of Underground Water from a Well even if it is

determined that the Well is capturing or will capture the subflow of any Surface Water

source... II

This provision opens the door for upstream users to pump the River dry. Two or fifty years

from now, upstream users could divert and appropriate surface waters of the LCR for municipal

or mining purposes until no surface or 'sub-flow' water reaches the Navajo Nation. This

provision of the Settlement Agreement must be deleted.

* Settlement Agreement Section 11 (and Section 105 of S2109/HR4067) - at numerous places

waives -- "Past, present, and future claims arising out of, or relating in any manner to, the

negotiation, execution, or adoption of this Agreement, an applicable settlement judgment or

decree, or the Act..."

This is to protect attorneys from civil and criminal liability for how they negotiated and finalized

the Settlement Agreement and the Act (S.2109/HR4067) without the participation, knowledge,

or informed consent of the Navajo People - in violation of our human rights.

This provision should be deleted unless and until everyone affected is fully satisfied that

everything in a re-negotiated Settlement Agreement and enacting legislation are fully

transparent, understood, and agreed to by the People.

* Settlement Agreement Sections 11.1.1.1.4 and 11.1.2.1.3 and others -- require the Navajo

People to waive " ...past, present, and future claims for ... Injury to Water Quality arising from

time immemorial and, thereafter, forever ... II •

The proposed Naabik'iyati Committee and Water Rights Task Force amendments to S.2019 and

HR 4067 do take this language out of S.2019 and HR 4067 . Thank you.

The Settlement Agreement must also be similarly amended. Please think about it -- WHAT IF

there is another Puerco River radioactive uranium tailings spill into the rightfully Hopi and

Navajo LCR surface waters? Or any other contamination of LCR Life-giving Water by upstream

users? Or contamination and damage of the CAqufier by over-pumping by the City of Flagstaff

- or by new Potash Mining on or near Hopi off-reservation ranch lands? Or spills of coal mine

contamination from Peabody's 'permanent impoundments" ?

4

* Settlement Agreement Section 13.14 -- gives away without any compensation some 34,100

acre-feet of water per year to the Navajo Generating Station;

This provision of the Settlement Agreement must be deleted.

* Settlement Agreement Section 13.17.1 and Exhibit 13.17.1-- give away without any

compensation 5,987 acre-feet of water per year to Peabody for their "permanent

impoundments" - more than half the annual surface flow of the Moencopi Wash;

This provision of the Settlement Agreement must be deleted.

* * * *

To conclude, respected and honorable members of the l\Iavajo Nation Council-

The proposed Settlement Agreement -- and S.2109/HR 4067 which ifpassed will authorize,

ratify and confirm the Settlement Agreement -- was planned, developed, negotiated with SRP,

NGS, and all the non-Indian water users, and "finalized" by DoJ attorney Stanley Pollack - in

secrecy and WITHOUT the knowledge or participation or approval and informed consent of

the Navajo People.

Many very harmful provisions are hidden in the Settlement. Many very good and needed

provisions are omitted and left out.

This is not the work of those who adhere to the values and principles of "Dine bi

beenahaz'6anii. N

There is very great concern at the grassroots about deliberate deception and fraud -- attorney

mis-conduct {"conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation"} and betrayal

of fiduciary trust -- by those who have finalized the Settlement Agreement without the

People's knowledge, understanding or informed consent - by those who are now trying to slip

the Settlement Agreement through again, in a 'lame-duck' approval of an amended cover

legislation (S. 2109/HR4067) that once again tries to pull the wool over our eyes.

5

The Dine deserve independent and loyal legal counsel. The Navajo Nation leadership must act

to ensure transparent, independent and loyal legal counsel.

The Dine have a right to full, free access to all information - past, present, and future - that

affects our well-being and the quality of life for our children and grandchildren - forever.

Thank you for your commitment to our future.

Ed Becenti

Liaison for Dine Water Rights Committee and Dine Hada' Asidi

480313-8070

PO Box 121

St. Michaels, Arizona 86511

[email protected]

6

The Mescalero Apache bill- which has been enacted into law.

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

S.134

To authorize the Mescalero Apache Tribe to lease adjudicated water rights.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 25 (legislative day, January 5), 2011

Mr. BINGAMAN (for himselfand Mr. UDALL of New Mexico) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the

Committee on Indian Affairs

A BILL

To authorize the Mescalero Apache Tribe to lease adjudicated water rights.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House ofRepresentatives ofthe United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the 'Mescalero Apache Tribe Leasing Authorization Act'.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

7

(I) ADJUDICATED WATER RIGHTS- The term 'adjudicated water rights' means water rights that were adjudicated to the

Tribe in State v. Lewis, 116 N.M. 194,861 P. 2d 235 (1993).

(2) SECRETARY- The term 'Secretary' means the Secretary of the Interior.

(3) STATE- The term 'State' means the State of New Mexico.

(4) TRIBE- The term 'Tribe' means the Mescalero Apache Tribe.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION TO LEASE ADJUDICATED WATER RIGHTS.

(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision oflaw, subject to subsections (b) and (c), the Tribe may lease, enter into a

contract with respect to, or otherwise transfer to another party, for another purpose, or to another place of use in the State, all or any

portion of the adjudicated water rights.

(b) State Law- In carrying out any action under subsection (a), the Tribe shall comply with all laws (including regulations) of the

State with respect to the leasing or transfer of water rights.

(c) Alienation; Maximum Term

(I) ALIENATION- The Tribe shall not permanently alienate any adjudicated water rights.

(2) MAXIMUM TERM- The term of any water use lease, contract, or other agreement under this section (including a renewal of

such an agreement) shall be not more than 99 years.

(d) Liability- The Secretary shall not be liable to the Tribe or any other person for any loss or other detriment resulting from a lease,

contract, or other arrangement entered into pursuant to this section.

(e) Purchases or Grants of Land From Indians- The authorization provided by this Act for the leasing, contracting, and transfer of the

adjudicated water rights shall be considered to satisfy any requirement for authorization of the action by treaty or convention imposed

by section 2116 of the Revised Statutes (25 U.S.C. 177).

(I) Prohibition on Forfeiture- The nonuse of all or any portion of the adjudicated water rights by a lessee or contractor shall not result

in the forfeiture, abandonment, relinquishment, or other loss of all or any portion of the adjudicated water rights.

8

Untitled Message Page 1 of 1

Duane H. Yazzie [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 07,201211:41 AM To: comments

The Navajo Nation Council is doing great injustice to the Dine' People in continuing to push the S.21 09 simply because it did not have Dine' People input from the start of the formulation of the so-called agreement and it remains flawed as the Navajo leadership have not followed through on its promise to include Dine' People input. The Council is egregiously denying and violating the human rights of the People. I encourage our Navajo Leadership to be true stewards of our precious resources by diligently hearing the People and starting from square one with this most important issue and not putting bandaids on shortsighted, one-sided, damaged goods (so-called agreement and legislation) and capitulating to the whims ofKyl, Mcain, Salazar, etc.

Thank you, Chili Yazzie Shiprock, Navajo Nation


no water rights settlement Page 1 of 1

no water rights settlement tara rankin [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 1:02 PM To: comments

I am an American citizen concerned about the water rights of the Navajo and Hopi people. I have been following sb21 09 and was glad that it was defeated. Now it seems the same bill under a different name is being presented and I'm still concerned that the Navajo and Hopi people are not being heard and that their issues are not being addressed. The Navajo and Hopi people should have first rights to this water source since it is their land from which it comes. I'm writing to demand transparency on this subject and for now I believe there should be no water rights settlement. If there is a water rights settelement it should directly benefit the Navajo and Hopi people and not politicians and the corporations who finance their campaigns. NO WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT!

