Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />BACKGROUND <br /> <br />most part, only planning and design activities on ALP. Meanwhile, the Central Arizona <br />Project has been declared substantially completed. <br /> <br />Following authorization, advance planning studies were initiated in fiscal year 1971 with <br />funds contributed by the state of Colorado and local water user organizations. Following <br />a period of on-and-off-again funding, Reclamation completed a definite plan report on ALP <br />in December of 1979. Reclamation also released a final environmental statement on the <br />Project in September of 1979. Funds were appropriated by the Congress to initiate <br />construction of ALP in fiscal year 1985. Congress, however, placed a stipulation on the use <br />of those construction funds that required a suitable Cost Sharing Agreement be reached <br />between the Project beneficiaries and the federal government before construction could be <br />initiated. As a result of this Congressional cost sharing requirement, the state of Colorado; <br />the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority; Southern Ute Indian <br />Tribe; Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe; Animas-La Plata Water Conservancy District; New <br />Mexico Stream Commission; San Juan Water Commission; Montezuma County; and the <br />Department of the Interior negotiated the "Agreement in Principle Concerning the Colorado <br />Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement and Binding Agreement for Animas-La Plata Project <br />Cost Sharing" (Cost Sharing Agreement) as signed on June 30, 1986. <br /> <br />Wishing to avoid an angry court fight over their federal reserved water rights in the area, <br />the Ute Mountain Ute and the Southern Ute Indian Tribes entered into negotiations with the <br />Department of the Interior, the states of Colorado and New Mexico, and the local non- <br />Indian water users. It was recognized that a court confirmation of the Tribes' assertion of <br />their Winters Doctrine reserved water rights could curtail existing non-Indian water users <br />on the Mancos and La Plata Rivers. Such a confirmation of the Winters Doctrine reserved <br />water rights would also adversely affect the City of Durango's water rights, the flow of the <br />Animas River, and the continuation of non-Indian farming and ranching on many area <br />streams, an economic mainstay of the area. Good faith negotiations on the part of the water <br />users and the Tribes was viewed as a more logical and expeditious way of resolving the <br />issues associated with the Tribes' reserved water rights than protracted litigation and in a <br />way that would benefit all the water users, both Indian and non-Indian. <br /> <br />2-2 <br />