WSPC12533 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

000752 As the parties began preparing for trial, it became clear that there were many contested issues, including the priorJ dates of the claimed rights, the amounts of water to which the Tribes were entitled,3 the purposes lor which the wat could be used, whether the water could be used off the reservations, and how and by whom the rights would be administered. Rather than pursuing lengthy, costly, and hostile litigation, all the parties sat down together and, afi years of negotiation, entered into the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Final Settlement Agreement in 1986. TH years later, Congress passed the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988, Public Law 100-585, at. President Reagan signed it, affirming thefederal commitment to build Animas-La Plata. In 1991, the Colorado wat, court entered consent decrees based on the Settlement Agreement and passage of the Settlement Act and necessary state legislation. However, compliance with environmental statutes and questions about the project's cost delayed construction. Thus, ten years after passage of the Settlement Act, the United States still has not kept its promise to build this project In an effort to break the stalemate, project proponents entered into discussions with project opponents under the auspices of Colorado's governor and lieutenant governor. After meeting many times and consulting with federal agencies, each side put forward a proposal The opponents' proposal relied primarily on the payment of money, which was not acceptable to the Ute Tribes. The proponents, however, negotiated among themselves, with the Trib. and water users all making major concessions, to arrive at the proposal for a smaller, less expensive project that fon the basis for S.B. 1771. The project benefICiaries decided to limit the project to the 57,100 acre-feet of depletions tll an FWS biological opinion determined would not harm endangered fISh species in the river they allocated most of the project water to the Ute Tribes, with other water users in Colorado and New Mexico, including the Navajo Natio receiving a smaller share. *3(a). I"igated agriculture took the biggest hit; about 48,000 acre-feet are allocated to Indian and non-Indian municipal and industrial uses, *3(a), while the Secretary is authorized to allocate an additional 6,010 acre-feetfor i"igation, *3(b). The Act does not include any facilities to deliver water to the La Pin basin, but non-Indian farmers and ranchers in that basin benefit from S.B. 1771 because it protects their existing water rights by finally removing the threat that has hung over their heads all these years. *3(c). Some project opponents question the Ute Tribes' decision to insist that the United States live up to its part of the bargain and build a real reservoir that holds real water rather than giving them money to buy water rights. These groups presume to tell the Tribes that they are making a bad deal because the modified project does not include wat delivery facilities. Certainly the Tribes would prefer to have delivery facilities included in the project, as they shol4 be under the Settlement Agreement and 1988 Act, but they elected to sacrifice those facilities in order to secure wat in storage that they can use on or off the reservations, consistent with the water marketing provisions of the Settleme Agreement and the 1988 Act, which remain unchanged. Project opponents fail to respect the Tribes' long strugg to secure water for their future. Instead, they seek to penalize the Tribes for compromising, and to force them to ta, money in place of the water to which they are entitled. Project opponents also argue that S.B. 1771 exempts the Animas-La Plata Project from environmental complianc. That is absolutely not true. Rather, the Act recognizes that there has already been full compliance with the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Clean Water Act. *3(c). Animas-La Plai may well be the most thoroughly studied, modified, and mitigated water project in history. In fact, the high pumpil costs about which its opponents complain are the result of the original, environmentally sensitive siting decision to build the reservoir off-channel, rather than in the Animas Gorge. Federal agencies and environmental groups wI. will be satisfied with nothing less than complete abandonment of the project study the project to death. S.B. 1771 simply says ttenough is enough. " 3 Indian reserved rights are generally quantified on the basis of "practicably irrigable acreage." Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546, 598-601 (1963). This number was very much in dispute.