My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01872
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD01872
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:08:15 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:04:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
9/27/1999
Description
Colorado River Basin Issues - Interior Department's Indian Water Rights Report
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
88
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />DRAFT -- August 11, 1999 <br /> <br /> <br />"disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of [agency] <br /> <br /> <br />programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. . .." <br /> <br />Because Indian water development has historically been given low funding and planning <br /> <br />priority, tribal leaders now see their people as bearing the greatest burden of compliance with <br /> <br /> <br />the ESA in Western stream systems. <br /> <br />The Section 7 consultation process obviously can also have a direct effect on the exercise of <br /> <br /> <br />Indian water rights. Tribal representatives often express the concern that development of <br /> <br />Indian-owned natural resources are subject to more elaborate procedures and greater regulation <br /> <br />under the ESA than other private property owners. There is pervasive federal involvement in <br /> <br /> <br />virtually every type of activity on Indian reservations, and, because tribes depend so heavily <br /> <br />on federal funding, a broad array of agency actions may trigger the Section 7 consultation <br /> <br />requirement. Such federal involvement is not only manifested in the context of federal <br /> <br /> <br />programs and services, but also the approvals required under numerous federal statutes <br /> <br />authorizing every kind of leasing of Indian lands, timber sales and management plans, range <br /> <br /> <br />permits, rights-of-way, and tribal contracts, all actions delegated to the BrA. Some of these <br /> <br /> <br />statutory approvals are anachronistic, such as an 1871 Act of Congress which requires BIA <br /> <br />approval of every tribal contract "in consideration of services for said Indians relative to their <br /> <br /> <br />lands. . .." 25 U.S.C. S 81. Others are modern, and reflect contemporary policy on the <br /> <br />fulfillment of the federal trust responsibility for Indian natural resources. <br /> <br />Irrigation and other water projects authorized to benefit Indians may be administered by or <br />delegated to BIA or Reclamation. Other water projects further health and environmental <br />initiatives on Indian reservations and are funded by the Indian Health Service of the Depart- <br />ment of Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, or the Department <br />of Agriculture. When private financing is involved, credit arrangements can often require <br />BrA approvals. <br /> <br />23 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.