Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1"1t""11-.L;:::;i~.L-:''='~ 1-l:::...L F?or'I [iHH I EL H. [-=.;::~EL, P. (. <br /> <br />TO <br /> <br />160+25e0506--30 <br /> <br />P.05 <br /> <br />,~, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />marketing may r~present an important use of tribal waters that <br />complements on-reservation consumption. <br /> <br />III. OFF-RESERVATION USE OF <br />TRIBAL WATER RIGHTS <br /> <br />The recent discussions among the Basin states have focused <br />the Tribes' attention on the management of the Colorado River. <br />In particular, California has requested that the other Basin <br />states ensure that sufficient water is available to fill the <br />Colorado River Aqueduct each year. The Tri~es believe that they <br />can help California, and any other water-short State, meet its <br />needs without curtailing the ability of the other Basin states to <br />use water allocated for the benefit of their non-Indian citizens. <br /> <br />The Tribes contend that under Soorhase v. Nebraska, 458 U.S. <br />94~ (~9S2), water developed under their entitlements may be <br />marketed without regard to state and reservation boundaries. The <br />question of whether that constitutional right has somehow been <br />impaired by the ~aw of the River raises issues which could be <br />litigated for Years. In short, we know that there are many legal <br />hurdles to overcome before the Tribes may engage in interstate <br />marketing. The Tribes would prefer to avoid such controversy by <br />working in cooperation with the states to develop new uses for <br />tripal water from the Colorado River. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The pres~nt discussions amonq the States are very trOUbling <br />to the Tribes. California's concept of an escrow account envi- <br />sions that substantial quantities of presently unused water will <br />be ~tilized by California with compensation paid to the other <br />Basin states. Much of the water which California wishes to use <br />is allocated to the Tribes, yet there is no provision for COmpen- <br />sating the Tribes. Nor is there any mention of tribal participa- <br />tion in the water banking concep~ advanced by california. <br /> <br />Tribal interests are plainly implicated, whether or not <br />compensation is involved. The California proposal asks the other <br />States to modify the operation of the River -- even if such <br />modifications affect the other states' "maximum future water <br />certainty" -- so that California can continu~ to enjoy its <br />present water use. In other words, california is asking other <br />users to forego benefits in order that california may get the <br />water which it claims it needs in excess of its allocation from <br />the River. Like the States, the Tribes are affected by the <br />increased risk which california asks other users to aSSUme for <br />its benefit. <br /> <br />California argues that a hydrological analysis of the <br />conditions on the Colorado River will show that California's use <br />of water above its entitlement is unlikely to decrease water <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2 <br />