Sincerely,

Tara Rankin Comer, concerned American 3502 West Emerson St. Seattle, WA 98199 [email protected]


RE: LEGISLATION NO. 0468-12 Page 1 of2

RE: LEGISLATION NO. 0468-12 Sue Sutter [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 12:54 PM To: comments Attachments: Dear Ben Shelley, Council~1.docx (22 KB)

PLEASE FIND ATTACHED MY LETTER IN OPPOSITION TO LEGISLATION NO. 0468-12. THE SAME LETTER IS ALSO BELOW:

November 6, 2012

President Ben Shelly

Hon. Johnny Naize, Speaker

The Navajo Nation Council

POB 3390

Window Rock, AZ 86515

RE: Legislation No. 0468-12

Dear President Ben Shelly, Speaker Naize, and Council Delegates:

As a voting member of the Cameron Chapter, I urge you to do everything within your power to KILL LEGISLATION NO. 0468-12, as this legislation has not been changed or amended to the liking of the majority of our Dine' people. The aforementioned legislation is detrimental to our way oflife. Please recognize that the earth's fresh water supply is finite - the world is running out of fresh water. We have a global water crisis and you are on a fast track to passing horrendous legislation; these hasty decisions will haunt you and your children for many generations to come, as well as every soul in the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe. We are in a life and death situation; please put an end to Legislation 0468-12. The vast majority of our people are strongly opposed to Legislation No. 0468-12.

Legislation No. 0468-12 was not changed or amended as the Water Task Force Committee had directed. The legislation does not include the Navajo Nation Councils list of positions in opposition to S.2109. Legislation No. 0468-12 only removes a few of the Water Task Force Committee's identified problems with the LCR Water Settlement, AND none of the things suggested was added to the LCR Water Settlement. Furthermore, the LCR is still not quantified. The bill is still written with little regard for the Navajo Nation's water-related needs. Legislation No. 0468-12 is essentially the same ill-conceived bill that was presented before the council and voted against earlier this year; it still limits our tribal water rights in almost every conceivable manner. In my opinion, Stanley Pollack, the primary author, of this bill is not a friend to the Navajo Nation; he needs to be swiftly removed.

The five-day comment period is grossly inadequate - a major disservice to the Navajo people, especially since most of the people are not technologically connected. Our elderly people are not even aware of what is transpiring. I strongly suggest a thirty (30) day comment period for extremely important legislation such as this.

https://webmail.navajo-nsn.gov/owa/?ae=ltem&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABCv2XiqRkp... 11/13/2012

RE: LEGISLATION NO. 0468-12 Page 2 of2

Legislation 0468-12 is a BAD DEAL! Legislation 0468-12 would force the Navajo Nation to accept 4th priority Colorado River water - absolutely absurd! Water is life; please protect and preserve it for our future generations. Please tell Ken Salazar and outside interests: "NO DEAL!" I strongly urge you to KILL LEGISLATION NO. 0468-12!

Sincerely,

Sue Sutter (Cameron Chapter)

24515 NE 210th Avenue, Vancouver, WA 98604; e-mail: [email protected]


Legislation 0468-12 Page 1 of2

Legislation 0468-12 Kimberly Smith [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 07,2012 1:22 PM To: comments

Kimberly Smith P.O. BOX 345 St Michael, AZ 86511 III iss i 11 di l! (' nn 1I S({( l! Ill;1i I. cn III

Executive Director Office of Legislative Services P.O. Box 3390 Window Rock, AZ 86515 l' () III III C 11 h r(( 11 d \";1 i()- nSll. c'.() \

(928) 871-7590 Subject: 0468-12, An Action Relating to Naa'bik'iyati' Committee: Accepting the Invitation of the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior to Discuss Key Issues Impacting the Navajo Nation With Respect To Federal Legislation S.2109 and H.R. 4067 Regarding Proposed Water Rights Settlements of the Navajo Nation Dear Sir, Do not accept the invitation from the Secretary of the Interior Kenneth Salazar TO DISCUSS KEY ISSUES IMPACTING THE NAVAJO NATION WITH RESPECT TO FEDERAL LEGISLATION S.2109 AND H.R. 4067 REGARDING PROPOSED WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS OF THE NAVAJO NATION. Comments may be made in the form of chapter resolutions, letters, position papers, etc. Please include your name, position title, address for written comments; a valid e-mail address is required. Anonymous comments will not be iThe Navajo Nation Council is doing great injustice to the Dine' People in continuing to push the S.21 09 simply because it did not have Dine' People input from the start of the formulation of the so-called agreement and it remains flawed as the Navajo leadership have not followed through on its promise to include Dine' People input. Ken Salazar has become the new Kyl. Although our council has created a water rights task force their suggestions are not being considered. This settlement gives Navajo Nation Council lots of negotiating abilities. It would place Dine in a position to give up the first Priority of the Colorado River Water. The Little Colorado River still not quantified. It also does not include the mainstream upper and lower Colorado River. Another bad deal! Dine' would be forced to accept 4th Priority Colorado River water. Stanley Pollack wrote this 83 page document away from the Water Rights Task Force/Advisory Group recommendations. He once again he proves that he is not working in favor of Dine' people. The Council is egregiously denying and violating the human rights of the People. I encourage our Navajo Leadership to be true stewards of our precious resources by diligently hearing the People and starting from square one with this most important issue and not putting bandaids on shortsighted, one-sided, damaged goods (so-called agreement and legislation) and capitulating to the whims of Kyl, Mcain, Salazar, etc. Climate change is ever-present and MUST be considered when talking about water and the future of the Navajo people. Given our renewable resources and our land base, our tribal communities will either have a seat at the table or to be on the menu in the future green economy. Decisions will either be made for us or we will make our own decisions about how to proceed in developing green economic opportunities and our future.


Legislation 0468-12 Page 20f2

Thank you, Kimberly Smith St Michael, AZ

!\I\\"';1\1I'1'1J [email protected] -,:>i-:;-.'·S [7]



Legislation 0468-12 Angela Apache-Davis [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 20122:44 PM To: comments

November 7,2012

Yah'at'eeh. My name is Angela Marie Davis. I am an enrolled member of the Navajo Nation and participate in my chapter's elections. I am writing in regard to Legislation 0468-12 because I do not approve of it. It is the same as S2109, with a few amendments, forcing the Navajo Nation to give up our treaty-guaranteed first priority water rights to both the Upper and Lower Colorado River. In fact, it would give us only forth priority rights to our water. That is unacceptable. First of all, I do not appreciate our tribal water rights lawyer, Stanley Pollock (a non-Navajo) writing and submitting this piece oflegislation without the approval of the Navajo Nation's Water Right's Task Force. Secondly, I am alarmed that our Water Rights Task Force is not up in arms about not being consulted beforehand about the legislation. If they are not outraged by this, they are not doing their jobs and need to be replaced.

The people have already spoken against S21 09 and HR 4067. What makes one think we would approve of this piece of nearly identical legislation, when we already said no the first time? Perhaps Stanley Pollock thought we would not notice this is the basically same bill with the same raw end of the deal for our people. Furthermore, I think it is awfully convenient that the tiny deadline to comment on the legislation happened to fall on the day after the U.S. Presidential election. Perhaps he was hoping we would be too distracted by it to notice him trying to pass this legislation without our knowledge or consent. If that is the case, his plan did not work. We are aware of what he is doing and will not stand for any of it.

The legislation offers promises funding for expanding a water pipeline to certain areas of the Navajo Nation, if and only if, this settlement is approved. Our people do need running water, but not by hasty coercion, empty promises and giving up our aboriginal rights. I also would like to point out that the settlement would still prevent us from suing the State of Arizona, or other outside interest groups from damages done to the water. If this settlement is so good for our people, why do they demand this immunity? The State of Arizona has no jurisdiction on our federal land held in trust, and should not have any power over our water. Furthermore, I read the 85-page legislative document and noticed that family allotments were included within the proposed water settlement. This includes my family's allotments in New Mexico and we were never notified by anyone about these decisions being made on our behalf. I am furious that none of us were consulted and this just proves how deceptive and malevolent this piece of legislation is!

In conclusion, I hope you listen to the voices of our people and respect our wishes. The vast majority of us do not approve of this legislation. Water is sacred and our lives depend on it. Do not betray us by accepting the new, proposed version of S21 09. Thank you for your time and allowing me to express my opinion. As always, I look forward to hearing from you. Ahe'he'.

