WSPC07020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

001597 7 , costs will be borne by the United States, until the tribes put their water to use. ' Non-Federal financial contributions to the settlement take two forms; (1) up-front fmancing for the Animas-La Plata Project, which project will provide a sizable portion of the tribes' water and (2) payments by the State of Colorado to the tribal development funds. With respect to the Animas-La Plata Project, non-Federal financ- ing is being provided pursuant to the requirements of the Supple- mental Appropriation Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-98; 99 Stat. ~93). The cost sharing agreement for which that legislation calls was entered into on June 30, 1986. Federal budgetary outlays for the Animas-,La Plata Project have been reduced by 39 percent relative to what would have. been re- quired had the project been built entirely at Federal expense as au- thorized by Congress. These reductions are accomplished through cash ,contributions by non-Federal parties in the amount of $68,000,000 towards the construction of the first phase of the project and through the non-Federal parties assuming responsibil- ity for the $133,000,000 construction costs of all of the second phase of the project. With respect to payments to the tribes, the Agreement provides that $11,000,000 will be provided by the State oCColoradotoward the $60.5 million tribal development funds. $6,000,000 will be pro- vided through construction by the State ofa pipeline which will de- liver the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe's domestic water supply from the Dolores Project to its reservation. The remaining $5,000,000 will be paid in cash into the tribal development funds. COMMITTEE AMENDMENT The Committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a substi- tute. The general explanation of the amendment is set out in the section-by-section analysis of this report. As introduced, section 5 of H.R. 2642 specifically authorized the two tribes to enter into water use contracts for the sale, exchange, lease, or other temporary disposal of their water. The marketing of tribal water rights secured by the Agreement and this legislation is clearly contemplated by the Agreement and, by ,certain provisions of the bill itself. The Department of the Interior supported, this marketing authority as a means of developing tribal revenue to make any required tribal payments for construction costs or for op- eration, maintenance and replacement costs associated with the Animas-La Plata or Dolores Projects. Strong objections to this provision were registered with the Com- mittee by the states of the Lower Colorado River Basin (Arizona, California, and Nevada). These states took the position that the management and use of the Colorado River Basin waters is gov- erned by various interstate compacts, international treaties, Su- preme Court decisions, and Federal and state statutes and con- tracts, constituting the "Law of the River". They asserted that the Law of the River prohibits the sale of water allocated for use within one of the Lower or Upper Basin states and that this prohic bition extends to the Indian tribes whose water rights, including