WSPC01926 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

001134 relocation route to include boring two 36-inch diameter holes for over one-quarter of a mile, as examples. . costs to be expected from implementation of the Indian Self Determination and Education Act (638) contracting process were not included. . unspecified Homeland Security features, have also been added. I would also like to address the relationship of the 638 Process to the Animas- LaPlata Project. In 1988 and again in 2000, the Congress specifically directed the Bureau of Reclamation to utilize 638 procedures in constructing the Animas-LaPlata Project. The congressional direction was urunistakable. The Animas-LaPlata Project was to be built, to the extent feasible, utilizing resources of the Colorado Ute tribes. Even a cursory review of the underlying law makes it clear that Congress did intend to provide additional financial benefits to the Indian tribes over and above those that might be enjoyed by a non::' Indian contractor. At no time has Congress suggested that these additional costs' should be considered part of the reimbursable cost of the Project. In fact they are costs the federal government incurs in order to encourage the improvement of the economic condition of American Indian tribes generally. We, as financial contributors to and participants in the Animas- LaPlata Project want to make it perfectly clear that we have no disagreement with this congressional decision so long as those costs do not become a part of our reimbursable share. We also want to be clear that we are very confident in our Indian neighbors' ability to perform the tasks necessary to build the Animas-LaPlata Project for a reasonable and competitive price. There is nothing in the circumstances surrounding the construction record that exists today to suggest the tribes have benefited inappropriately from the congressional decision nor have they taken advantage of the process. In fact, the work that has been done on the Project to date has been completed in a highly professional manner and we are proud to have the tribes as our partners. To the extent that there has been a suggestion by some that the application of the 638 Process to this Project has resulted in an increase in project costs approaching 30%, or that the tribes have received a largess approaching 30% of the project costs, we categorically disagree with any such assertions. It is our strong beliefthat if there are increases in the cost of the Animas-LaPlata Project due to the 638 interaction, those increases will first have been sanctioned by the Congress and second that they will in all likelihood not exceed 10%. The tribal participation in constructing the Animas-LaPlata Project is not, and should not be cited as, a major reason for the change in project costs. From our perspective, the enormous bulk of the change in project cost results from inaccurate assessments of the costs prepared for the 1999 EIS and subsequent changes in Project facilities which were made by the Bureau of Reclamation without consultation with Project supporters and without assessing the impact of the changes on ultimate project costs. The bottom line for the Animas-LaPlata Water Conservancy District and the water users which it represents is a straightforward proposition. We obtained funding from the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority in order to pay upfront for , ..',. ''',-.