Preface to the Volume by O. Rak on the Neolithic Rhyta, cult vessels distributed in most of the Balkan peninsul

Brey, P.A.E.

English

BIAGI P.

Name not available

Foreword

Black, Peter E

OpenSIUC

1FOREWORDPeter E. BlackState University of New YorkWhen I undertook editorship of this issue, I expected thatI would get five or six articles on the several aspects ofthe Native American water rights issue and have acomprehensive summary of the status of the topic. Was Isurprised! By the time I had half the articles and hadtalked with individuals from all over the United States, Irealized that I could probably put together thirty articlesand not have a truly comprehensive summary. Dismayed?Not at all. I am truly impressed with the breadth of theissue and the experience, dedication, scholarship, andinsights that our authors bring to this issue of UPDATE.At the same time, I realized that I was no longer incontrol of the content and/or organization. And that is allright, because it reflects the fact that no one person ororganization is in control of the topic itself, the long-termtrends, the sequence of events, the complexinterrelationships among individuals, communities,bureaucracies, customs, and the courts. I have sequencedthe presentations that follow, and provide a brief guide tothem below. Overall, I am thoroughly delighted with theresult, and hope that our readers are as well.This article is in two parts: first, a lay-person'sintroduction to the historical context and intricacies of thecontinuing battle over water rights for Native Americans(I and others have sometimes referred to them as "Indianwater rights" for variety). Where it is appropriate to doso, I have cross-referenced my comments to the author'sname [in brackets]. Between newsletters and the Internet(neither of which I have used in this presentation), thereis no shortage of information on this topic; my intent herewas to present a comprehensible summary of what isgoing on in this arena. The second part is a brief summary guide to the articlesthat follow, a condensed connective commentary on theauthors and their contributions. HISTORICAL CONTEXTDavid Getches related the story behind Winters v. theUnited States (207 US 564, 1908) in his 1989presentation at the AWRA symposium on Indian WaterRights in Missoula, Montana. He personalized the storyof an intrepid Indian Agent who went to bat for membersof the Belknap Indian Reservation of the Gros Ventre andAssiniboine Indians of the Blackfeet Tribe. They foundthe flow of Montana's Milk River diminished owing toupstream appropriators. A courageous United StatesMarshall concurred and helped convince a judge. Thesethree men, said Getches, "did what they had to do becauseit was right". The Winters Decision (an appeal to theSupreme Court) forever changed resources managementin the western states and, ultimately, has affected courtand resource management decisions in the eastern statesas well. Winters rights (also referred to as "the WintersDoctrine") is one of three "species of Indian water rights"[S. Williams].Although the upstream appropriators had complied withstate law governing the right to use water under thestate-sanctioned appropriation doctrine, which had beenadopted throughout the arid western states following thedecision in Irwin v. Phillips (5 Cal 140 (1885), 43 AmDec 113, 1855) in the California gold fields, [t]he Court rejected this argument and found thatstate law did not control Indian water rights.Rather, it was held that the United States, when itrecognized the Indian reservation throughCongressional action, implicitly reservedsufficient water with the land in order to fulfill thevery purpose for which the reservation had beencreated, namely, to help the Indians establish anew way of life based on the arts of non-Indiancivilization, including agriculture.This implied reservation of water was made to fit in withthe appropriative rights under state law in one importantway, by the assignment of a priority date ) the date onwhich the Indian reservation was created. Since suchdates almost always preceded non-Indian settlement aswell as the establishment of many western states, thisprinciple had the effect of giving priority to Indianreserved rights over most non-Indian appropriative rights.The Court also held that the Indian reserved rights, incontrast to state-created rights, continued in effect eventhough not put to beneficial use (one of the three criteriafor a valid appropriation), and that they could expand tofit the purposes of the reservation (Folk-Williams 1982).The decision was so controversial that it wasn't even2addressed for nearly sixty1 years; Simms said"[h]istorically, Congress forgot to address the issue.Today, the potato's gotten so hot Congress wouldn't touchit with a ten-foot pole" (Simms 1980). Not until thedecision in Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963)were the rights to water