Sincerely,

Angela Marie Davis Artist Writer

E-mail: [email protected]


LEGISLAnON 0468-12 (S21 09/H.RA067) Page 1 of 1

LEGISLATION 0468-12 (S2109/H.R.4067) Nae [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 2:55 PM To: comments

Honorable Council Delegates and Speaker Naize: I am requesting that you vote no on the LEGISLATION 0468-12 (S2109 jH.R.4067) . This legislation is but a psuedo look alike of the previous water settlement written again only by Stanley Pollack and not with the assistance of the appointed Water Task Force. Also do not accept the invitation from Secretary Ken Salazar in Washington, D.C. This settlement or any development not set up with the assistance and input of the Dine' People does not provide for the betterment of the Dine' People and on into our future generations. For the sake of the Dine' People, please vote no and do not go to DC. In the event that future settlement negotiations are pursued, I request an environmental impact statement be investigated before any action of the Council. There are funds within the US Federal Goverment for such investigations. Thank you, Renae Yellowhorse C#30 1,565 Western Dine' Nation Tuba City Chapter Voter and Resident 928-514-4684 renaeyhorse(o vahoo.cOIl1

J.'hen oskr,~d by on anthr'opologist whai the (Native American) called America before

i h<:. white nwn canv::. a (Native American) simply said. IIOurs . II - - Vine Deloria

https://webmail.navajo-nsn.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABCv2XiqRkp... 11/1312012

Comments from the Lewis Family Page 1 of2

Comments from the Lewis Family Timm Lewis [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 2:57 PM To: comments Cc: Shyla Joe [[email protected]]; Michelle Begay [[email protected]]; Jamie McGee [[email protected]]; Colleen

Hunter [[email protected]]; Christina Lee [[email protected]]; Hunter Paula [[email protected]]; Justin Butterfield [[email protected]]; Brandon Joe [[email protected]]; Jan Joe [[email protected]]; Peggy Scott [[email protected]]; Vernita Largo [[email protected]]; Terri Joe-Crocker [[email protected]]; Shyla Joe [[email protected]];GenevaLewis[[email protected]];HunterPaula[[email protected]]; Rosita Charles [[email protected]]; Geneva Lewis [[email protected]]; Crystal Lee [[email protected]]; [email protected]; [email protected]; David L.Tom; [email protected]; [email protected]; George Apachito; [email protected]; Elmer P. Begay; Johnny Naize; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Leonard Pete; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Mel R. Begay; [email protected]; Russell Begaye; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Executive Director Office of the Legislative Services P.O. Box3390 Window Rock,AZ 86515

Dear Executive Director,

Let this email bean official Voice of the Lewis Family from Teesto, Arizona. We, the Lewis Family, strongly oppose the current water settlement LEGISLATION NO: _0468-12 , where the attempt to pass a previously failed bill this summer to settle the dead S.B. 2109 and HR. 4067. This deal was not written in the best interest of the Navajo People, and does not benefit the Navajo Nation. We, the Lewis Family strongly oppose this settlement with a bill being proposed, and oppose a meeting with Dept. of Interior, Ken Salazar to make these deals.

The Navajo People have spoken and their voices were heard back in July when our Tribal Council voted down S.21 09 and HR 4067. So why is it that the Navajo Nation trying to make a deal again before a Lame Duck congress? This is Jon Kyle's attempt to prevail as he exits out of congressional office. This bill was written in the best interest of Southern Arizona, so they can keep getting our water for Free, and use of our Navajo coal pratically for free. It renews an expired lease with Black Mesa coal mine, and extends the Navajo Generating Station. While the greater population of Arizona benefits off of our water, our People are getting respiratory and lung diseases from the nitrate oxide emmission from NGS. How many of our People have to die before we realize that we are being take advantage of. If we sign away our water rights, we give up any power of the Navajo People. Water is our precious resource and our only resource left to negotiate. Please do not approve this legislation. It is not good for us and does not benefit us. Please do the right thing and vote this down. Thank you.

Sincerely, The Lewis Family, and we are the following:

Timothy Lewis PO BOX 318 Saint Michaels, AZ 86511-0318 Mary Ann Lewis Genieve Joe Armondo Joe Pauleen Hunter Geneva Lewis Michelle Begay


Comments from the Lewis Family

Colleen Hunter Crystal Lee Christina Lewis Erin Johns Shyla Joe Brandon Joe Teri Joe Crockett Kyra Lyons Kaylynn Lyons Justin Butterfield Justine Butterfield Taylor Butterfield Misha Has a pipe Justine Ericka James Justin Erick James Jaydin Jaylin James

Page 2 of2


Legislation Comment Page 1 of 1

Legislation Comment Sarana Riggs [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 3:44 PM To: comments; [email protected]

Date: November 7,2012 Executive Director Office of Legislative Services P.O. Box 3390 Window Rock, AZ 86515

Ya'ah'teeh Executive Director, Speaker Naize, and the 22nd Navajo Nation Council,

I'm writing to voice my decision in relating to Naabik'iyati Committee; Accepting the invitation of the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior to discuss key issues impacting the Navajo nation with respect to federal Legislation S.2l 09 and H.R. 4067 regarding proposed water rights settlements of the Navajo Nation.

As a member of the Navajo Nation who is concerned about the well being of our future generations, I recognize the need for water and water development and delivery projects. However, with this legislation 0468-12 we would still be giving away so much for so little and jeopardizing the livelihoods of future generations of Dine' People.

I urge you to vote No/ DOODAH! This legislation has not included the well being and spoken voice of the People. As a Dine' individual who lives on the reservation, hauls water for home, livestock, and farming. I feel that this still does not serve in the best interest for all the People. Again, come to the table without outside influences, but with the grassroots organizations along with the Navajo Nation Water Task Force Team. Education needs to be made out to the public, regarding this legislation and need to be made within our four sacred mountains. We always have to remember our Navajo Nation Seal and why those arrowheads are placed there--to Protect the People from outside influences. Our Laws (Beenahaz'aaanii) include the traditional and natural laws for a reason, as Dine' we must uphold those and work from that point. Please, listen to those you were elected to serve and how this will effect future generations.

Ahe'hee,

Sarana Riggs Youth Advocate/Coordinator Nxt IndigenousGeneration P.O. Box 3057 Tuba City Arizona, 86045


Legislation Comment 0468-12 Page 1 of 1

Legislation Comment 0468-12 Nashtezhi Tabaaha [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 07,20123:53 PM To: comments

Date: November 7,2012 Executive Director Office of Legislative Services P.O. Box 3390 Window Rock, AZ 86515 Ya'ah'teeh Executive Director, Speaker Naize, and the 22nd Navajo Nation Council, I'm writing to voice my decision in relating to Naabik'iyati Committee; Accepting the invitation of the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior to discuss key issues impacting the Navajo nation with respect to federal Legislation S.2109 and H.R. 4067 regarding proposed water rights settlements of the Navajo Nation. As a member of the Navajo Nation who is concerned about the well being of our future generations, I recognize the need for water and water development and delivery projects. However, with this legislation 0468-12 we would still be giving away so much for so little and jeopardizing the livelihoods of future generations of Dine' People. I urge you to vote No/ DOODAH! This legislation has not included the well being and spoken voice of the People. As a Dine' individual who lives on the reservation, hauls water for home, livestock, and farming. I feel that this still does not serve in the best interest for all the People. Again, come to the table without outside influences, but with the grassroots organizations along with the Navajo Nation Water Task Force Team. Education needs to be made out to the public, regarding this legislation and need to be made within our four sacred mountains. We always have to remember our Navajo Nation Seal and why those arrowheads are placed there--to Protect the People from outside influences. Our Laws (Beenahaz'aaanii) include the traditional and natural laws for a reason, as Dine' we must uphold those and work from that point. Please, listen to those you were elected to serve and how this will effect future generations.

