Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />claims. In essence, the parties devised a solution which met <br />their particular needs. They selected attributes from both <br />reserved water rights and state appropriative rights and created <br />a contractual water right for the tribes which had features of <br />both water rights. Whether the water right was called a federal <br />reserved or state appropriative water right made no difference as <br />the parameters of the use of the right were specified by their <br />agreement. <br /> <br />In summary, the Final Settlement Agreement provides the <br />following benefits: it quantifies tribal claims to water in a <br />manner which does not injure or displace existing non-Indian <br />users and which provides the tribes with usable water. The par- <br />ties were successful in initiating construction of a major recla- <br />mation project which will provide long-term regional economic <br />benefits; the reclamation projects will be used to provide <br />reserved water to the tribes. The tribes are not restricted in <br />their ability to use their water and are free to use their water <br />in a manner similar to other holders of state water rights. If a <br />tribe wants to use or sell its water rights off-reservation, it <br />can do so subject to existing state law and change-of-use pro- <br />ceedings: the Non-Intercourse Act is waived. Administration of <br />Indian reserved water rights is integrated into the state system <br />with beneficial use the key to all uses. The tribes and state <br />will share resource information and the tribes agree that all <br />water not reserved to the tribe will be administered and regu- <br />lated by the state. All changes in water rights or disputes over <br />the beneficial use of the water will be heard in state water <br />court. The tribes will receive $60.5 million in development <br />funds. <br /> <br />To a very large degree the Colorado settlement was shaped <br />by factors particular to these two tribes and the state: the <br />complex litigation history of the case; the availability of two <br />federal reclamation projects; the unique hydrology and geology of <br />the particular reservations; the historic relationships between <br />the Indian and non-Indian communities and other water users in <br />southwest Colorado; and Colorado's water law system. The settle- <br />ment was also driven by the same considerations which often push <br />other Indian water rights settlements, i.e., an inadequate supply <br />of water to meet existing uses and future tribal needs, unan- <br />swered questions concerning how a reserved water right can be <br />used, how it will be administered, and how it can be integrated <br />into a state system of water allocation. <br /> <br />Both the tribes and Colorado have been criticized by their <br />peers for giving away too much to the other side; the mutuality <br />of the criticisms lead us to believe the balance struck was fair <br /> <br />-10- <br />