State agencies request advance funding for pending Tribal water settlements
Five New Mexico Tribal and Pueblo water rights settlements still need federal approval, but state agencies have put forward funding requests to be ready if Congress approves them later this year as anticipated.
New Mexico entered into five settlement agreements in 2022 with the Pueblos of Acoma, Laguna, Jemez and Zia, the Navajo Nation, Zuni Tribe and Ohkay Owingeh
The New Mexico delegation subsequently introduced legislation to approve the deals, including approximately $3 billion to establish funds and build infrastructure. The settlements, which have required years and sometimes decades of costly negotiations, would settle tribal rights for the rios San José, Jemez, Chama and the Zuni River.
Two other bills would correct technical errors in established Tribal water settlements and add an extension of both time and money to complete the long-delayed Navajo-Gallup water project. Federal funding granted the project a short reprieve, but it faces an upcoming deadline only Congress can delay.
A 1908 U.S. Supreme Court case established what's known as Winters Doctrine, which requires Congress to recognize water rights for reservations. The Winters Doctrine also recognizes tribal rights as typically senior to other users. New Mexico water law uses the age of rights to determine use in times of shortage.
However, the courts have only formally determined the order of water rights in 20% of New Mexico's rivers, a decades-long process. In the interim, lawsuits sparked between Pueblos, acequias and other users. (The Ohkay Owingeh lawsuit over Rio Chama water use is more than 60 years old).
The 2022 settlements benefit both Pueblo and non-Pueblo water users by fully resolving the water rights claims, U.S. Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.) told Source NM last year.
'The senior priority water rights are going to prevail. And that's what litigation will lead to,' she said. 'The settlements lead to agreements by the tribe to give up certain acreage that they're entitled to and work out arrangements with regards to how they exercise their senior water rights to benefit everybody in the region.'
Details on the U.S. House proposals to resolve tribal water rights settlements in NM
Members of the New Mexico delegation urged House leaders to include the settlements in end-of-year congressional packages, but Congress ultimately excluded the bills.
Members of the delegation reintroduced the bills early this year.
In March, the U.S. Senate Indian Affairs Committee gave its unanimous approval to the slate of bills, which await a hearing on the Senate Floor, said one of the co-sponsors, U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), in a written statement Thursday.
'These bills are vital to ensure we meet our trust responsibility to our Tribal communities by honoring their water rights and ensuring they have the resources to use the water they own,' said Heinrich. 'I'm pleased the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs unanimously advanced these bills to the Senate floor. I encourage my colleagues on the House Natural Resources to do the same. These bills are urgently needed to help communities manage their precious and limited water resources.'
If Congress approves the settlements, New Mexico has to provide approximately $190 million for the state portion of the funds, within a decade. In 2024, the New Mexico Legislature allocated $20 million for the state match.
This year, the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer requested $35 million for the settlement funds, according to Nat Chakeres, the office's general legal counsel.
'We have a 10-year period to come up with that $190 million, but we want to get ahead of the game while we have budget surpluses right now,' Chakeres told Source NM.
In addition, the state is requesting $500,000 more in annual funding to create staff water master positions to prepare for the settlement's adoption by the federal government.
Water masters ensure fulfillment of the terms of the agreement, prepare annual reports on the status of the settlement activities, investigate claims and oversee any enforcement of water diversions.
'We want to be ready to run on day one, once the settlements get finalized,' Chakeres said.
Chakeres said budget discussions between state lawmakers are continuing and that he doesn't know the exact amount that lawmakers will approve in the budget but said he's optimistic.
'We're confident we'll get a strong appropriation,' he said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Autonomous Vehicles Are Tangled Up In Red Tape, But There's No One Left To Cut It
As robotaxis come for a city near you, tech and car companies are looking for guidance on how to navigate a thicket of federal and state regulations on automated vehicle driving. There's only one problem: there's almost nobody left to offer that guidance. And that's because one very particular tech and car CEO fired them all, apparently thinking this would cut all the red tape in his way. Instead, he's gotten tangled in it, along with everyone else. As Politico details in a report, the Office of Automation Safety was set up by the Biden administration in order to regulate how autonomous vehicles would integrate onto public roads. Partly, that means setting and enforcing safety standards. Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who has run afoul of government oversight before, doesn't seem to have liked that idea, which is likely why his DOGE initiative slashed staff at the OAS by nearly half. No one to stop Tesla now, right? Well, turns out, that office was also meant to flash green lights, not just red ones. Because without someone setting federal standards for what AVs can and can't do, it becomes difficult for a company to actually put them on the road. In other words, DOGE cut the people who cut the red tape. Oops. Read more: These Are The Most Forgettable Cars Rules Of The Road, Circa Last Century The current regulatory framework was created in the 20th century, when cars were introduced to the world. For the U.S., the general idea was that the federal government, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration, would determine the criteria for what a car needed to have to drive on public roads. This is codified as the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. By contrast, state governments would individually determine who should actually get behind the wheel, issuing driver's licenses and setting driving laws. So what happens when the car is the driver? That's never actually been spelled out before. To really get the industry moving forward, it needs the government to help it out with the legal snarls. That was part of the Office of Automation Safety's job. It could also offer exemptions for the federal safety standards, literally making things easier for thos companies. Instead, after DOGE's cuts, it appears that most of the rest of the office has left, leaving the place empty. That has slowed the pace of exemptions to a crawl, and left the AV industry in the lurch for any assistance with the legal quandaries. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy did loosen safety requirements for AVs back in April, but that doesn't seem to have been enough. So now, a Senate Appropriations Committee report "highly encourages the Department [of Transportation] to prioritize hiring" in the OAS. Firing everyone, just to quietly admit you need to rehire them later? Surely not. Such things never happen. In any case, let's hope the government can fill up that office again, both for our safety and so that robotaxis can navigate the legal mazes a little better than they navigate the urban ones. Want more like this? Join the Jalopnik newsletter to get the latest auto news sent straight to your inbox... Read the original article on Jalopnik.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Explainer-Does Trump have the power to ban mail-in ballots in U.S. elections?