Ahe'hee, Darlene Martin Community Advocate P.O. Box 2132 Tuba City Arizona, 86045


Comment Against Legislation No. 0468-12 Page 1 of 1

Comment Against Legislation No. 0468-12 Jihan Gearon [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 07,20124:10 PM To: comments Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; David L.Tom; [email protected];

[email protected]; George Apachito; [email protected]; Elmer P. Begay; Johnny Naize; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Leonard Pete; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Mel R. Begay; [email protected]; [email protected]; Russell Begaye; Walter Phelps [[email protected]]

November 7,2012

Executive Director Office of Legislative Services P.O. Box 3390 Window Rock, AZ 86515

Ya'at'eeh Executive Director, Speaker Naize, and the nod Navajo Nation Council,

I'm a writing to voice my opposition to Legislation No. 0468-12: An Action Relating to Naa'bik'iyati' Committee: Accepting the Invitation of the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior to Discuss Key Issues Impacting the Navajo Nation With Respect To Federal Legislation S.2109 and H.R. 4067 Regarding Proposed Water Rights Settlements of the Navajo Nation

I was very happy when the Council voted down S.21 09 and H.R. 4067 in July 2012. I was also encouraged by their mandate to develop the Water Rights Task Force, which included grassroots participation and prioritized a bottom up strategy for developing a settlement agreement. This is the right strategy! Please continue with the process we've begun and prioritize Dine input into a water settlement agreement. Do not give in to pressure from Secretary Salazar or Stanley Pollack to simply put band aids on S.20 19. This cannot and will not result in a good settlement. Please listen to and include your own people in the development of such an important agreement.

Regarding Legislation No. 0468-12 "An Action Relating to Naa'bik'iyati' Committee: Accepting the Invitation of the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior to Discuss Key Issues Impacting the Navajo Nation With Respect To Federal Legislation S.2109 and H.R. 4067 Regarding Proposed Water Rights Settlements of the Navajo Nation", I urge you to vote no and wait until a community developed agreement can be brought to him.

Ahe'hee',

Jihan Gearon Sawmill Chapter

Jihan R. Gearon Executive Director Black Mesa Water Coalition P.O. Box 613 Flagstaff, AZ 86002 Email: [email protected] Office: 928-213-5909 Fax: 928-213-5905 <http://www.blackmesawatercoalition.org> <http://www.navajogreenjobs.com> <http://www.smartmeme.org>


Leg 0468-12 Page 10f3

Leg 0468-12 Janene Yazzie [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 07,20124:10 PM To: comments

Comments regarding Legislation 0468-12

To the Honorable 22nd Navajo Nation Council:

Pollack and his team have to be removed from all further negotiations regarding our precious water.

In a cunning move sparked by Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar's invitation to Navajo Nation speaker Naize to attend a meeting in Washington D.C. to address concerns regarding S 2109 and Hr 4067 "The Navajo-Hopi Little Colorado River Water Rights Settlement" the council is tasked to review, vote on, and approve leg 0468-12 accepting the invitation extended to the Nation.

I call it a cunning move because it is a tactic of cooptation of a decision-making process through creating the illusion of control in litigation. This is not a "government to government" meeting that lends respect towards the strong position of the Dine, and you our elected leaders who carried out our position, by defeating in its entirety S 2109 and HR 4067. Rather, the invitation is a guise to delegitimize the strong position taken by our people by resurrecting the defeated bill for discussion in an area far removed from our Dine people to the office of Secretary Salazar. Cooptation of decision-making processes are conducted through such invitations in which the idea is promoted that it will be a meeting between equals, but in which the time, place, and form of discussion is controlled by the powers wishing to manipulate the outcomes. This has all been clearly demonstrated since Secretary Salazar's invitation was made public (attached to leg 0468-12 as "exhibit No.1"). My honorable leaders, this is NOT an appropriate response by the Secretary of the Interior or Stanley Pollack to achieve the equity and social or environmental justice sought by the thousands of Dine who have kept abreast of all attempts to promote and enact S 2109 since it was introduced by Jon Kyl in February.

Let me humbly remind you that the members of the grassroots movement recognized, and rightly, that the bill disenfranchised our people, compromised the survivability of us as a nation and of our environment, and as such violated our human rights and the rights established by the United Nation Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples. It disgusts me that Salazar, Naize, and Pollack would think it professional, or just, to run to the offices in D.C. at the sound of a whistle to speak about an important issue without, once again, giving the Dine people the courtesy of become informed, educated, and collectively involved in planning a proper strategy to respond to this cooptation of power, decisionmaking, and negotiating.

When you, our honorable delegates voted to defeat S 2109 and HR 4067, it was a historic act of sovereignty; of a tribal government taking a strong, intelligent, and powerful movement against abuse of political positions, private interests, and big money. BIG MONEY and non-native interests. However when we defeated the bill we did so under the recognition that many of the provisions had no place in a water rights settlement except to cripple our ability as a Nation to take charge of our own political, economic, geographical and environmental destinies. It eliminated our ability to protect the sacred elements gifted to us by our mother earth and would have crippled indefinitely the creation of an economy and government capable of providing for and preserving the rights of our people, our elders and our future generations. Once again I humbly remind you that throughout the grassroots campaigns proponents tried to delegitimize our claims that pointed out the insidious nature of the document


Leg 0468-12 Page 2 of3

authored by Stanley Pollack by saying we were "non-lawyers" without a sophisticated understanding of what the provisions really meant and that we were purposefully spreading lies and misinforming the public as some sort of personal vendetta. I still have all the articles, ads, and transcripts from the radio segments which we bought and paid for through hundreds of thousands of dollars spent by our own presidential administration, his appointees, the Water Rights Task Force and Pollack acting through the Department of Justice.

As you look through the amendments of S 2109 attached to Leg 0468-12, I urge you to not be swayed by the fact that many of the problematic provisions are deleted or changed to reflect what we would have considered a more just agreement. Instead stay aware that what was tirelessly promoted as a document authored by our water rights lawyer, and promoted by our administration as being in the best interest of our people, admittedly had numerous provisions and definitions that would have done just as the grassroots movement warned; disenfranchised our people, our nation, and our mother earth.

I urge you to recognize that the amendments placed before you should have been part of the original

water rights settlement act and documents introduced by Senator Jon Kyl on February 14th, 2012. If, as they continue to claim, the parties involved really had the best interest of the Dine and Hopi people at heart they would have been morally restricted from believing they could create and pass such a toxic document without the Dine people resisting and they would recognize, in its failure, that the ultimate injustice was the lack of involvement of the Dine people in deciding the fate of our precious resource and that of our Nation. The problem with S 2109 was not merely that it sought to appropriate and control a precious resource of our people while minimizing our rightful claims to it; or that the NGS and Peabody provisions would continue to rob our people and our earth of our health; nor was it merely that the promises of money for wet-water projects were not guaranteed and that the waivers called for were completely unjust. The major problem with S 2109 was the way it was authored, promoted, and the way proponents attempted to sell our people a document that violated our human rights, our ability to take control over our own resources, and our ability to take control over our destiny as a nation. We recognized S 2109 as a continuation of the colonization practices championed by non-native interests who desire to lay claim over our resources, our people, and our futures by controlling the decisionmaking process that affects every single Dine living on Dinetah. I urge you to remember, honorable council delegates, that our people have awoken and we will no longer accept invitations to sit idly by while others continue to attempt to exert their own control over our people and our lands.

When S 2109 and HR 4067 was defeated, they were rejected in their entirety because of what they represented about a corruption of decision-making processes initiated by our Nation's own Water Rights Lawyer Stanley Pollack. We did not stipulate that we wanted the same toxic document to be resurrected. Rather we called for continued negotiations under the directive that Stanly Pollack be removed from his office along with the original team of attorneys and advisors that allowed him to draft and present to the Senate, such a toxic document for our people. Do not forget that Jon Kyl committed fraud when he presented a false image of our people as helpless, incapable, poor, and unsophisticated individuals when he used a picture captured by Stanley Pollack to push through S 2109. Do not forget that we the people, supported you every step of the way to defeat the powers in place who had a lot to gain from Jon Kyl's looth birthday present crafted for the private corporations and municipalities of Arizona at the expense of the Navajo people.

The Amendments attached with this legislation are in fact what should have been part of the original agreement and they do speak to many of the concerns of the Dine people, but they CANNOT be drafted or championed by Pollack as he did everything in his power to get the opposite accomplished through the original agreement. Now that our Nation, you, our leaders, have achieved such an important victory, do not let your power be delegitimized, co-opted, and controlled by Secretary Salazar, Pollack, Naize, or


Leg 0468-12 Page 3 of3

our Presidential administration who are still controlled by the same interests that are eager to strip the nation of its resources. I am disgusted that after being the author of S 2109 he is still allowed to control, participate, and author subsequent legislation concerning our precious resource and our future as a nation that should be in control of what we have rightful title to. I am further disgusted that Secretary Salazar ignores the defeat of S 2109 and the victory it represent. His invitation to have our strong leaders come running at his beck and call is not only a continuation of the paternalistic manner in which Washington has historically dealt with tribes, it's a political strategy of cooptation, and it's a practice that is no longer going to be accepted.

