Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~~ <br /> <br />tian of the ALP, quantification af the Indian reserved water <br /> <br />right claims on each af the rivers, and the thorny legal issues <br /> <br />concerning marketing of Indian reserved water rights. <br /> <br />This agreement was presented to the U.S. Department of the <br /> <br />Interior with a request for speedy review; the June 3D, 1986 <br /> <br />deadline imposed by Cangress loomed. The federal government came <br />back to the table on June II, 1986. Even then the federal gov- <br /> <br />ernment's cost-sharing demands remained out of reach and signifi- <br /> <br />cant legal hurdles emerged. The federal government was unmoved <br />in its oppasition to the type of liquidated damage provisians the <br />parties believed essential to the enforceability and finality of <br /> <br />the agreement. There was significant federal pressure for a <br /> <br />modification af the state's position on interstate marketing: <br /> <br />the federal government wanted Calarado to agree to upper basin <br /> <br /> <br />leasing, with the law of the river to apply only in the lower <br /> <br />2i <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />basin. New demands for water administration were made. The fed- <br /> <br />eral government quantified its trust obligation to the tribes by <br /> <br />~, <br />~; <br /> <br />stating that these considerations served to move them back to the <br /> <br />~ <br />~. <br />~ <br />~ <br />~ .. <br /> <br />bargaining table. On June 26, 1986 the parties were still $53 <br /> <br />~ <br />; ~ <br /> <br />millian apart. <br /> <br />I~ <br /> <br />In the last two days before June 3D, the deadlock broke and <br /> <br /> <br />an June 3D, 1987, the State of Colorado, the New Mexico Inter- <br /> <br />state Stream Commission, the major Colorado and New Mexico water <br /> <br />user entities, the two Ute Indian Tribes, and the Under Secretary <br /> <br />-7- <br />