<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 />
|