I urge you Council Delegates to vote no on leg 0468-12 and to deny the invitation issued by Secretary Salazar. I urge you to continue to fight the divide and conquer tactics being employed by the powers involved and invite our Hopi Brothers and Sisters to also reject the invitation and call for a meeting within the sacred mountains of our homelands on the boarders we share with our Hopi relatives. I urge you, council delegates, to believe in the power of yourselves, and the strength of your people, to reverse the practice of paternalistic politics, to eliminate our dependent-partnership with Stanly Pollack, Hoover, and others, and to maintain the powerful position that we are a sovereign nation seeking to protect our own resources and as such we will fight for the prosperity of our people and our future generations.

Thank you,

Janene Yazzie

"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Whenever men and women are persecuted because oftheir race, religion, or political views that place must--at that moment-become the center ofthe Universe." - Elie Wiesel


Navajo Water Rights Settlement 0468-12 Page 1 of 1

Navajo Water Rights Settlement 0468-12 Tim Roan [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 20124:39 PM To: comments

My name is Timothy Elvan Roan, I currently reside in Thornton, CO. My family homesite and land is located in Curly Valley in Tuba City, AZ. I am personally advising that the leaders of our great Navajo Nation do not proceed with a water settlement on account of our necessities have not been met in getting water to every home. Also, our rights to the Colorado River shall not be interfered with by any entities other than the Navajo Nation and it's people. I implore the leaders of our great Navajo Nation to consider the dire consequences.

Thank you.






TITLE: An Action Relating to Naa'bik'iyati Committee: Accepting the Invitation of the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior to Discuss Key Issues Impacting the Navajo Nation with respect to Federal Legislation S. 2109 and H.R. 4067 regarding Proposed Water Right Settlements ofthe Navajo Nation

Posted: November 2, 2012 at 4:35pm



1. Digital comments received on November 8, 2012 from Kim Smith regarding 0468-12. Comments do not support 0468-12. Reasons are contained within.

2. Digital comments received on November 9, 2012 from Vincent Yazzie regarding 0468-12. Comments do not support 0468-12. Reasons are contained within.

3. Digital comments received on November 9,2012 from Kim Smith regarding 0468-12. Comments do not support 0468-12. Reasons are contained within.

( 7 II I'~

Signature

1/. I ~ . zor '"Z-

Date

Re: Legislation 0468-12 Page 10f2

Re: Legislation 0468-12 Kim Smith [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 2:43 PM To: comments

Please disregard my email send yesterday regarding my comments on legislation 0468-12. I inadvertently sent my notes. I am confident that if you read my notes you will understand my position and concerns about the legislation and invitation from Secretary Salazar. Thank you for your leadership!

Blessings to you and yours, Kimberly Smith Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 7, 2012, at 1:22 PM, Kimberly Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

Kimberly Smith P.O. BOX 345 St Michael, AZ 86511 ~lJL~lll i~l'D () II :-;, ~L ~ Ill; I i~Jll

Executive Director Office of Legislative Services P.O. Box 3390 Window Rock, AZ 86515 l UlllillCIII ,/0 Il;1\; II () -I h 11. ~ () \

(928) 871-7590 Subject: 0468-12, An Action Relating to Naa'bik'iyati' Committee: Accepting the Invitation of the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior to Discuss Key Issues Impacting the Navajo Nation With Respect To Federal Legislation S.21 09 and H.R. 4067 Regarding Proposed Water Rights Settlements of the Navajo Nation Dear Sir, Do not accept the invitation from the Secretary of the Interior Kenneth Salazar TO DISCUSS KEY ISSUES IMPACTING THE NAVAlO NATION WITH RESPECT TO FEDERAL LEGISLATION S.2109 AND H.R. 4067 REGARDING PROPOSED WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS OF THE NAVAlO NATION. Comments may be made in the form of chapter resolutions, letters, position papers, etc. Please include your name, position title, address for written comments; a valid e-mail address is required. Anonymous comments will not be iThe Navajo Nation Council is doing great injustice to the Dine' People in continuing to push the S.2109 simply because it did not have Dine' People input from the start of the formulation of the so-called agreement and it remains flawed as the Navajo leadership have not followed through on its promise to include Dine' People input. Ken Salazar has become the new Kyl. Although our council has created a water rights task force their suggestions are not being considered. This settlement gives Navajo Nation Council lots of negotiating abilities. It would place Dine in a position to give up the first Priority of the Colorado River Water. The Little Colorado River still not quantified. It also does not include the mainstream upper and lower Colorado River. Another bad deal!


Re: Legislation 0468-12 Page 2 of2

Dine' would be forced to accept 4th Priority Colorado River water. Stanley Pollack wrote this 83 page document away from the Water Rights Task Force/Advisory Group recommendations. He once again he proves that he is not working in favor of Dine' people. The Council is egregiously denying and violating the human rights of the People. I encourage our Navajo Leadership to be true stewards of our precious resources by diligently hearing the People and starting from square one with this most important issue and not putting bandaids on shortsighted, one-sided, damaged goods (so-called agreement and legislation) and capitulating to the whims of Kyl, Mcain, Salazar, etc. Climate change is ever-present and MUST be considered when talking about water and the future of the Navajo people. Given our renewable resources and our land base, our tribal communities will either have a seat at the table or to be on the menu in the future green economy. Decisions will either be made for us or we will make our own decisions about how to proceed in developing green economic opportunities and our future.

Thank you, Kimberly Smith St Michael, AZ

1,.1 \, i <\ \1 T! I

[email protected] .- _.. ., I -¥ I

') '--,"'\; I

https:!/webmail.navajo-nsn.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABCv2XiqRkp... 11/13/2012

0468-12 Amended Comments Page 1 of 16

0468-12 Amended Comments Vincent Yazzie [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, November 09,20121:55 AM To: comments Attachments: 0468-12 Response amended.pdf (121 KB)

Dear Sir,

Attached are my amended comments for 0468-12. Please include with legislative packet.

Vincent Yazzie

pdf attachment

November 9, 2012

Vincent Yazzie 10080 Palomino Road Flagstaff, Arizona 86004 [email protected] (928) 380-3198

Executive Director Office of Legislative Services P.O. Box 3390 Window Rock, AZ 86515 [email protected] (928) 871-7590

Subject: 0468-12, An Action Relating to Naa'bik'iyati' Committee: Accepting the Invitation of the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior to Discuss Key Issues Impacting the Navalo Nation With Respect To Federal Legislation S.2109 and H.R. 4067 Regarding Proposed Water Rights Settlements of the Navajo Nation

Dear Sir,

I am adding to my previous comment. Please add to the legislative

packet. As always, do not accept the invitation from the Secretary of

the Interior Kenneth Salazar TO DISCUSS KEY ISSUES IMPACTING THE

NAVAJO NATION WITH RESPECT TO FEDERAL LEGISLATION S.2109 AND H.R.

4067 REGARDING PROPOSED WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS OF THE NAVAJO



NATION.

The Navajo Nation is amending S2109/HR4067 to give up the Mainstem

Colorado River both Upper and Lower then asking the State of Arizona

for more water from their share or cowtowing to the State of Arizona.

Sec. 105, Waivers, Releases, and Retention of Claims in the side

column note on Sec. 105 (1) (1) A) (1), '" Water Rights for Navaj olands'

does not include mainstem Upper and Lower Colorado River" tells me we

have given up the Mainstem Colorado River, but yet in the document

titled "TRACKING NO. 0468-12, AN ACTION RELATING TO NAABIK'iyATI

COMMITTEE; ACCEPTING THE INVITATION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO DISCUSS KEY ISSUES IMPACTING THE

NAVAJO NATION WITH RESPECT TO FEDERAL LEGISLATION S.2109 AND H.R.

