<text>You are about search for bibliographical information in the water resources database, brought to you by the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and the USDA Forest Service Partners in environmental education. To start browsing through the bibliography, just click on the mouse.</text>
<text>Berner, Elizabeth K., Robert A. Berner. "The Global Water Cycle." Jersey: Prenctice-Hall, Inc. 1987.</text>
</content>
<content>
<layer>background</layer>
<id>2</id>
<text> This book studies natural waters by approaching it through a discussion on an elementary level of the geological, biological, physical, and anthropogenic which control the chemical composition of water around the world.</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_5762.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>SUNDAY'S JOURNAL carried an Op-Ed piece by Les McFadden concerning the Zuni Tribe's claim against the United States for environmental damage. Having been a student of New Mexico's environmental history for the past 15 years, I read the piece with interest and amazement. McFadden asserts that there is no connection between arroyo cutting on the Zuni reservation and heavy logging and overgrazing in the up-lands above it.If you believe that, you probably also accept the American Tobacco Institute's denial of links between cigarette smoking and lung disease. McFadden's historical record has gaps in it. The historical record I am used to consulting supports the conclusion, denied by him, that there was considerable logging in the Zuni watershed prior to 1912, as well as extensive overgrazing long before 1934. No sensible person these days believes you can smoke for half a lifetime and not get sick from it. Nor should anyone believe that you can skin a landscape of its trees and grass and not reap floods and gullies downstream. The modern literature on the subject goes back more than a century and a quarter. The studies during the last 80 years that focus on New Mexico alone would fill a small library.Let's not be fooled by those who would twist history to fit policy. Instead let's put the justice back in the Justice Department and support our political delegation's bipartisan effort to settle the Zuni claim and heal the tribe's land. WILLIAM DEBUYS Santa Fe DeBuys, William. "Heavy Logging Caused Flooding." Albuquerque Journal Letters to the Editor. 20 August 1990. A5.</text>
</content>
<content>
<layer>background</layer>
<id>1</id>
<text>DeBuys, William. "Heavy Logging Caused Flooding." Albuquerque Journal Letters to the Editor. 20 August 1990. A5.</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_2519.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>By E. Richard HartINSTITUTE OF THE NORTHAMERICAN WESTThe Zuni Claims Settlement Act of 1990 will establish a model conservation program on the Zuni Reservation to combat active erosion there and create a permanent fund to support sustainable development of Zuni resources. The act is supported by the entire New Mexico congressional delegation and has been sponsored in the Senate by Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and in the House by Bill Richardson, D-N.M.Taxpayers should be pleased at this $25 million measure, for it will result in considerable long-term savings by reducing the government's burden to provide erosion and flood control and by settling two longstanding legal claims of the Zuni Tribe.Impetus to settle the Zuni claims came from George Bush, who in 1988 wrote to leaders at Zuni, explaining that it would be his policy to settle claims against the government legislatively, "Tribes should not be forced to litigate where the evidence is clear that rights exist." He said that as president, he would "ask Congress for its cooperation in reaching the settlement of all just claims as rapidly as possible."As a result, Zuni leaders met with officials of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and drafted the Zuni Claims Settlement Act. The BIA recognizes that there is extensive active erosion on the Zuni Reservation and that the United States has a responsibility to address that damage. Zuni decided it was willing to settle its claims against the government for 50 cents on the dollar so the tribe could begin immediate work on erosion problems.From past experience, Zuni knows it could be 15 years before the court decides the litigation, by which time erosion damage will be much greater.For two years the tribe and its experts worked closely with offices of the New Mexico delegation. After reviewing the evidence, Sen. Domenici determined that the United States was likely to have significant liability in the two cases before the claims court. He was joined by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., in sponsoring the bill in the Senate, where it passed byunanimous consent.Rep. