2009 American Indian Law Deskbook Supplement

Chapter 14 State-Tribal Cooperative Agreements

69 P.622, n.10. Add the following to line 2 of the footnote after “see also”: N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 11-18-1 to -5 (State-Tribal Collaboration Act adopted in 2009 and requiring New Mexico state agencies to establish policies and appoint tribal liaisons to promote effective communication and collaboration between the state agencies and tribes; providing for training and an annual summit); P.631, n.59. Add the following to the end of the footnote before the period: Marren Sanders, Ecosystem Co-Management Agreements: A Study of Nation Building or a Lesson on an Erosion of Tribal Sovereignty?, 15 Buff. Envtl. L.J. 97, 132–163 (2007–2008) (providing “case studies” of Columbia River InterTribal Fish and Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commissions and Nez Perce gray wolf management program, together with related inter-sovereign agreements) P.633, n.66. Add the following to the end of the footnote: The Adam Walsh Act has given rise to discussions about tribal-state cooperative agreements. See chapter 4, part I.A.1 nn.13–16 & accompanying text; Brian P. Dimmer, How Tribe and State Cooperative Agreements Can Save the Adam Walsh Act From Encroaching Upon Tribal Sovereignty, 92 Marq. L. Rev. 385 (2008) (arguing that the Adam Walsh Act should be amended to require cooperative agreements to carry out the Act’s required sex offender registration and notification rather than providing for state authority—either under P. L. 280 or where non–P.L. 280 tribes do not implement tribal programs); see also Virginia Davis & Kevin Washburn, Sex Offender Registration in Indian Country, 6 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 3 (2008) (discussing impact of Adam Walsh Act on existing cross-deputization agreements). P.635, n.73. Add the following to line 13 of the footnote after “E.g.,”: Erica Shively, Note, The Future of Quantifying Tribal Water Rights in North Dakota , 84 N.D. L. Rev. 455 (2008); Chapter 14 State-Tribal Cooperative Agreements 70 2009 Supplement—American Indian Law Deskbook, Fourth Edition P.637. Add the following new footnote 76.1 to the end of the carryover paragraph: 76.1 See generally Mary Christina Wood & Matthew O’Brien, Tribes as Trustees Again (Part II): Evaluating Four Models of Tribal Participation in the Conservation Trust Movement, 27 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 477, 479 (2008) (discussing transactional paradigms , as well as negotiating and drafting considerations, for tribes to pursue land conservation through public and private partnerships in light of “the Native environmental sovereignty movement aimed at protecting environmental resources located off the reservations[] and the conservation trust movement created in response to the deficiencies of environmental law”); Joanna M. Wagner, Improving Native American Access to Federal Funding for Economic Development Through Partnerships with Rural Communities, 32 Am. Indian L. Rev. 525, 551, 588 (2007–2008) (although “Indians and their non-­Indian neighbors have not historically been allies, and the rift between Indian and rural communities runs deep and is not easily overcome by pointing out their common characteristics and experiences[,]” tribes and rural communities have “things to gain by working with the other” given an often overlapping set of governmental challenges caused by, inter alia, remoteness, small populations and relative lack of political power). P.646. Add the following new paragraphs after the first paragraph: Implementation of the settlement encountered challenges resulting in further agreement, legislation and litigation. In 1996, it became apparent that the portion of the settlement regarding the Animas and La Plata Rivers could not be implemented. Endangered Species Act issues, water quality problems, and other concerns halted the construction of Phase I of the Animas–La Plata Project. Colorado’s Governor Romer and Lt. Governor Schoettler initiated a lengthy public process to bring the different interests together to discuss solutions . After additional NEPA review, a substantially scaled-down Project with reduced depletions from the Animas and La Plata Rivers was the environmentally preferred alternative. The reduced amount will be shared by the Southern Ute Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and Navajo Nation, and also will provide a long term municipal water supply to non-Indians in southwest Colorado and northern New Mexico. To authorize waiver of the tribes’ reserved rights claims for this reduced amount of water, Congress passed the Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000.88.1 Water from the reduced Project may only be used for municipal and industrial purposes.88.2 Congress provided substitute benefits of $20 million to each Ute Tribe over a period of five years for their changed water...