Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />95. The 2000 Settlement Act Amendments provide the conditions to be <br />fulfilled before the Ute Tribal claims to water rights on the Animas and La Plata Rivers in <br />Colorado may become final: <br /> <br />.~ <br />J <br />j <br />~.. <br /> <br />IN GENERAL - The construction of the facilities described [herein], the <br />allocation of the water supply from those facilities to the Tribes as described <br />[herein], and the provision of funds to the Tribes in accordance with section 16 <br />and the issuance of an amended fmal decree as contemplated in subsection (c) <br />shall constitute final settlement of the tribal claims to water rights on the Animas <br />and La Plata Rivers in the State of Colorado. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Applicant's Ex. 1 (2000 Settlement Act Amendments) at ~ 303 (9 18(a)). Nothing in <br />these provisions addresses the water rights claims or settlements on rivers other than the <br />Animas and La Plata Rivers that were entered in 1991 as final Consent Decrees. <br /> <br />96. This Court fmds as a matter offact that the water rights settlements of the <br />United States for the benefit ofthe two Ute Tribes in other rivers (e.g.. the Mancos, <br />Piedra, Pine, etc.) are not before the Court in any manner. <br /> <br />F. Other Entities to Receive Water Under the 2000 Settlement Act <br />Amendments: Out of State Use; Abandonment <br /> <br />97. CPA alleges that Section 302 of the 2000 Settlement Act Amendments <br />would grant Indian reserved water rights to entities other than the Ute Tribes and would <br />allow use of water outside the State of Colorado in violation of the 1991 Consent <br />Decrees. Reply on Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment at 7-9 (Jan. 17, 2006). In <br />. addition, CPA argues that the "alleged reallocation" of water and uses under the 2000 <br />Settlement Act Amendments as to the Ute Tribal water right constitutes abandonment of <br />some or all of the Tribal water rights in the 1991 Consent Decrees. See July 7 Order at <br />13. The Court finds no basis in fact for these claims. <br /> <br />98. There is nothing in the 2000 Settlement Act Amendments (Applicant's Ex. <br />1) that grants Indian reserved water rights to entities other than the United States on <br />behalf of the two Ute Tribes. Reallocation of ALP project water to various water <br />recipients does not imply that federal reserved water rights are bestowed upon entities <br />other than the two Ute Tribes. <br /> <br />99. CPA's claims that the 2000 Settlement Act Amendments authorize use of <br />Indian reserved water rights outside of the State of Colorado are without factual support. <br /> <br />100. As to CPA' s allegations of abandonment based on the requested <br />amendments to the 1991 Consent Decrees, the Court also finds this argument to be <br />without factual support. CPA has presented no evidence that the United States or the Ute <br />Tribes, by seeking an amendment to the 1991 Consent Decrees, evidence an intent to <br />abandon a water right. <br /> <br />28 <br />