WSPP00108

• File Number: 8064
• Description: Indian Water Rights
• State: CO
• Date: 3/31/1990
• Author: Lois G Witte
• Title: Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights-Final Settlement Agreement-December 10 1986-State and Tribal Partnerships in Negotiated Water Settlements-What Can Be Achieved
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

. '.

. ^
,

,

,

.

claims. In essence, the parties devised a solution which met
their particular needs. They selected attributes from both
reserved water rights and state appropriative rights and created
a contractual water right for the tribes which had features of
both water rights. Whether the water right was called a federal
reserved or state appropriative water right made no difference as
the parameters of the use of the right were specified by their
agreement.

The Final Settlement Agreement provides the following bene-
fits: it auantifies tribal claims to water in a manner which
does not iniure or displace existing users. The parties were
successful in initiating construction o~ a major reclamation
project which will provide long-term regional economic benefits;
the reclamation projects will be used to provide reserved water
to the tribes. The tribes are not restricted in thei~' abiLity to
use their water and are free to use their water in a manner simi-
lar to other holders of state water rights. If a tribe wants to
use or sell its water rights off-reservation, it can do so sub-
ject to existing state law and change-of-use proceedings: the
Non-Intercourse Act is waiv~d. Administration of Indian reserved
water rights is integrated into the state system witJr beneficial
use the key to all uses. The tribes and state will share
resource information and the tribes agree that all water not
reserved to the tribe will be administered and regulated by the
state. All changes in water rights or disputes over the benefi-
cial use of the water will be heard in state water court. The
tribes receiv~$60.5 million in development funds.

To a very large degree the Colorado settlement was shaped
by factors particular to these two tribes and the state: the
complex litigation history of the case; the availability of two
federal reclamation projects; the unique hydrology and geology of
the particular reservations; the historic relationships between
the Indian and non-Indian communities and other water users in
southwest Colorado; and Co10rado's water law system. The settle-
ment was also driven by the same considerations which often push
other Indian water rights settlements, i.e., an inadequate supply
of water to meet existing uses and future tribal needs, unan-
swered questions concerning how a reserved water right can be
used, how it will be administered, and how it can be integrated
into a state system of water allocation.

Both the tribes and Colorado have been criticized by their
peers for giving away too much to the other side: the mutuality
of the criticisms lead us to believe the balance struck was fair
to both sides. The Settlement Act was the first Indian water
rights settlement passed by Congress which fully addressed how an

-10-

Oi89