Laserfiche WebLink
<br />4140 <br /> <br />tiations, in addition to the difficulty of reaching a cost-share <br />agreement satisfactory to the federal government. Primary among <br />these issues was the off-reservation use of tribal waters. The <br />opportunity to use water off-reservation was central to the <br />tribal demands to receive "usable" water. Colorado agreed to <br />allow off-reservation use as long as state law and the "law of <br />the river," which includes federal and state laws and regula- <br />tions, decrees, interstate compacts, international treaties and <br />compacts which govern the use of water from the Colorado River, <br />were protected. Colorado's legal position was that these laws <br />would prohibit the out-of-state use or sale of these waters, but <br />Colorado reserved to the tribes the right to litigate the legal <br />question: to what extent does the law of the river apply to <br />Indian reserved water rights? In contrast, however, Steve Reyn- <br />olds, then New Mexico's Interstate Stream Conrmissioner, stated <br />that if ALP arguably could put water in interstate conrmerce, he <br />would withdraw his support for the project. <br />This difficult negotiation process finally stalled in the <br />fall of 1985 due to the high cost-share demands of the federal <br />governmental. Subsequently, Colorado, New Mexico, and the two <br />tribes decided to negotiate without the federal government. The <br />parties did so successfully and, in March 1986, reached an ~gree- <br />ment in Principal. This Agreement in Principle settled all mat- <br />ters: cost-sharing and financial participation in the construc- <br /> <br />-6- <br />