4067 REGARDING PROPOSED WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS OF THE NAVAJO

NATION, page 3 the Hopi's are going to get a piece of the Colorado

River "Hopi's allocation of Colorado River water to the Hopi

Villages." Why is the Utah settlement secret? Is it so people will

not find out Pollock is giving away the Main Stem Colorado River for

plastic pipes that only last a few years. What kind of lawyers work

for Navajo that prepare incomplete legislation, give up main stem

Colorado River and let the Hopi's have the Colorado River. Hopi's

have some good lawyers working for them if they have the Colorado

River. Navajo's have lawyers that want to give away the Colorado

River. Pollock and his water team need to be fired or reassigned to

criminal law cases. Pollock has done enough damage by not appealing

the adverse decision in the Little Colorado River case regarding the

Navajo's Motion to Strike Hopi Evidence.

On another topic is "Navajo Nation Proposed Amendments - November 2,

2012" on Exhibit 2. Pollock is going to Washington, DC to give



Senator Kyl amendments to S2109. I had to look up what that process

means. I went to

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/legprocessflowchart.pdf

to see what Pollock is upto via flow chart which is attached belowed,

but modified. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could lay the bill

before the US Senate, Amend, and vote on the Navajo Water Settlement

in a blink of an eye. I am sure the Hopi's will show up to get their

share of the Colorado River. Harry Reid has worked on land and water

disputes according to Charles Mahtesian's internet article, Could

Reid and Romney work together?, Politico, 10/17/12 4:44 pm EDT,

http://www.politico.com/bloas/charlie-mahtesian/2012/1O/could-reid

and-romney-work-together-138796.html?hp=17 . Senator Reid would love

to deprive the Navajo of the Colorado River. The text of the article

is also attached.

Secretary Salazar's letter topic of discussion is the Navajo-Hopi

Little Colorado River Water Rights Settlement, Navajo Generating

Station (NGS), Bennett Freeze, Navajo-Gallup Pipeline Project,

and NGS Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART). The Little

Colorado River (LCR) litigation has no connection to the Navajo

Gallup Pipeline Project, but only through PL 111-11 which says there

must be a final settlement of the main stem Colorado River. The

parties or opposition in the Navajo v. Department of Interior (DOl)

water lawsuit says Navajo has no chance of winning main stem Colorado

River water, but told Navajo to settle the LCR first. A real sneaky

way of depriving the Navajo Nation of the main stem Colorado River

without saying it. Salazar wants to end all the issues before the end

of the year which is very convenient for the Navajo v. DOl water case

and the States, water companies. Etc. Sounds like the new Western



Navajo Project (WNP) will get water from Hopi Groundwater then later

from the Colorado River via the Hopi Tribe's share. Most likely

Navajo will pay the Hopi's lots of money for their water. As for the

Bennett Freeze housing situation, the only entity seeking housing in

the Bennett Freeze area is for the Grand Canyon Escalade for worker

housing which would benefit Confluence Partners C. Lamar Whitmer ..

Section 105, WAIVERS, RELEASES, AND RETENTION OF CLAIMS is ambigious

as Sec. 105 (a) (1) (A) gets rid of Navajo water claims whereas Sec.

105 (a) (1) (C) Retains Navajo Claims, but also says those in Sec. 105

(a) (1) (A) expressly gets rid of claims "including" followed by a list

of claims. Does "including" reinforce "shall retain all rights" or

"expressly waived under subparagraph (A)? Might be better to rephrase

the sentence to say Navajo Nation has these retained rights and list

them rather then say Section (C ) retains rights as section (A) gets

rid of rights including the following rights. Very confusing.

Who's to say the Secretary of the Interior will give the amended

S2109 to Senator Jon Kyl to complete the passage of S2109/HR4067 so

the bill becomes law.

The invitation to Secretary Salazar must not be accepted.

Sincerely, Is/Vincent H. Yazzie Vincent H. Yazzie



Legislative Process: How a Senate Bill Becomes a Law

Bill Status 82109/HR4067 People Involved Where

Bill is drafted DONE Senator, Representative, White Office, library, home House, State Legislatures, Organizations, Scholars, Constituents.

I

Bill is introduced by Senator DONE Senator by way of the Parliamentarian Senate Chamber

If no objection heard, bill is DONE Parliamentarian on behalf of Senate Chamber considered read twice, and Presiding Officer referred to the appropriate committee.

Bill is entered on the Senate DONE Journal Clerk Senate Chamber Journal

Bill is given a number DONE Bill Clerk Bill Clerk's Office

Bill is entered into ledgers and DONE Bil1 Clerk Bill Clerk's Office the Legislative Information System and marked up for printing

Bil1 is delivered to Government DONE Bil1 Clerk Messenger picks up Printing Office

Printed Bill is made available in DONE Government Printing Office Government Printing Senate and House document Office rooms, and electronical1y on the Legislative Information System and on www.senate.gov

Printed Bill is delivered to DONE Government Printing Office appropriate committee

Committee Action In (Attachment # I) Committee.

04680-12 S2109/HR4067 Amendments kicks it out of Committee to be placed on Legislative Calendar

Bill is placed on the Legislative Legislative Clerk Senate Chamber Calendar

Unanimous consent requested to Majority Leader, Harry Reid, Senate Chamber lay bill before the Senate Nevada

If consent is granted, the Legislative Clerk on behalf of Senate Chamber Presiding Officer instructs the the Presiding Officer


0468-12 Amended Comments

Legislative Clerk to report the title

Bill is debated and Amendment (s ) are submitted or proposed

The Amending Process (see Attachmcnt #2)

The Presiding Officer instructs the Legislative Clerk to read the title a third and final time

Call for a vote (see Attachment #3)

Bill voted on by roll call vote, voice vote, unanimous consent, or division

Ifbill is passed the final copy is prepared

Engrossed bill signed

Delivered to the House of Representatives

House Action

Bill is passed by the House of Representatives and delivered back to the Senate

Ifnot amended by House, bill is enrolled in the Senate

Enrolled bill is signed (sec Attachment #5)

Bill is delivered to White House

The bill is signed into law or vetoed (see Attachment #6)

OR bill is amended by House of Representatives

Amended bill is delivered to the Senate

Senate may disagree to House Amendment and requests a conference

Conference Committee Action

Senator (Kyl or McCain)

Legislative Clerk on behalf of Presiding Officer

Senator

Senators

Enrolling Clerk

Secretary of the Senate

Enrolling Clerk

House of Representatives

House Reading Clerk

Enrolling Clerk

President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House

Overseen by Secretary of the Senate

President of the United States

Representative

House Reading Clerk

Senators

Page 6 of 16

Senate Chambe

Senate Chamber

Senate Chamber

Senate Chamber

Enrolling Clerk's office

Secretary of the Senate's office

House of Representatives Chamber

House Chamber and House Committees

House Chamber

Senate Chamber

U.S. Capitol

White House

House Chamber

Senate Chamber

Senate Chamber



(see Attachment #4)

If the bill is agreed to, it is Enrolling Clerk enrolled (see Attachment #5)

Enrolled bill is signed President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Capitol Senate and Speaker of the House

Bill is delivered to White House Secretary of the Senate oversees delivery

Bill is signed into law or vetoed President of the United States White House (sec Attachmcnt #6)

https:llwebmai1.navajo-nsn.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABCv2XiqRkp... 11/13/2012


Attachment #1 COMMITTEE ACTION Legislation is referred to a committee after introduction, according to its subject matter. Most commonly, a committee will further refer the legislation to one of its subcommittees. The subcommittee may request reports from government agencies or departments, hold hearings, mark up the bill (adopt revisions), and report the legislation to the full committee. The full committee may take similar action, with or without prior subcommittee consideration, and report the legislation to its full chamber. Committee Hearings Regardless of the type of hearing, or whether a hearing is held in Washington or elsewhere, hearings share common aspects of planning and preparation. Senate standing committees and subcommittees are authorized to meet and to hold hearings when the Senate is in session, and when it has recessed or adjourned. To minimize conflicts with floor activities, a committee may not meet, without unanimous consent, on any day after the Senate has been in session for two hours, or after 2:00 p.m. when the Senate is in session. Senate Rule XXVI requires each committee (except Appropriations and Budget) to give at least one week's notice of the date, place, and subject of a hearing; however, a committee may hold a hearing with less than one week's notice ifit determines that there is "good cause." These notices appear in the Daily Digest section of the Congressional Record. While the Senate rule requires a one week public notice, a separate standing order of the Senate requires each Senate committee to notify the Daily Digest Office as soon as a hearing is scheduled [S.Res. 4, 95th Congress]. Hearings are generally open to the public, but can be closed by a committee roll-call vote in open session if the subject matter falls within specific categories enumerated in Senate rules. Although a committee chair determines the agenda and selects witnesses, the minority typically works informally with the majority to invite witnesses representing its views. Senate rules allow the minority-party members ofa committee (except Appropriations) to call witnesses of their choice on at least one day of a hearing. Witnesses before Senate committees generally must provide the committee with a copy of their written testimony at least one day before their oral testimony, with specifics set out in individual committee rules. It is common practice to request witnesses to limit their oral remarks to a brief summary of the written testimony. A question-and-answer period generally follows a witness's testimony. Each committee determines the order in which Senators question witnesses. Although Senate rules do not restrict the length of time each Senator may question a witness, several committees have adopted such rules. Some committees also authorize committee staff to question witnesses.