for Native Americans mentionedagain in a Supreme Court decision. It is still a hot issue.When finally addressed and defined in 1963,quantification of irrigation application per unit area andpracticably irrigable acreage became issues of primaryconcern; some ramifications of that decision are stillbefore the courts. The quantification of irrigable lands [S.Williams] and reasonable amounts of water for theincredibly arid real estate bestowed upon NativeAmericans meant potential economic disaster for theefforts of settlers who developed the water resourcesunder state law, sanctioned by a state constitution-approving Congress. Stressed by constitutional questionson the one hand and treaty justice on the other, theUnited States stayed the course, although thereconciliation period has been long. It is confounded nowwith long-standing concerns over fish [Shelton] andwildlife [Spangler], water quality [Royster, Cottinghamand Specking], endangered species [Leeper, McCool,Cottingham and Specking], and the land base itself[Shelton].Irony above all: by the time the first of the many NativeAmerican water rights conflicts were litigated ornegotiated, and settled, the reduction in the federal role ofwater development meant that once again the Indianpopulation was beset by inequities. Governmentallargesse for building dams, canals, and other waterresource improvements was no longer the backbone of theNation's water development programs. On the other hand,by then, the patterns of water use were largely set, and theIndians, finally, had (in many cases) the upper hand; ifthe non-Indian settlers and their descendants wanted tokeep their developed water supplies, they would have tobuy the rights from those who held them, and theeconomic scales tipped [McCool; S. Williams], althoughas we see below, not without inter-Indian conflict as well.With further litigation pertaining to on-reservation taxes,federal and state services, education and quality of life,and casino gambling, many Native Americans no longerface a life of poverty. Some decry these developments; butnone can deny their existence. The water resources issue did not develop in a vacuum[Shelton]. Nearly simultaneous growth of the AmericanIndian Movement, the changing mission of the Bureau ofIndian Affairs from a basic policy of assimilation tocelebration of the potential contribution of NativeAmerican culture magnified the ground swell of both thecivil rights and environmental quality movements of the1960s and the 1970s. The legacy of those struggles as weprepare to enter the 21st Century includes the potentialfor water resources development for many tribes;economic improvement in the life of many ) but mostassuredly not all )  Native Americans; a new, broadercommitment to the value of diversity in our nation, and,hopefully, of the importance of that diversity to the verysurvival of democracy and mankind.2Native American Houdenosaunee [Patterson] preceptsinclude an ancient view of how mankind can live insustainable harmony with nature: Never collect the firstberries or fruit, nor keep the first fish caught, nor kill thefirst game you see; for then you will not have collected,kept, or killed the last. Native Americans also oftenengage in lengthy deliberations over how a proposedcourse of action might affect the seventh generation; thisis frustrating to impatient progress-and-result-drivennon-Indians who are less in tune with their environment.It is important for the non-Indian population tounderstand these and other Native American ideas, forthey would be good resource management guideposts tolive by for all of us. Today, a large number of individuals and organizationsare making it their business to understand Indian cultureand to correct historical inequities that are inherentlyconfounded with long-term basic principles of our waterresources management. The list includes ablebureaucra ts, consultants, educators, lawyers,philanthropists, whole law firms, and citizens' groups;and there are newly-educated and empowered NativeAmericans, too, who are joining in the fight for justiceover control and distribution of the resources necessary toeconomic stability and well-being. All in all, there aremany, many people intimately involved with the issue ofNative American water rights. Some of these people andorganizations are represented by our dedicated authors,all of whom are too busy to add yet another demand ontheir time, yet who also all believe that contributing tothis type of publication is an important part of tellingtheir story and achieving their objectives. All are makinga difference.A GUIDE TO THE ARTICLES33The lead article is by Susan M. Williams, partner in theIndian-owned law firm of Gover, Stetson & Williams,P.C. in Albuquerque, is entitled "An Overview of IndianWater Rights". Successful litigator in the Big Horn caseof 1989, Williams is active in numerous other waterrights cases and