WSPP00108 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, , - , - The federal government wanted a final resolution of all Indian reserved water right claims and ancillary breach of trust claims. It also required substantial up-front state and local contributions to the settlement of the Indian reserved water ' right claims. The critical need to augment existing water supplies to prevent curtailment of existing state water uses was met through two federal reclamation projects, the Animas-La Plata Project and the Dolores Project. Both of these projects are participating projects under the Colorado River Storage Project Act of April 11, 1956,6/ and were authorized by the Colorado River Basin Act of September 30, 1968.7/ The Animas-La Plata Project was author- ized to supply reclamation project water to southwestern Colorado and northwestern New Mexico but funds for construction had never been appropriated. The Dolores Project was authorized to supply reclamation project water to southwestern Colorado and construc- tion was nearing completion. The state requirement that the claims be quantified in state water court was met b1 establishing a complicated process for finality of the Indian reserved water right claims. The par- ties agreed to present a proposed stipulation to the state water court. Prior to entry of a final decree bv the state water court, however, federal and state legislation necessary to imple- ment select portions of the settlement had to be enacted. Fol- lowing the passage of the federal and state legislation and the payment of all necessary appropriations, the state water court would be free to enter final decrees and vest the reserved water rights in the tribes. This staged approach to quantification of the claims and entry of decrees in state water court is very different from other Indian water right settlements, such as the Arizona Ak-Chin Water Settlement 8/ and the Arizona Papago Indian Settlement,9/ which had previously required Congressional approval. In these acts, Congress itself quantified the water rights and the legis- lation vested the water right in the tribes. The tribes' requirement of usable, wet water was met in four ways. First, Non-Intercourse Act limitations on the use of the reserved water riqhts were removed, allowinq the tribes free- dom from Congressional oversight during the sale, exchan e, or lease 0 t e water r~qhts.10 Second, the state agreed to allow the tribes the ability to change the type and place of use of the reserved water rights, subject to change proceedings which would protect existing users and stream conditions. Third, the state agreed to allow the tribes the freedom to use, sell, or lease -4- 019~