Laserfiche WebLink
<br />QUESTIONS FOR ANIMAS RIVER CmZENS COALITION <br />1. On page 1 of the Conceptual Alternative to the Animas-La Plata Project <br />("Conceptual Altemative") is the statement that: <br />This alternative contemplates proYision of the full settlement <br />amounts.of_ter to the Ute Tribes and the NavlVo Nation. In a <br />framework which will allow the tribes the maximum ability to use <br />that _ter either on reservation or off. . <br />a. What assurance is there that the full settlement amounts of water that <br />would be provided to the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tn"bes under the <br />Conceptual Alternative can in fact be provided? <br />b. Does the Conceptual Alternative contemplate that the amounts of water <br />that will be provided to the Tribes will be of equal priority, of the same yield, and of the <br />same reliability as the aDocations of water the Tribes are entitled to receive and beneficiaDy <br />use from the Animas-La Plata Project under the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights <br />Settlement Agreement? If not, why not? <br />c. Does the Ci~ns Coalition agree that any alternative to the aDoeations <br />of water the Tribes are entitled to receive lIDd beneficially use from the Animas-La Plata <br />Project under the Colorado Ute IndillD Water Rights Settlement AJreement must allow the <br />Tribes to use water for the same purposes and have the same value iD terms of an <br />opponuDity to derive lID economic benefit or generate revenue from the use of the water <br />rights? If not, why not? <br />2. Does the Citizens Coalition agree that it is the policy of the UDited States, in <br />fulfillment of its trust responsibility to Indian tribes generally, and to the Southern Ute and <br />the Ute Mountain Ute IndillD Tnoes specifically, to promote Indian self-determination lIDd <br />economic self-sufficiency, and to settle, wherever posslole, the reseIVed water rights claims of <br />Indian tribes without lengthy and costly litigation? <br />3. Does the Ci~ns Coalition agree that quantification ofrights to water and <br />development of facilities needed to utilize moaJ water supplies effectively, or to secure for <br />the Tribes an opportunity to derive lID economic benefit or generate revenue from the use of <br />its water rights, is essential to the development of viable Indian rescJVation economies for <br />the Southern Ute and the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tn"bes? <br />4. On page 3 of the Conceptual Alternative is the statement that: <br />This alternative envisions the creation of a dedicated fund or <br />funds for acquisition by the TrIbes, at their sole discretion, of <br />water rigbts and land from willing sellers within and In the <br />vicinity of the Southern Ute and the Ute Mountain Ute <br />reserYations . . . . <br />Purchases would be spread out over a thirty year period, . <br /> <br />0\ <br />1I_~) <br /> <br />a. Does the Citizens Coalition believe that the United States, in fulfillment <br />of its trust responsibility to the Tribes, can waive, or allow the Tribes to waive, their claims to <br />TeSCJVed water rights in return for a fuud or funds to purchase state water rights of unknown <br />priority, unknown yield, and unkDown cost? If yes, please explain why. <br />b. Does the Citizens Coalition believe that the United States and the State <br />of Colorado can expend over $100 million without receiving the Tribe's waiver of their <br />reserved water rights claims? <br /> <br />v,/c0'd 8S0V 998 ~0~ , <br /> <br />53J~n053~ l~~nl~N ~o ld30 <br /> <br />8v:9, ~66,-~,-lJO <br />