Challenging the Big Lie

To Durango Telegraph:

The trouble with court action is it's mostly nonaction. Plaintiffs and defendants find themselves mired in procedural technicalities, lacking the drama of "Perry Mason."

However, in the pending litigation over the validity of the Animas-La Plata project's water rights, there is unexpected court drama in that the document plaintiffs, Citizens Progressive Alliance, are struggling to enter into the record. It is a damning report titled, "Evaluation of the Colorado Ute Water Settlement for the Southern Ute Indian Tribe," prepared for the tribe by the Washington, D.C., law firm of Sonosky, Chambers & Sachse in 1990.

I quote from p. 49: "A major risk the tribe would have encountered in litigation would have been establishing first priority rights for much of the water. The tribe may not have been successful in proving an 1868 priority date for some of its water. Specifically, the state would have argued that part of the reservation was disestablished."

The Sonosky Report cites relevant Supreme Court rulings, namely that the 1868 reservation was extinguished in 1880, and the decision in the 1971 case that affirmed the Confederated Ute Bands, in taking the money to settle property claims in 1950 had signed a consent judgment agreeing so.

I say "damning report" because it proves that the Southern Ute government and its attorneys know full well that the tribe does not have senior water rights on this ill-conceived, billion-dollar, porkbarrel water project.

The above is not the only reason Southern Ute attorney Scott McElroy is using legal shenanigans to prevent its insertion into the court record. The Sonosky Report also specifies the amount of water the Southern Ute Tribe would be legally entitled to under the law: only 4,680 acre-feet of water from the Animas and La Plata rivers.

This is hardly the 80,000 acre-feet the two Colorado Ute tribes get allotted in this project. (The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, I must add, has no rights to either of these rivers because neither runs through its reservation; its water claims were settled by building the $800 million Dolores project.)

So there you have it, without fancy Latinate legal terms and other complicated court wrangling. Another quote from the Sonosky Report seems appropriate: "By storing water and using project rights as part of the

settlement, the tribe avoided these issues wherever there were projects."

(There is no such thing in Colorado water law as "project rights." Just part of the scam, I reckon.)

This was, however, excellent advice, because the threat of early priority rights was what revived the Dolores project in 1977 despite its poor economics and environmental destructiveness.

But one thing the Sonosky Report could not predict was that a few feisty diehards would have the temerity to challenge the Big Lie used to justify the worthless

Animas-La Plata project. Nothing of this magnitude should be the mere province of a court but belongs in the public record for all to read, regardless of what a judge may or may not decide. To obtain a copy of it, e-mail me at trex@ix.netcom.com or call me at (303) 665-2582. I no longer live in Durango, but my heart is still with my beloved Rio de las Animas Perdidas.

- Jeanne W. Englert, via e-mail

Diver's advice draws fire

To the editors,

Simply and redundantly, I am tired of my local community not grasping the basic issue between Native Americans and Non-Native American relations - it's about being human to each other. I just put down Stacy Evans' contribution to the "Ask the Diver" (Dec. 30, 2004) spin on an advice column for which I am a giant fan. Unfortunately, after finishing her last entry, sick to my stomach, I ran to my office to voice my complaint. Usually, I'm uplifted by the ironic and witty retorts of the smartass cook, dishwasher, what have you - but not last Thursday.

When Evans advised a local "Worried Mom" who has substance abuse concerns regarding her 16-year-old son to "Take him to a traditional Native American sweat have him sweat it all out. Repeat as many times as necessary," my head sunk to the floor. Here's the problem, it's really easy, as one local director has already horribly published a hugely sloppy generalization, now - so has the Diver. I'd like to think in such a time of heightened cultural sensitivity, especially on a local level, that at least the wonderful Telegraph would be keeping a peeled eye for garbage like this.

The Diver has made the detrimental generalization that Native Americans are somehow accessible for the healing purpose of white people, like we're some sort of spiritual resource someone could look up in the Yellow Pages and reserve a couple seats for, this is not the case.

It boils down to this, Native American people must stop being seen as the subjects of Non-Native study and commoditized religion, it is dehumanizing, and we are humans. We should no longer be seen as some kind of matter in a test tube, we're not all medicine people, or shaman, some of us are spiritual, some of us aren't, just like white people; some of us drink, some of us don't, just like white people; some of us fight, some of us don't, just like white people; some of us add gratuity, some of us don't, just like white people; some of us show emotion, some of us are reluctant to, just like white people need I go on? Remember, we're human, just like you.

And, "Worried Mom," here's some advice, sit down and have dinner with your son tonight and have your first adult-to-adult conversation with him, repeat as many times as necessary. He'll appreciate your attention and concern, even if he acts otherwise, he'll know you care for and love him and that is the most spiritual power available.

- Tirzah C. Camacho FLC alumnus, Durango

Share the wealth

To the Editors:

I have recently become aware of efforts by individuals associated with Trails 2000 calling for City Council to place a referendum on the April 2005 ballot for a half-cent sales tax increase to be dedicated exclusively for parks and open space acquisition. Quite frankly, I fail to see the need for such a large sum of revenue going to only one purpose when the city has a variety of currently unmet near and longer term capital improvements, such as a new library building, roads and regional transportation, downtown development needs as may be proposed by the Downtown Durango Vision and Strategic Plan, expanded city offices, and police and fire stations. The city already dedicates funds each year for open space acquisition and parks and trails improvements. In fact, since 2001 the city has appropriated over $1.6 million from general funds to these. Further, passage of such a restrictive use sales tax measure would, I think, seriously jeopardize passage of any further tax increases for projects for greater benefit for all residents of the city, such as a new library.

I would remind readers that the current library building, built nearly 100 years ago, is of inadequate size for a community of our size. Furthermore, programming is being curtailed due to space and building conditions, for every book added to the collection, one must be discarded due to lack of shelf space, and delays since a nationally recognized consultant's study was completed in 2001 detailing the need for a new library now mean over $1 million in increased costs. Further delays add approximately $21,000 a month. On average, over 1,000 people visit the Durango Public Library daily. The city has, in recent years, spent millions of dollars for new and improved recreational facilities such as the Rec Center, Chapman Hill ski hut and ice rink, a skateboard park, and bike trails. Isn't a new library as, if not more, important to the quality of life in Durango as another park, trail or parcel of open space? It's not like Durango isn't within 100 miles of any open space. I firmly believe the people of Durango and La Plata County need and deserve a new library. Any approval of a sales tax increase should therefore address this and other urgently needed capital improvements. I urge readers to let city councilors know of your concerns about this proposal and to attend the council's study session on this matter on Jan. 11 from 4-6 p.m. at City Hall.

- Edward L. Angus, Durango

Another take on police brutality

To the Editors:

Absolutely, hopefully most of us will never be in a situation where police involvement is warranted. However when the police make a mistake and return the child to his home, because they realize they've made a mistake, it is absolutely police brutality to have broken his elbow in the process, when that 19-year-old was not even resisting arrest.

As a parent, if I were to break my child's elbow, it would be against the law.

- Lyn Markman Hanson, Durango