Committee Markup A markup is a meeting of the committee to debate and consider amendments to a measure under consideration. The markup determines whether the measure pending before a committee will be recommended to the full Senate, and whether it should be amended in any substantive way. Procedures in markup for the most part reflect procedures used on the Senate floor, possibly modified by an individual committee's rules. The process begins when the chair of the committee schedules and sets the agenda for the markup. In leading a markup, the chair has broad discretion choosing the legislative vehicle and presenting it for consideration and amendment. The measure that is marked up may be one that was introduced in the Senate, or received from the House and referred to the committee. Alternatively the chair may choose to consider the text of a draft measure that has not been introduced, such as a subcommittee-reported version or a chairman's mark. In still other cases, the markup vehicle may be placed before the committee as an "amendment in the nature of a substitute" for the measure or text initially referred to it.

Reporting Legislation When a committee concludes its markup, any committee member may move to order the measure reported to the Senate. A committee has several options for the form in which the a measure is ordered reported. It may be reported with no changes, with amendments to various sections adopted in markup, or with one amendment in the nature ofa substitute. In addition, a Senate committee is authorized to report an original bill that embodies a text decided upon in markup. Senate rules require the physical presence of a majority of the committee in order to report a measure. Absent Senators may vote by proxy on reporting a measure unless a committee has adopted a rule to the contrary, but such proxy votes may not effect the outcome ofa vote to report a



measure, and proxies may not be counted to deteffi1ine a quorum. Following a committee's vote to order a measure reported, it is the duty of the committee's chaiffi1an to report the measure promptly to the Senate. When a committee reports a measure, it generally prepares an accompanying written report that describes the purposes and provisions of the measure. If a report is submitted, Senate rules and statutes require the inclusion of such components as records of roll-call votes cast in committee, cost estimates, a statement of regulatory impact, and the specific changes the legislation would make to existing law. Committee members are also entitled to at least three days to prepare supplementary, minority, or additional views for inclusion in the report

https:llwebmail.navajo-nsn.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABCv2XiqRkp... 11113/2012

0468-12 Amended Comments

Attachment #2

The Amending Process Floor consideration of a measure usually begins with opening statements by the floor managers, and often by other Senators. The managers usually are the chair and ranking minority member of the reporting committee or pertinent subcommittee. The first amendments usually to be considered are those recommended by the reporting committee. If the committee has proposed many amendments, the manager often obtains unanimous consent that these amendments be adopted, but that all provisions of the measure as amended remain open to further amendment. After committee amendments are disposed of, amendments may be offered to any part of the measure in any order. If the committee recommends a substitute for the full text of the measure, the substitute normally remains open to amendment throughout its consideration. The Senate may dispose of each amendment either by voting on it directly or by voting to table it. The motion to table cannot be debated; and, if the Senate agrees to it, the effect is the same as a vote to defeat the amendment. If the Senate defeats the motion, however, debate on the amendment may resume. While an amendment is pending, Senators may propose amendments to it (called second-degree amendments) and to the part of the measure the amendment would change. The Senate votes on each of these amendments before it votes on the first-degree amendment (the amendment to the measure). Many additional complications exist. When a complete substitute for a measure is pending, for example, Senators can propose six or more first- and second-degree amendments to the substitute and the measure before any votes must occur. If an amendment is considered under a time limitation, Senators may make no motions or points of order, or propose other amendments, until all the time for debating the amendment has been used or yielded back. Sometimes, however, the Senate unanimously consents to lay aside pending amendments temporarily in order to consider another amendment to the measure. The amending process continues until the Senate orders the bill engrossed and read a third time, which precludes further amendment. Then the Senate votes on final passage.

Page 10 of 16



Attachment #3

Voting Article. I, sec. 5, paragraph 3 of the Constitution provides that one-fifth of those present (11 Senators, ifno more than a quorum is present) can order the yeas and nays - also known as a rollcall vote or a recorded vote. If a Senator asks for the yeas and nays on a pending question, and the Senate orders them, it does not mean that a vote will occur immediately, Instead ordering the yeas and nays means that whenever the vote does occur, it will be by roll call and will be recorded in the Journal. Otherwise, votes can be taken by voice vote, unanimous consent, or division.



Attachment #4 Conference Committees A bill cannot become a law of the land until it has been approved in identical form by both houses of Congress. Once the Senate amends and agrees to a bill that the House already has passed -- or the House amends and passes a Senate bill -- the two houses may begin to resolve their legislative differences by way of a conference committee or through an exchange of amendments between the houses.

Conference Comn1ittees If the Senate does not accept the House=s position, one of the chambers may propose creation of a conference committee to negotiate and resolve the matters in disagreement between the two chambers. Typically, the Senate gets to conference with the House by adopting this standard motion: "Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its amendment(s) (or "disagree to the House amendment(s)" to the Senate-passed measure), request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes thereon, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees." This triple motion rolled into one -- to insist (or disagree), request, and appoint -- is commonly agreed to by unanimous consent. The presiding officer formally appoints the Senate=s conferees. (The Speaker names the House conferees.) Conferees are traditionally drawn from the committee ofjurisdiction, but conferees representing other Senate interests may also be appointed. There are no formal rules that outline how conference meetings are to be organized. Routinely, the principals from each chamber or their respective staffs conduct pre-conference meetings so as to expedite the bargaining process when the conference formally convenes. Informal practice also determines who will be the overall conference chair (each chamber has its own leader in conference). Rotation of the chairmanship between the chambers is usually the practice when matched pairs of panels (the tax or appropriations panels, for example) convene in conference regularly. For standing committees that seldom meet in conference, the choice of who will chair the conference is generally resolved by the conference leaders from each chamber. The decision on when and where to meet and for how long are a few prerogatives of the chair, who consults on these matters with his or her counterpart from the other body. Once the two chambers go to conference, the respective House and Senate conferees bargain and negotiate to resolve the matters in bicameral disagreement. Resolution is embodied in a conference report, signed by a majority of Senate conferees and House conferees. The conference report must be agreed to by both chambers before it is cleared for presidential consideration. In the Senate, conference reports are usually brought up by unanimous consent at a time agreed to by the party leaders and floor managers. Because conference reports are privileged, if any Senator objects to the unanimous consent request, a nondebatable motion can be made to take up the conference report. Approval of the conference report itself is subject to extended debate, but conference reports are not open to amendment. Almost all of the most important measures are sent to conference, but these are only a minority of the bills that the two houses pass each year.

https:/Iwebmail.navajo-nsn.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABCv2XiqRkp... 11/13/2012


Attachment #5

Enrollment After the Senate and House resolve all their disagreements concerning a bill or joint resolution, all the original papers are transmitted to the enrolling clerk of the originating chamber, who has the measure printed on parchment, certified by the chief officer of the originating chamber, and signed by the Speaker of the House and by either the Vice President (who is the President of the Senate) or the authorized presiding officer of the Senate. The enrolled bill then goes to the President for his approval or veto.


