Laserfiche WebLink
<br />\) <br /> <br />Agenda Item 31 <br />March 22-23, 2005 Board Meeting <br />Page 2 of3 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />certain subordination clauses in the settlement to remain within their compact apportionment. <br />Accounting details on how this would be done have not yet been worked out and disclosed. This <br />concern is compounded by acknowledging that individual rnembers of the Navajo Nation that <br />have been allotted land by the U.S. are not bound by the settlement agreement and may have <br />additional claims that would have to be "offset" by corresponding reductions in use by the <br />Navajo Nation as a whole that are now required under the settlement agreements. <br />2. Can the Navajo water rights be leased or transferred? The Settlement Agreements do not <br />prohibit the lease or transfer of Navajo water rights to other uses either on or off the reservation. <br />However, such leases or transfers are subject to certain non-impairment of other water rights <br />within New Mexico provisions. Under the settlement agreements, the Navajo Nation would also <br />administer water rights on Navajo Lands subject to the non-impairment of non-Navajo water <br />rights within New Mexico. Colorado expressed concern that this clause was not tightly written <br />. _ ___ _ --and that it could open up interstate water.marketing, given that Navajo lfUlds are located ill three <br />states. It has been clarified that this settlement relates only to Navajo lands in New Mexico. The <br />fact that transfers of water by the Navajo Nation to Navajo lands outside of New Mexico or to <br />non-Navajo lands are subject to approval by the New Mexico State Engineer lends some <br />comfort, but may not be adequate to avoid the issue and uphold the integrity of the compact. In <br />the response to questions New Mexico has stated that they do not support interstate water <br />marketing or leasing at this tirne. <br />3. Will the Humpback Chub in the LCR be impacted? The increased use of water and <br />additional water development in the Little Colorado River (LCR) could adversely impact the <br />population of Humpback Chub (HBC) in the LCR. No mention ofHBC in the LCR is noted in <br />the documents. We feel that it would be appropriate to at least acknowledge this fact. As we <br />have discussed during the Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program, a recovery program for <br />the Colorado River and its tributaries between Glen Canyon Dam and the high water line on <br />Lake Mead would be a good thing and this may be a good opportunity to help establish such a <br />program given that the HBC population in the LCR is pivotal to recovery efforts. This question <br />remains unar1Swered. <br />4. Does the Settlement Agreement leave sufficient water to deal with any Ute Mountain Ute <br />Tribe water right claims in New Mexico? We are aware that the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe has <br />some lands in New Mexico and this settlement appears to provide for the full development of <br />New Mexico's apportionment under the current "Hydrologic Determination" and thus may <br />foreclose any development potential on Ute lands. The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe had initial <br />discussions with New Mexico regarding a claim of between 7,300 and 9,300 AF annually based <br />on potential development of a gas fired thermal electric power plant. New Mexico finds, with <br />respect to Ute Tribal lands in New Mexico, that the tribe has no resident population, little <br />existing livestock use, no geographic use connection to the San Juan River and little if any <br />practicably irrigable acreage and therefore does not anticipate negotiating any settlement with the <br />Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. Furthermore, New Mexico feels that allowing the use of Navajo <br />Reservoir in the San Juan River Recovery Irnplem~ntation Program undertaken to allow the <br />Animas-La Plata Project to proceed has already provided considerable consideration to the Ute <br />Tribes. We would note that the Navajo's also received an allocation of water in the Animas-La <br />Plata Project. We have contacted representatives of both Ute Tribes to seek their reaction to the <br />proposed settlement and whether or not they have taken any formal position on the settlement, to <br />date we have not heard back and anticipate providing this information at the Board meeting. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Finance. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservatioz:t Planning <br />