Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />16. In 1976, the United States filed an Application of the United States of <br />Americajor Reserved Rights, Case No. W-1603-76 (Dec. 30, 1976), pursuant to C.R.S. 9 <br />37 -92-102, asserting reserved water rights on behalf of the Ute Tribes ("Tribal Claims"). <br />Subsequently, this case was divided into numerous separate cases, each addressing claims <br />on a different regional river. Rather than litigate their claims, the Ute Tribes agreed to <br />negotiate with the State, the United States, and other parties. In 1986, the negotiating <br />parties entered into the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Final Settlement Agreement of <br />December 10, 1986 ("1986 Settlement Agreement"), which formed the basis of the <br />Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-585 (102 Stat. <br />2973) ("1988 Settlement Act"). E.g., Applicant's Ex. 2 & 3 (1991 Stipulations) at 1. <br /> <br />17. As contemplated by the 1988 Settlement Act, the Moving Parties entered <br />into the Stipulations for a Consent Decree, which were submitted to this Court for <br />approval. Notice and Order, Case Nos. W-1603-76F and W-1603-76J (Dec. 19, 1991) <br />("1991 Notice and Order"). See Applicant's Ex. 13 (1988 Settlement Act) at SS 3(4), <br />5(a), 5(c)(I), 5(c)(2), 7(e), 9, 13(a) (referring to "fInal consent decree"); Applicant's Ex. <br />12 {1986 Settlement Agreement} at VI.A. Court approval followed on December 19, <br />1991. Applicant's Ex. 2 & 3 (1991 Consent Decrees). <br /> <br />18. As a basic matter, the Tribal Claims on the Animas and La Plata Rivers, <br />which were at issue in Case No. W-1603-76F (Animas River) and W-1603-76J (La Plata <br />River), were to be satisfied by allocating a certain quantity of water from the ALP to the <br />Ute Tribes for agricultural irrigation and municipal and industrial ("M&r') uses. <br />Applicant's Ex. 2 & 3 (1991 Consent Decrees); 13 (1988 Settlement Act). <br /> <br />19. The Tribes agreed in the settlement that their water right to water supplied <br />from the ALP would be "subordinated to all water rights decreed and senior to the <br />Animas-La Plata Project." Applicant's Ex. 2 & 3 (Stipulation for a Consent Decree) at <br />'''6.A.&7.A. The Tribes also agreed to "share on a pro rata basis the priority of the <br />Animas-La Plata Project, which has an adjudication date of March 21, 1966, and an <br />appropriation date of September 2, 1938." Id. The 1991 Consent Decrees and the 1986 <br />Settlement Agreement both allOWed the Ute Tribes to litigate or renegotiate their claims <br />on the Animas and La Plata Rivers if certain ALP facilities were not completed by <br />January 1,2000. Applicant's Ex. 2 & 3 (1991 Consent Decrees) at" 6.A.v., 7.A.v.; 12 <br />(1986 Settlement Agreement) at m.A.2.f., m.B.1.f. <br /> <br />20. The settlement authorized in the 1988 Settlement Act was not <br />implemented due to Endangered Species Act (hESA"), water quality and other concerns <br />in relation to ALP. Applicant's Ex. 10 (2000 FSEIS); 11 (ROD). The water rights <br />associated with ALP cannot be put to beneficial use until ALP construction is completed. <br />Over a period of years, there were considerable efforts by involved parties, including the <br />State and federal governments, to determine an alternate way to settle the reserved Tribal <br />claims. ld. Following completion of a federal environmental review process, BOR <br />conducted a supplemental enviro(lD1ental review ofvarious ways in which the ALP might <br />be configured and the Ute Tribes' water rights be ~ettled. Applicant's Ex. 1 (2000 <br /> <br />5 <br />