Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />66 <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />all reference to the terms "project reserved water" con- <br />tained in the measure as introduced and the term "tribal <br />reserved water" in the amendment offered by the Select <br />Committee. With respect to the water provided to, the <br />Tribes from the stored water in the project, the only pur- , <br />pose associated with the project is storage and delivery of <br />the water to the Tribes in accordance with the agreement, <br />The Committee specifically rejects the characterization of <br />the water as anything other than water stored in the <br />project. The settlement of the India,n wa,ter rights claims <br />by providing wa,ter from the, projects in lieu of continued <br />litigation over claims to water appurtenant to the reserva- <br />tions does not alter the nature of the project purposes or <br />the nature of the rights held in the wa,ter stored in the <br />project, The Committee specifically rejects any insinuation <br />that a purpose of the project is now to deliver marketable <br />water to the Tribes, as well as the suggestion made by the <br />Department that the provision of art assured' supply of wet <br />water from the projects is only a "paper" right and not a <br />valuable right, The Federal Government has no obligation <br />to create an artificial market nor to assist in transforming <br />water into cash, Subsection (a), makes it clear that there <br />will be no argument that there is an implied project pur- <br />pose to deliver "marketable" water and that, relying on <br />cases such as City of Fresno v, California, 372 U.S. 627 <br />(1963), Ivanhoe Irrigation District v, McCracken, 357 U,S. <br />275 (1958), or California v, United States, 438 U.S. 645 <br />(1978), the limitations imposed by State Law, Interstate <br />Compacts, or other measures relating to the allocation and <br />use of the wa,ters of the Colorado River do not apply to the <br />water stored in the project and delivered to the Tribes. <br />The amendment to section 5 of the measure makes it clear <br />tha,t these wa,ters a,re held solely by the Tribes a,s a, State <br />water right and are fully subject to the Law of the River, <br />With respect to the use of such state water rights, the <br />Tribes a,rein no different position tha,n a,ny other holder of <br />a, water right from the Colora,do River in the Sta,te of Colo- <br />rado. <br />Subsection (bY is designed to ma,ke it clea,r that only <br />those portions of Recla,ma,tion law needed for the stora,ge <br />and delivery of the water will apply. The federal govern- <br />ment is assisting in the settlement by providing storage. <br />That stora,ge does not itself trigger the full extent of Recla- <br />mation law, <br />2, The second amendment inserts a new section 5 in lieu <br />of the matter proposed in the measure as introduced and <br />the amendment recommended by the Select Committee, <br />The Committee retains the waiver of the Indian Inter- <br />course Act reported by the Select Committee but limits the <br />waiver to those rights held by the Tribe as State water <br />rights as described in subsection (c), The Committee specif- <br />ically rejects the characterization of the water rights con- <br />firmed in the proposed settlement agreement as either <br />"project reserved water" or "non project reserved water" <br /> <br />"'. <br />