Western States Water Council 2005 Report

Home Browse Search

both parties were willing to forge a settlement. The role of the U.S. settling federally - reserved water rights is that federal funds are needed, and federal programs are always affected by the settlements. She then shared 5 key roles of the federal government in reaching Indian water rights settlements: (1) assure that the benefit package for the tribe is not illusory; (2) assure that the federal and non- federal contributions are fair and reasonable; (3) ensure that the waiver of water rights claims are clearly defined and not overreaching; (4) ensure compliance with ESA; and (5) identify and resolve federal agency conflicts. Lou Leonard, with the DOI Indian Water Rights Office, shared his thoughts that the federal team approach worked well in the Shivwits Settlement. He feels that it created better relationships, and an amazingly sound and satisfying result. A bus tour of the Shivwits Paiute Tribes' Reservation and discussion of the settlement, as part of the symposium, started with a visit to Ivins and Gunlock reservoirs, which both play an essential role. The group also stopped along the Santa Clara River, and was privileged to see ancient petroglyphs found on the rocks within the reservation. Lastly, the Shivwits Band hosted a dinner and special presentation. Settlement Legislation: Getting Bills Through Congress The panel discussion on the "Congressional Outlook for Funding for Indian Water Rights Settlements" started with Mike Connor of the Senate Energy Committee. He said that there is a lot of work left to be done in regards to convincing Congress of the importance of funding Indian water right settlements. He added that we need to work hard to educate Congress since it is an issue ripe for legislation. Connor shared four justifications for settling Indian water rights: (1) to avoid litigation costs; (2) to eliminate claims against the U.S.; (3) to avoid the displacement of existing water users; and (4) to settle water rights consistent with the U.S.'s trustee obligations to the tribe. There is $63 million in the BIA 2002 budget for settlements. Margaret Stewart of the Senate Budget Committee then shared parts of a federal budget forecast, which will determine the relative difficulty of obtaining more settlement funds. Due to the terrorist attacks, and the subsequent military engagement, the surplus in the budget is rapidly declining, and Stewart predicts that deficit spending will likely occur beginning next year. Stewart's opinion is that there is a good chance the Domenici amendment will succeed within the next year or two. If successful, it would allow the discretionary budget caps to be adjusted up to $200 million, in order to facilitate funding of settlements. Later, when asked if she had noticed any opposition to S. 1186 on the Hill, she replied that she had not, and that the future looks good for the bill. Patricia Zell, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel for the Senate Indian Affairs Committee spoke briefly, followed by Steve McHugh, also with the Committee. McHugh gave an overview of the process of getting a bill considered. He believes that the Senate is a much easier venue for bills than is the House. When asked about opposition to S. 1186, Zell answered in the negative, and added that there is a unique alliance between WSWC and NARF, as well as governors and business interests. She feels that such a relationship is vital and very respected by those in Congress. It is a unique and unprecedented approach that will be very persuasive to congressional members who may not know very much about S. 1186. 31