BOARD00017

• Board Meeting Date: 7/13/1998
• Description: Colorado River Basin Issues - Colorado River Commissioner's Report
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

.

The Honorable William J. Clinton
July 8, 1998
Page 2

Our Tribal Councils know that the construction of a water project is difficult and that the
environmental effects of the project must be offset. We are willing to undertake those demanding
tasks because we know that additional water storage from the Animas River is required if the Ute
Tribes are to have a reliable water supply in the future. In the 1988 Settlement Act, the United
States promised to work with us in good faith to achieve that goal: that promise has now been
broken.

S. 1771 has a long history. The Administration cannot be proud of its role in that story. In the
summer of 1996, the leaders of the Ute Tribes met with Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt to
discuss the matters that were delaying the construction of the Project and the implementation of
the last phase of the settlement of the tribal water rights. Secretary Babbitt suggested that we
work with Governor Roy Romer to try to develop an approach that might resolve the concerns
that had been raised about the Project. For over a year, the Tribes and other settlement parties
met with the Project opponents and representatives of the Department of the Interior and the
Environmental Protection Agency under the supervision of Colorado Lt. Governor Gail
Schoettler. Throughout this process, the federal agencies never acknowledged their trust
responsibility to the Tribes nor tried to help find a solution that would remain true to the spirit of
. the 1988 Settlement Act.

At the end of the Romer-Schoettler process, there was no consensus on how to proceed. Instead,
two alternatives emerged. The alternative supported by the Tribes, the other parties to the 1988
settlement, and ultimately the State of Colorado and New Mexico, involved greatly reducing the
scope of the settlement so that it could be implemented with the construction of only those project
facilities and depletions expressly approved under the Endangered Species Act. No irrigation
facilities would have been required for the settlement. While the remainder of the project facilities
would remain authorized, their construction was not required to complete the settlement. The
Tribal Councils continue to believe that this alternative addresses the environmental and economic
concerns that have been raised about ALP and the role that it plays in the settlement of the tribal
rights under the 1988 Settlement Act. At the same time, it holds true to the spirit of the 1988
Settlement Act in that it would develop the water supply from the Animas River for the benefit of
the Tribes and their neighbors.

.

The other alternative, which was reviewed and formally rejected by the Tribes, called for the
creation of a fund to allow the Tribes to purchase agricultural water rights from their neighbors,
and then attempt in state water court to change the uses of such water to meet tribal needs. In a
water short area such as southwest Colorado, that suggestion is a fonnula for disaster, socially and
politically, and would not provide the Tribes with the water which they need and which the United
States promised to them under the 1988 Settlement Act. The proposal was not acceptable to
anyone who would have been affected. Nor was it acceptable to the State of Colorado.
Nevertheless, the Department of the Interior insisted on studying that alternative, although no
report has ever been made public or shown to tribal representatives.