|
<br />o Cfl tn 9
<br />
<br />23
<br />
<br />
<br />cordance with Article V of the Agreement" be added in section 5(a)
<br />to take care of the non.federal parties' concern, The non-federal
<br />parties accepted our suggestion with regard to section 5(a) (see
<br />lines 8-9 on page 5 of S, 1415), but insisted that section5(c) (old
<br />section 5(d) remain in the bill as well.
<br />The, previous non-federal version of the language of section 5(c)
<br />included the phrase "[w]ith respect to paragraph b of section B, Ar-
<br />ticle V of the Agreement" at the beginning of the sentence, That
<br />phrase, limiting this provision to out-of-state use only as provided
<br />in the agreement, was added by the non-federal parties, when we '
<br />pointed out that without it the provision was overbroad, S, '1415
<br />has deleted that phrase.
<br />5, Sec,6(d), page 9, ,lines 13-21.-This provision in the text of the
<br />draft bill was inserted by the non-federal parties, The federal par-
<br />ties agreed to it but only if the phrase "to the Secretary's satisfac-
<br />tion" were inserted in line 17 after "demonstrates" and the word
<br />"gross" inserted in line 18 before "revenues," The non-federal par-
<br />ties have rejected these' changes. '
<br />S. 1415 differs from the previous non-federal version only' in
<br />adding a title to this section, "Tribal Deferral," which seems a mis-
<br />ndmer since this is clearly a secretarial deferral.
<br />6, See, 7(b), page 11, lines 9-17.-The federal and non-federal par-
<br />ties were previously in agreement on the language of this provi-
<br />sion. S, 1415 has interjected a new difference by adding the phrase
<br />"in addition to the full contribution to the Tribal Development
<br />Funds" in lines 12 and 13. '
<br />7, See, 7(e)(3) (last sentence), page 13, lines 10-15,-The federal
<br />version of the last sentence of this paragraph contained the addi-
<br />tionallanguage "the approval of an economic development plan or
<br />from" after the words 'arising from" on line 12, The non-federal
<br />parties rejected that language and S. 1415 continues to delete it,
<br />8. See, 7(e), page 13, lines 20-23.-This provision was added to the
<br />draft legislation' by the non-federal parties. Their previous lan-
<br />guage was as follows: ,
<br />
<br />[Sec. 7] (e) Neither the Tribes nor the ,United States
<br />shall have the right to void the Agreement or to set aside
<br />the Final Consent Decree solely because subsections (c) or
<br />(d) are not satisfied or implemented.
<br />
<br />The federal parties wanted this provision deleted as unnecessary
<br />and misleading, since the Tribes and the United States do not have
<br />the right anyway, (The only permissible grounds for voiding the
<br />Agreement or setting aside the Final Consent Decree are set out in
<br />the Agreement,) In S, 1415, the non-federal parties have deleted
<br />the words "void the Agreement or" after "right to" in line 22 on
<br />page 13 and have changed the language "subsections (c) or (d) are."
<br />to "subsection (c) is" in line 23 on page 13, but have otherwise kept
<br />this provision.
<br />9. See, 9 (Administration), page 14, lines 10-15.-Prior to the in-
<br />troduction of S. 1415, the federal anq non-federal parties had
<br />agreed on the wording of this provision. A new difference has been
<br />introduced by the language of S. 1415, which deletes the words
<br />"governing the water rights confirmed in the Agreement and Final
<br />
|