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., sponsored the bill in the House, joined by co-sponsors Reps. Joe Skeen and Steven Schiff, both R-N.M. There the bill has passed through the Interior Committee and is awaiting a final vote on the floor.Two broad issues should be addressed in considering this legislation. First, is the bill a good conservation measure that will appropriately address Zuni's problems? There is no debate on this subject. The local BIA agrees that the erosion control is necessary, and has worked with the tribe in drafting the plan to address these problems. National and international conservation leaders have spoken in favor of the legislation, saying that even if the tribe were not dropping its claims, the sustainable development plan the tribe is proposing is reason enough for passage.Second, does the tribe have legitimate claims against the United States? Massive evidence shows conclusively that Zuni does have legitimate claims against the United States and that the United States' liability is considerably in excess of the $25 million that will be authorized by this act.Documentary evidence has shown that the government mined coal and cut timber on the reservation for its own purposes without any payment to the tribe. For many years, salt was taken from the Zuni Salt Lake without payment to the tribe. Persistent trespass by non-Indian livestock has occurred on the reservation over the course of a century.Though the government specifically promised to protect Zuni water, large amounts were allowed to be diverted for non-Indian use. Hundreds of archaeological sites have been damaged or destroyed by federal construction projects.The value of these damages alone has been shown to be well in excess of the $25 million authorized in the act. More significantly, five years after the submission of evidence documenting these claims, the United States has been unable to provide any expert testimony to rebut these Zuni claims, and thus has no defense for these damages.Recently the Department of Justice has suggested that it hadn't heard of Zuni's claims for damages due to lost water. However, court and congressional documents demonstrate that the department was made aware of Zuni's claim years ago.Zuni has made one other claim, that the bulk of the erosional problems on the reservation have been caused by the cut-over watershed above the reservation, overgrazing and the improper construction and maintenance of dams and other structures on the reservation. The Department of Justice has claimed, in response, that human activities do not affect either the rate of erosion or the conservation of soil within the Zuni watershed. This is an antiquated l9th century anti-conservation ethic which all sensible people will reject.If such were the case, we would not need the Soil Conservation Service, National Forest Service, or Bureau of Land Management. Experts for the Department of Justice have constructed elaborate theoretical models in an effort to dispute the well-documented history of the Zuni watershed. However, the historical facts support Zuni's claims and not the government's somewhat desperate attempt to find a defense.An amendment to the bill provides that Zuni should receive just compensation for damages awarded by the court in another case. There the court determined that a large amount of land was taken from the Zunis by the United States without payment. Fraudulent land activities committed by U.S. officials in the l9th century prevented the tribe from properly presenting their claims to Congress, and thus they will be paid only the value of lands at the time they were taken.This amendment will allow interest to be paid to the tribe. Because the interest payment will come from a large existing fund, such a payment will not affect taxes, nor, as the Congressional Budget Office has pointed out, will it have any budgetary impact.The Zuni Claims Settlement Act of 1990 is a well-fashioned piece of legislation that will result in a permanent model conservation effort. I am confident that in years to come the New Mexico delegation will be praised for foresight in its bipartisan effort to sponsor and successfully pass this act.E. Richard Hart, executive director of the Institute of the NorthAmerican West, is an authority on environmental history and ethnohistory of Zuni and the Zuni landscape.Hart, E. Richard. "Litigation Can Only Protract the Erosion of Land and Justice." Albuquerque Journal Op-Ed. 5 August 1990. B3.</text>
</content>
<content>
<layer>background</layer>
<id>1</id>
<text>Hart, E. Richard. "Litigation Can Only Protract the Erosion of Land and Justice." Albuquerque Journal Op-Ed. 5 August 1990. B3.</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_5343.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>By Les McFadden UNM GEOLOGY PROFESSOR In 1981, the Zuni Tribe sued the federal government. The suit, which is still in litigation, alleges that policies, acts and omissions of the United States were directly responsible for severe and unnatural erosion of the tribe's land and has increasingly destroyed farmland. The claim is based almost entirely on one assertion: that deep arroyos did not exist on the Zuni lands for as much as 5,000 years prior to the turn of the century. The claim was made despite the fact that geologists have never seen gully systems like those on the reservation develop so rapidly anywhere else.Zuni consultants have put the blame on the construction of Black Rock Dam in the early part of this century, clearcut logging on the Zuni Reservation before 1912, and overgrazing. Geoscientists have long recognized the links between the changes in climate, erosion rates and arroyo development, but the Zuni's hired consultants reject this link because they have ignored evidence of climate change during this time.Over the past four years, research efforts of Department of Justice geologists, geomorphologists, climatologists, ecologists, civil engineers and hydrologists have clearly demonstrated that the primary basis for the tribal claim is incorrect. These scientists have demonstrated that natural, long-term geologic