0468-12 Amended Comments Page 140f16

Attachment #6

Presidential Action Pursuant to Article I, section 7 of the Constitution, "Every Bill, which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shaH, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; ... " If the President approves and signs the measure within 10 days, it becomes law. The lO-day period begins on midnight of the day the President receives the measure, and Sundays are not counted. Thus, if the President were to receive an enrolled measure on Thursday, February 14th, the first day of the 10-day period would be Friday, February 15th; the last day would be Tuesday, February 26th. If the President objects to a measure, he may veto it by returning it to its chamber of origin together with a statement of his objections, again within the same 10-day period. Unless both chambers subsequently vote by a 2/3 majority to override the veto, the measure does not become law. If the President does not act on a measure-approving or vetoing it-within 10 days, the fate of the measure depends on whether Congress is in session. If Congress is in session, the bill becomes law without the President's approval. If Congress is not in session, the measure does not become law. Presidential inaction when Congress is not in session is known as a pocket veto. Congress has interpreted the use of the pocket veto to be limited to the final, so-calIed sine die adjournment of the originating chamber. The President's pocket veto authority is not definitively decided.



Charles Mahtesian, Could Redi and Romney work together? Politico, 10/17/124:44 pm EDT, http://www.politico.com/blogs/char]ie-mahtesian/2012/10/could-reid-and-romney-work-together-138796.html?hp=17

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has attacked Mitt Romney in caustic and personal terms. He's questioned Romney's veracity, his finances and even his faith. Against that backdrop, the Las Vegas Sun imagines a Romney White House and a Reid-led Senate and asks: could Reid and Romney ever hope to forge a working relationship in D.C.? The consensus answer among Nevada insiders and those familiar with the inner workings of Reid World is ... maybe:

But if it comes to a Romney presidency, Reid's task won't be to convince his caucus to promote the president's agenda instead, he will need them to keep a last line of defense against the programs Romney wants to repeal.

Democratic insiders were fairly certain that Reid, even if offered enticing trade-offs, would not be open to dealmaking that might pare back the healthcare or financial reform bills. And they were equally adamant that Reid would not agree to back off his insistence that tax increases be part of a package to avoid the fiscal cliff, at any price.

More likely, both Republicans and Democrats surmised, Reid's horse-trading instincts would surface in policy areas that were under-addressed in the last Congress, such as a comprehensive energy bill, or on education.

"I personally worked with Harry Reid when I was in the White House on two big issues: Land and water disputes that had been in the courts for years," [Sig Rogich, a Romney backer who also led the Republicans for Reid in 2010] recalled of his time in the Bush administration, surmising that Reid might do better with a Republican administration when it came to making compelling deals.

Democrats did not agree.

"Reid's comfortable in his own skin. He knows exactly who he is and where he wants to go," [Longtime top Reid aide Jim] Manley said. "That's probably where a little bit of this tension comes from: He looks at Romney and he sees a guy who lacks any core convictions ... that's just not the way Reid operates, and he's not a big fan of those who operate that way."

None of the sources really speak to the human dimension of the prospective relationship - such as the roots of Reid's animus toward Romney or any lingering resentment Romney might have given the highly



personal nature of Reid's attacks on him. Still, all told, the general thinking appears to be that both are pragmatic enough to put their differences behind them



Legislation 0468-12 Kimberly Smith [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, November 09,201211:38 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; David L.Tom; [email protected];

George Apachito; [email protected]; Elmer P. Begay; Johnny Naize; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Leonard Pete; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Mel R. Begay; [email protected]; [email protected]; Russell Begaye; [email protected]; comments

Kimberly Smith P.O. BOX 345 St Michael, AZ 86511 [email protected]

Executive Director Office of Legislative Services P.O. Box 3390 Window Rock, AZ 86515 [email protected] (928) 871-7590

Subject: 0468-12, An Action Relating to Naa'bik'iyati' Committee: Accepting the Invitation of the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior to Discuss Key Issues Impacting the Navajo Nation With Respect To Federal Legislation 5.2109 and H.R. 4067 Regarding Proposed Water Rights Settlements of the Navajo Nation

After reading the legislation I have found that the Navajo Nation Council is doing great injustice to the Dine' People in continuing to push S.2109. This legislation did not have Dine' People input from the start of the creation of the agreement. The proposed agreement and legislation were formulated by attorneys off the Rez, thus this formulation was done without our knowledge, and it was not transparent, so it was not done in a FREE and open process. Once again the Navajo leadership have not followed through on its promise to include Dine' Peoples input. The water rights task force cannot speak on behalf of all Dine' people, they only represent a small number of Dine'. They should not be blamed or tokenized. Furthermore to my understanding the recommendations made by the task force were not honored. This understanding is based on my reading the 83 page legislation and working with my comrades on the taskforce.

My stance is also based on the declaration on the rights of indigenous people. Through this agreement, legislation our right to "free, prior and informed consent" as articulated in the Declaration is violated. This very right is consistent with the essence of our Dine' Fundamental Law. As Dine' citizens we have an inherent right to determine how our resources (water) are used.

As elected leadership the council works for Dine' people. The council leadership position does not give the council the ultimate authority to make these decisions on all our behalf. If the Council continues to push the flawed and tainted so-called agreement and legislation, then the council is guilty of violating our human rights by association. Through this legislation the council is honoring and defending the scheme of those who initially and directly violated our rights; Kyl, Mcain, Pollack. Stanley Pollack wrote this 83 page document away from the Water Rights Task Force/Advisory Group recommendations. Once again he proves that he is not working in favor of Dine' people.

Another huge concern that I have is that no one is talking about climate change. Temperatures are rising. Water is becoming more and more scarce. It seems that neighboring cities are coming up with 100 year plans for water and development and the water they are planning on using is Dine' water. On the other side of the spectrum, Dine' aren't planning. We need comprehensive plans on our resources that benefit our people, plants, animals, way of life and most importantly our future. Due to our dependence on coal royalties and coal fired plants, our government seems to cater to those interests. In turn, this energy industries and cities we support contribute greatly to climate change, health epidemics for Navajo people, a division of our communities and an imbalance of hozho.



This settlement would place Dine' in a position to give up the first Priority of the Colorado River Water. The Little Colorado River is still not quantified. It also does not include the mainstream upper and lower Colorado River. Dine' would be forced to accept 4th Priority Colorado River water. The best thing our leaders can do is start over, do it right and to do justice to the people and the land. This has been stated time and time again by Dine' communities but we are still in the same place we were last year the year before, same attorneys, same leadership, same concerns. That in itself says a lot about how we are progressing as people.

Thank you for your leadership and efforts to work for Dine' people, it is not an easy job.

Kim Smith

St Michael, AZ


22nd NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL

Second Year 2012

Mr. Speaker:

The NABIKIYATI COMMITTEE to whom has been assigned

NAVAJO LEGISLATIVE BILL # 0468-12:

Relating to Naa'bik'iyati' Committee: Accepting the Invitation of the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior to Discuss Key Issues Impacting the Navajo Nation with Respect to Federal Legislation S. 2109 and H.R. 4067 regarding Proposed Water Rights Settlements of the Navajo Nation (Sponsor: Honorable Johnny Naize)

has had it under consideration and reports the same with the recommendation that It Do Pass with one amendment, as attached.

Respectfully submitted,

Duane Tsinigine, Pro Tern Chairman

Not Adopted: _AdOP~~L i dvisor Legislative Advisor

9 November 2012

The vote was 14 in favor 0 opposed

Amendment to Legislation No.0468-12

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I make a motion to offer the following amendment(s):

1. Strike Exhibit 2 in its entirety (Navajo Nation Proposed Amendments - November 2, 2012 to S. 2109) and substitute as Exhibit 2, the Position Statement of the Navajo Nation on Comprehensive Water Rights Settlements, attached hereto.

2. On page 1, line 1 2, strike the words "key issues impacting" and "Navajo Nation with"; and

3. On page 1, strike line 13; and

4. On page 1 , line 22, strike the words "following concerns as listed below" and replace with the words "Position Statement of the Navajo Nation on Comprehensive Water Rights Settlements"; and

5. On page 1, line 25 and 26, strike the words "following proposed amendments to S. 2109 (The Act)" and replace with the words "Position Statement of the Navajo Nation on Comprehensive Water Rights Settlements, Exhibit 2,"and

6. Strike the remainder of the legislation, from page 1, line 27, through page 3, line 25; and

7. Renumber or re-letter succeeding paragraphs or sections accordingly, if necessary.

Leonard Tsosie

legislative branch legislation no.: 0468-12 sponsor: honorable johnny naize · 2012-12-27 ·...

Documents