negotiations, and presents acomprehensive, legal summary that more accuratelydefines the arena than do I in this more generalintroductory piece. The reader will note that Williamsrefers to the issue of sovereignty of the federalgovernment; in order for the Indians to successfullylitigate water rights that were not very favorably lookedupon by the state courts that have original jurisdictionover the state-based western water law, it was necessaryfor the United States to allow itself to be sued; this wasgranted by the McCarran Amendment of 1952, athorough explanation of which is presented in "TheMcCarran Amendment and the Administration of TribalReserved Water Rights" by Jay F. Stein, partner in theSanta Fe law firm of Simms and Stein. Stein goes beyondthe legislation and describes the current concerns thathave resulted from the court successes of the Indians.These include interpretation of the status of water rightsthat might be transferred to non-Indians by sale andwaters of the Bureau of Reclamation's Central ArizonaProject. While Stein's article contains more legalese thanmany of us non-lawyers are comfortable with, it is a mostinformative and well-crafted, easy-to-read article; and itis important to remember that the specific terminology ofthe law is the basis for the way things are, for "telling itlike it is".Brett Lee Shelton's "A View From the Front Lines"presents an attorney's view of details, histories, and statusof four current cases on which he is working or hasworked, along with information on the operations of theNative American Rights Fund (NARF). These casesillustrate the wide-ranging set of topics affected by waterrights, including fish and game and land use issues, alongwith traditional irrigation. Of special interest here are therelationships among the several tribal, state, and federalorganizations involved.Christopher L. Kenney, Director of the Office of NativeAmerican Affairs in the Bureau of Reclamation, bringsalive the differences between litigation and negotiation inthe resolution of complex water rights issues. Hepersonalizes the recent past and current events, therebyhighlighting the continuing need for the input ofdedicated individuals. His article "The Legacy and thePromise of the Settlement of Indian Reserved RightWater Claims" ably describes the cycles of interest andactivity, lip-service and commitment, culture and politics.Note especially the tie-in to the McCarran Amendment,the observation about changing BR activities andcost-sharing rules, and benefits of settlements tonon-Indians.Political Science Professor Daniel McCool writes aboutmore of the specific details of the negotiated tribal claimsto water in "Indian Water Settlements". Against thebackground of the preceeding articles, these stories takeon new drama; and the difficulties and opportunities forfunding settlements takes on new meaning.An even more detailed account of the volatile issues inone specific locale ) the San Juan River Basin ) isilluminated by John W. Leeper, Civil Engineer with theNavajo Nation's Department of Natural Resources. His"Avoiding a Train Wreck" is, in his words, "only a slightexaggeration", but it makes exciting reading nevertheless.Against the important background of the Colorado RiverCompact, he brings in yet another dimension to thequantification issue, namely the role of the EndangeredSpecies Act. His experience also clearly indicates theneed for public participation in settlements.Susan Cottingham, Program Director, and JoanSpecking, Historical Researcher and Technical TeamLeader, both of the  Montana Reserved Water RightsCompact Commission join forces to present a detailedsummary of a NARF- and Western States WaterCouncil-sponsored symposium held in Portland in 1993.Several of the individuals participating in the symposiumwere on my list of potential authors, and I am happy to beable to present their specific strategies, views, andactivities, along with reinforcement of the importance ofthe cultural context of the water resource for NativeAmericans, well documented earlier in Chris Kenney'sarticle.Neil Patterson, Technical Specialist for the AtlanticStates Legal Foundation relates that organization'sactivities along with actions involving other tribes andinternational extensions. Note that this organization is inthe east (Syracuse, NY), but its geographic area ofactivity is not so restricted. Again, the background of theIndians cultural consideration of natural resources is ofcontinuing importance, here with the view of a NativeAmerican.Associate Professor of Law at the University of TulsaJudith V. Royster has a growing record and reputation foraction on behalf of Native Americans. She is currently4ENDNOTES1.   "Later cases of the federal courts" continues Folk-Williams, "extended the Winters Doctrine to cover allreservations created by executive order, as well as by treaty, and to the lands allocated to individual tribal membersunder federal statutes. In the landmark case of Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963) the Supreme Court statedthat the principle of reserved rights extended to all federal reservations, not just to Indian lands." The concept of whatis now known as the Reservation Doctrine was actually applied earlier in the decision in Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325U.S. 589(1945),  wherein the United States claimed all the unappropriated water in Platte River on the grounds thatit had not disposed of the water rights it had acquired when it obtained the land "by cessions from France, Spain, andMexico...." Colorado maintained otherwise as it impleaded in the case on the grounds that the United States hadacquiesced to the state's right to grant appropriations by Congressional ratification of its constitution, the first tocontain the appropriation doctrine.involved in water quality issues and relationships betweentribal, state, and federal governments. Here she ordersand clarifies some of the activities involving the manyresponsibilities and authorities for compliance with theClean Water Act.Professor George Spangler of the Department of Fisheriesand Wildlife at the University of Minnesota has beenactive in biological research that documents entitlementson behalf of several tribes in the midwest and Ontario,Canada. His technical expertise, and cultural andhistorical approaches are of considerable importance toseveral ongoing conflicts, and he has been able toestablish the impact of introduced species on the aquaticecosystems on which both Indians and non-Indiansdepend.A summary comment: I hope you are as impressed as Iam at the breadth of activities in the Native Americanwater rights field; at the broad range of expertise that isbeing brought to bear on the problem; at the dedication ofthe individuals and the commitments to conflictresolution, largely through the development ofpartnerships; and at the communications abilities of theauthors.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSI am indebted to all those who spent valuable time fromincredibly busy schedules to help with this project. Onlya deep dedication to furthering the rights of all peoplemakes one set aside the time to get such a job done. Theskill, drive, caring, and talents of those who arerepresented here is self-evident, and I am deeply gratefulto them.Thanks are also extended to several individuals (authorsand non-authors alike) who took valuable time to put mein touch with the prospective contributors whose articles are here before you. They include people who didn't planon contributing an article, but who spent time on thephone with me concerning details of the issues, providingnames, and answering my many questions. AnneCrichton, Charles Howe, David Getches, Richard Simms,Robert Abrams, Bill Goldfarb, Steve Light, WilliamSwan, Bob Williams, Tim Vollman, and Jack Manno.I am particularly indebted to my late father, Algernon D.Black and to Richard A. Simms. The former because ofhis life-long role model in pursuit of justice for theoppressed; the latter because his 1980 article originallyopened my eyes to the nature of the issues underlying therights of Native Americans to life-giving water. REFERENCESFolk-Williams, J., 1982. What Indian Water Means to theWest. Volume One of WATER IN THE WEST,Western Network, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 153 pp.Lord, W. B., and M. G. Wallace, 1989. Indian WaterRights and Water Resources Management,Symposium Proceedings, American Water ResourcesAssociation, 950 Herndon Parkway, Suite 300,Herndon, VA 20170-5531. 188 pp.Simms, R. A., 1980. "Issues in Determining IndianWater Rights," in Federal Reserve Bank of KansasCity (1980), Western Water Resources: ComingProblems and the Policy Alternatives, WestviewPress, Boulder, CO. pp 67-72. 52.  Perhaps one of the  more fascinating recent developments doesn't involve water rights at all ) directly. In thesummer of 1996, in an arid site along the Columbia River, a bone skeleton was discovered that was 9,300 years old,that is, he arrived ) and died ) shortly after the ice retreated. Kennewick Man, as this individual is known, is claimedby resident tribes as a part of their heritage under the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act,but the well-preserved skull is "suggestive of Caucasoid features" (Science, v. 275, 7 March 1997, p. 1423). Once theownership battles are settled in the courts, the definition of "Native Americans" may undergo some change, too,possibly further complicating rights to water under the Winters Doctrine.  3.  I have attempted to make citations and footnotes uniform, but have deferred to several different styles of each.  Ifchanges in character formatting or style is now incorrect (or different from what an author submitted), I take fullresponsibility therefor, and apologize to the authors.