processes acting over thousands of years are the primary cause. Here are the reasons: ΓÇóMany arroyos existed on the Zuni Reservation before 1900. They are visible on old photographs, documented in the written records of the time, and even show up on maps made during this time. Some arroyos have trees that.started growing in the arroyo several hundred years ago. Carbon dating techniques show that the sediment filling in the old arroyos is hundreds to thousands of years old. These kinds of studies show that deep gulches formed in the landscape many times in the past several thousand years. Because these earlier cycles were all caused by nature, there is no reason to believe that there is a special cause-effect relationship between human activity and the present cycle. ΓÇó There is no evidence for a link between logging on the reservation and arroyo development. According to historical records, the land on the west side of the Continental Divide in this part of New Mexico was not logged until after 1912. The Zuni consultants, however, believe that 75 percent of the arroyo downcutting and erosion was complete by 1911, a year before logging started west of the divide. The consultants have also drastically overestimated the area of land that allegedly was clearcut. They studied aerial photographs and assumed that the light-toned areas with no Ponderosa pine trees had been logged. In the majority of these areas, the soil types do not support Ponderosa pine growth, according to studies of forest ecologists. Trees were never there to cut down.ΓÇóThere is no evidence for the assertion that the construction of dams on the reservation is linked to arroyo development. The Zuni consultants' claim that the Black Rock Dam on the reservation failed in 1905 is false. It was the Ramah Reservoir built on private land by Mormon inhabitants upstream from the Black Rock Dam that failed. The claim that the dam failed in 1909 is also false. The release of water at that time was due to undermining of a lock, not to failure of the dam itself. In the Zuni Reservation, the stream channels in the landscape form a branching pattern called a drainage network. Geologists have shown that the formation of such a pattern ~quires centuries to many thousand years. The claim that this erosion pattern was caused by dam failure goes against a large body of established geologic research.ΓÇó There is no evidence that the alleged overgrazing on the reservation and arroyo development are linked. Zuni elders have said that overgrazing did not become a problem on the reservation until 1934. This is decades after the alleged human-caused erosion took place. ΓÇó Detailed examination of climatological records and tree ring analysis show that a significant climatic change did occur in this part of New Mexico during the late l9th century and early 20th century. There was a major drought on the reservation between 1898 and 1904. Then the weather was unusually wet for about 20 years. During the first part of the 20th century, summer rainstorms were particularly severe. Any scientifically acceptable explanation for arroyo formation in the last century must consider such changes in climate. The results of the research of government scientists concerning the relationship of climatic change and arroyo development will be published in an issue of the peer-reviewed journal, Annals of the Association of American Geographers later this year. In light of the U.S. government's poor track record in reimbursing Native Americans for damages it has inflicted, it is tempting to uncritically accept the assertion that the government is yet again the culprit concerning the Zuni claims, especially since the government still encourages or permits environmentally damaging practices elsewhere. Convincing the government to reconsider environmentally damaging policies and to take a leadership role in repairing the damage already done requires that the problems be studied objectively ΓÇö by impartial scientists doing good science. To terminate the process of litigation of Zuni against the federal government by unilateral establishment of a $25 million trust fund (of which up to $8 million would go to pay tribal lawyers and other representatives) would be a disservice to taxpayers. It would supercede the time-honored process that permits careful and detailed examination of all claims by an unbiased judge and replace it with the votes of representatives with a political stake. There is little doubt that the Native Americans have been victimized by the federal government in the past. It is unlikely that the Zuni Pueblo is an exception. Setting up special trust funds may be an appropriate way to make amends. But the settlement cannot hinge on the assertion that the government is responsible for arroyos on the Zuni reservation because there is no scientific basis for this claim. To do so is tantamount to crying wolf and would only jeopardize the settlement of legitimate environmental and tribal claims in the future. An associate professor of geology at UNM, Les McFadden is a colleague of Geology Department chairman Stephen G. Wells, a Justice Department expert in the Zuni case. McFadden, Les. "Unsupported Claim of Zuni Doesn't Merit $25 Million Mea Culpa." Albuquerque Journal Op-Ed. 5 August 1990. B3.</text>
</content>
<content>
<layer>background</layer>
<id>1</id>
<text>McFadden, Les. "Unsupported Claim of Zuni Doesn't Merit $25 Million Mea Culpa." Albuquerque Journal Op-Ed. 5 August 1990. B3.</text>
