Laserfiche WebLink
<br />c. Has the Citizens Coalition made an estimate of the engineering and <br />legal costs to change agricultural water rights purchased from the Fwd to M&I use in the <br />amowts the Tribes are entitled to receive and beneficially use from the ADimas-La Plata <br />Project under the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Agreement? If so, how <br />much are the legal and engineering costs? <br />d. If water for M&I use is not to be provided from agricultural water rights <br />purchased from the Fund proposed in the Conceptual Alternative, how is the water for M&I <br />use which the Tribes are entitled to receive and beneficially use from the Animas-La. Plata. <br />Project to be provided to the Tribes? <br />e. What would be the cost to construct storage reservoirs so that the <br />agricultural water rights could be stored during the irrigation season so that water would be <br />available year-rowd at the Tribes' discretion for M&I use? <br />f. Where would the storage reservoirs be constructed? <br />g. What anal~ if any, has been made to determine if such agricultural <br />water rights could be changed to municipal and industrial use and would secure to the Tribes <br />an opportunity to derive an economic benefit or generate revenue from the use of such water <br />rights that would be equal to the allocations of municipal and industrial water the Tribes are <br />entitled to receive from the Animas-La Plata Project? <br />h. What would be the cost to construct pipeliDes or other conveyance <br />facilities to transport water from each river basin to a location equivalent to Ridges Basin? <br />i. Why would the land which would be acquired represent a "very <br />substantial additional value" to the Tnbes above and beyond the settlement amowts of water <br />if other lands curreDtJy within the reservations would remain unirrigated (U.. isn't the <br />additional value to the Tribes simply the value of unirrigated land)? <br />j. What would be the revenue to the Tribes (assuming the agricultural <br />water rights were available to the Tribes immediately and had been changed to municipal <br />and industrial use) if they were to lease agricultural water rights or agree not to use them? <br />11. On page 4 of the Conceptual Alternative is the statement that: <br />At least one relevant prec:edent for the autlon of such a Fund <br />for water rights purchases ezlsts in the Salt River Pima. <br />Maricopa Indian Community Water Ripts Settlement Act of <br />1988, P.L 100.512. <br />a. Does the Citizens Coalition agree that the Salt River Pima-Maricopa <br />Settlement Act (p.L. 100(512) provided that the Secretary of Interior would acquire, on or <br />before December 31. 1990, from willing irrigation districts and landowners, rights to 22,000 <br />acre-feet of annual consumptive use of water and contract to deliver such water to certain <br />Arizona cities and one town and not to the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community? <br />b. Does the CitizeDS Coalition agree that the Salt River Pima-Maricopa <br />Settlement Act ratified an agreement in which neighboring non-Indian communities agreed <br />to transfer rights to approximately 32,000 acre-feet of surface water to the Indian <br />Community? <br />c. Does the Citizens Coalition agree that under the Salt River Pima- <br />Maricopa Settlement Act the Indian Community received its water immediately from <br />neighboring non-Indian communities while the non-lDdian Arizona cities and town toOk the <br />risk if the Secretary could not acquire the rights to 22,000 acre-feet of water? <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />~!/S0'd 8S0~ 998 ~0~ ! <br /> <br />53J~n053~ l~~nl~N ~O Id3G <br /> <br />0S:9! ~66!-~!-lJO <br />