Buckley, Peter

The University of Manchester - Institutional Repository

Brezonik, Patrick L

2FORWARDLimnology's Second Century: New Challenges and OpportunitiesPatrick L. BrezonikUniversity of Minnesota Limnology is among the oldest of the fields of study that comprise the water resources sciences.  Its founding usuallyis associated with two late-19th century publications: Stephen Forbes' 1887 essay "The Lake as a Microcosm" andFrancois Forel's massive Le Leman, a three-volume treatise on the limnology of Lake Geneva, published over theperiod 1892 to 1904.  Although the early history of limnology is associated most closely with lakes as the objects ofstudy, modern limnology is defined more broadly as the science of all inland waters: lakes and reservoirs, rivers andstreams, and wetlands.  More precisely, it is a multidisciplinary science that includes all the basic sciences relevantto understand the physical, chemical and biological behavior of these water bodies and an interdisciplinary science thatintegrates the information from various disciplines into a holistic understanding of inland water bodies.In the field's first century, limnologists made tremendous advances in our fundamental understanding of how inlandwaters function as ecosystems and how they interact with their terrestrial watersheds.  Especially since the advent ofthe "environmental era" in the 1960s, limnologists have contributed greatly to our understanding of the impacts ofpollutants on inland water ecosystems and to the scientific basis for managing and solving water pollution problems.As the need for clean and safe water continue to grow in the face of increasing populations and increasingly intensiveuse of the landscapes in which inland water reside, the need for limnological knowledge and research should continueto grow.  The field thus would appear to have a bright future.However, not all is well in limnology as it enters its second century, and the field is somewhat at a crossroads.  For thepast five years or so, growing numbers of limnologists have expressed concern about the status of their field, especiallywithin higher education.  Many issues contribute to a lengthy list of challenges for the future health of the field.  Ingeneral, these problems and concerns can be grouped into six major areas:(1)  inadequacy or instability of research support, especially in certain subfields;(2) loss of academic positions, especially in biological limnology;(3) growing fragmentation in academic programs, an ironic situation for an inherently interdisciplinaryfield,(4) inadequate educational programs, both at the general education level and at the professional level;(5) growing professional separation among various kinds of limnologists; and(6) poor public understanding of limnology and failure to identify it as a field that can contribute to thesolution of aquatic problems important to human society.Insofar as recognition of a problem is the first step in articulating solutions, the self-criticism that has occurred withinthe field is a healthy sign.  Discussions on these issues have appeared in limnological journals over the five years, mostnotably in Limnology and Oceanography.  These discussions have led to several initiatives dedicated to criticalexamination of the field and to developing of recommendations to overcome the perceived deficiencies and problems.These initiatives include (1) a review and assessment by leading scientists within the American Society of Limnologyand Oceanography (ASLO), (2) an agenda-setting initiative for freshwater research called the Freshwater Imperative,and (3) a study by the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council that is focusing on educational issuesin limnology.  The authors of the five articles in this issue of Water Resources Update all have been active in theseinitiatives, and the articles are summaries of the initiatives with which they have been associated.The ASLO review resulted in a report, "Challenges for Limnology in North America: An Assessment of the Disciplinein the 1990s (ASLO  Bulletin, in press), that describes the problems facing limnology and places them in a historical3context.  It contains a broad range of recommendations to re-invigorate the field and reverse the trend towardfragmentation among its component disciplines and subject areas.  The lead author of the "challenges report", WilliamLewis, University of Colorado, describes the work of his committee in the first article of this issue.The Freshwater Imperative is an initiative of a diverse group of aquatic scientists from government agencies, academicinstitutions, and the private sector to address research needs in limnology and to develop plans for government-supported interdisciplinary research programs or freshwater ecosystems.  The article authored by John Magnuson,University of Wisconsin, Robert Naiman, University of Washington, Penny Firth, National Science Foundation, DianeMcKnight, U.S. Geological Survey, and Jack Stanford, University of Montana, describes the first tangible project ofthe Freshwater Imperative, a soon-to-be-published book edited by these individuals (The Freshwater Imperative: AResearch Agenda, Island Press, Washington, D.C., in press) that summarizes the results of an agenda-setting workshopinvolving a wide array of aquatic scientists.  A companion article by Penny Firth describes recent developments at theNational Science Foundation to provide substance (i.e., research programs and funds) to the recommendations of theFreshwater Imperative.  In particular, she describes the recently announced joint grant competition of NSF and theEnvironmental Protection Agency called "Water and Watersheds."  The broadly stated goal of the competition is tosupport interdisciplinary research aimed at improving our understanding of the principles for protecting and managingwater resources in the United States.  The two agencies have committed a minimum of $10 million to this effort infiscal year 1995, a not insignificant stimulus for freshwater research in a period of fiscal austerity for governmentprograms, and certainly a positive sign for the future of research on inland freshwaters.The National Research Council's study committee "Future of the Science of Inland Aquatic Ecosystems," establishedin 1994, has undertaken a broad review of the problems confronting limnology, but it is devoting special attention toeducational and professional concerns.  Its report, expected to be published by National Academy Press by the end of1995, will include recommendations to improve the graduate training of limnologists, to lessen the fragmentation andseparation that exists among subfields of the profession and within education programs in limnology, and to integrateacademic limnology better with professional practice.  In preparation for a week-long workshop of the committee,which I have the honor of chairing, committee members prepared a series of background and position papers lastsummer on topics related to the committee's charge.  Summary versions of two of these papers are included in this issueof  .  Robert Wetzel, University of Alabama, presents a strong critique of the current status of limnological trainingin the United States and offers a vision for creating more rigorous, comprehensive, and integrated education programs.Wayne Minshall, Idaho State University, discusses the renaissance of biological considerations and measurements inwater quality assessments and describes the expanded role that biologists and biological concepts must play in makingintegrated aquatic ecosystem management a reality rather than a distant goal.It has been a pleasure putting this issue of Update together.  I appreciate very much the cooperation of the authors intheir willingness to take the time from their busy schedules to participate in this forum and in the timely submissionof their manuscripts.  The subjects they discuss have broad importance to the future of limnology in this country and,in turn, to the well-being and wise management of our critically important inland water resources.Patrick L. BrezonikDepartment of Civil Engineering and Water Resources Research CenterUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolis and St. PaulIssue Editor

BIAGI, Paolo

Archivio istituzionale della ricerca - Università degli Studi di Venezia Ca' Foscari

https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1370&amp;context=jcwre

Foreword

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Name not available

OpenSIUC

The University of Manchester - Institutional Repository

OpenSIUC

The University of Manchester - Institutional Repository

Archivio istituzionale della ricerca - Università degli Studi di Venezia Ca' Foscari