By Jack Queen (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump wants to ban mail-in ballots in federal elections, a form of voting popular with many Americans. About three in 10 ballots were cast through the mail in the 2024 general election, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Trump, a Republican, does not have clear legal authority to do this, though his allies in Congress and state governments could enact policies barring the practice. Here is a look at Trump's authority and how the law could be changed. CAN TRUMP UNILATERALLY BAN MAIL-IN BALLOTS? Only states and the U.S. Congress can pass laws regulating elections. A unilateral ban by the president on mail-in ballots would likely exceed Trump's limited authority to enforce existing law. In a Monday social media post, Trump said mail-in ballots are susceptible to fraud and that he would lead a movement to ban them, beginning with an executive order bringing "honesty" to the November 2026 midterm elections. Republicans have filed scores of lawsuits seeking to end mail-in voting in recent years, citing possible fraud. Democrats generally support mail-in ballots as a way to expand access to voting. Voter fraud in the U.S. is extremely rare, multiple studies have shown. White House representatives provided a general statement about Trump's election policies but did not answer questions about his legal authority to ban mail-in ballots or what an executive order would say. COULD TRUMP'S ALLIES BAN MAIL-IN BALLOTS? States are responsible for administering their votes under the U.S. Constitution, and Republican-controlled legislatures could pass laws banning mail-in ballots so long as they do not conflict with federal law. Congress could ban the use of mail-in ballots in federal elections and override state laws protecting their use, but Trump's Republican Party has slim majorities in Congress and would face difficulty getting past opposition by Democrats. Republicans hold 53 Senate seats. To pass a mail-in ballot ban they would need to end the filibuster, a longstanding tradition requiring 60 of the chamber's 100 members to approve most legislation. State and federal laws banning mail-in voting could be challenged in court as unconstitutional impediments to voting. WHAT OTHER POWERS DO PRESIDENTS HAVE OVER ELECTIONS? Presidents in the U.S. have some discretion in enforcing election laws, and Trump could try to use those powers to end or restrict mail-in voting, though it is unclear how. In June, a federal judge blocked parts of an executive order by Trump requiring voters to prove they are U.S. citizens and attempting to prevent states from counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day. The Trump administration is appealing. "The Constitution does not grant the president any specific powers over elections," said U.S. District Judge Denise Casper, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court overturns order that stripped some protections from pregnant Texas state workers
NEW YORK (AP) — A federal appeals court has upheld a law strengthening the rights of pregnant workers, vacating a judge's earlier order that had stripped those protections from Texas state employees. The ruling was a victory for advocates of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a law that passed with bipartisan support in 2022 but quickly became embroiled in controversy over whether it covers workers seeking abortions and fertility treatments. A federal judge last year blocked enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act for Texas state employees, ruling that its passage was unconstitutional because a majority of House members were not physically present to approve the law as part of spending package in December 2022. In a 2-1 decision, the Fifth Circuit appeals court disagreed, finding that the law was properly passed under a COVID-19 pandemic-era Congressional rule allowing members to vote by proxy to meet the quorum requirement. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act strengthens the rights of women to receive workplace accommodation for needs related to pregnancy and childbirth, such as time off for medical appointments and exemptions from heavy lifting. Its passage came after a decades long campaign by women's advocacy groups highlighting the struggles of pregnant workers, especially those in low-wage roles, who were routinely forced off the job after requesting accommodations. The Texas case differed from other lawsuits that have narrowly focused on federal regulations stating that abortion, fertility treatments and birth control are medical issues requiring protection under the new law. The lawsuit, filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, instead took aim at the entirety of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, drawing opposition from Republican lawmakers including former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who defended the pandemic-era proxy voting rule. Under the Trump administration, the Department of Justice has continued to fight Paxton's lawsuit, which if successful, could help open the door to legal challenges of other pandemic-era laws passed by proxy. Paxton's office did not reply to emails seeking comment, and it was not clear whether he would appeal Friday's ruling. The Justice Department declined to comment. 'This is a big win for women's rights. We are really happy to see that the Fifth Circuit agreed with us that the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was passed constitutionally and will continue to fight for the PWFA to stay legal,' said Inimai Chettiar, president of a Better Balance, an advocacy group that spearheaded the campaign for passage of the law. Texas state employees are not immediately protected, however, because the appeals court ruling doesn't become final for several weeks to give time for a possible appeal, Chettiar said. Conservative officials and religious groups, meanwhile, have been largely successfully in challenging the regulations passed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which established that workers seeking abortions are entitled accommodations. In May, a federal court struck down the abortion provisions of the EEOC regulations in response to lawsuits brought by states of Louisiana and Mississippi, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic University and two Catholic dioceses. The Trump administration is almost certain to comply with that ruling. President Donald Trump in January fired two of the EEOC's democratic commissioners, paving the way for him to quickly establish a Republican majority at the agency. EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, a Republican, has signaled her support for revising the regulations, arguing the agency exceeded its authority by including not only abortion but fertility treatments and birth control as medical needs covered by the law. Solve the daily Crossword
