Laserfiche WebLink
<br />JOL-II~87 13..,38. FROM,M.S:S.S. <br /> <br />10,970 2'17 8827 <br /> <br />PAGE 2'1/27 <br /> <br />c.o <br />~ <br />e-.J <br /> <br />.- <br />"....' <br />~, <br /> <br />stated. the federal government and State of Colorado should provide the financial resources <br />needed to establish and fulfill the purposes of the fund. <br /> <br />HOW IT WOULD WORK <br /> <br />The 1986 Colorado Ute Indian Settlement A2"reement should remain intact and be amended. <br />only to allow its purposes to be fuifilIed. by other means. Using the established quantities of Ute <br />water rights set forth in the Settlement Agreement ,,\-ill help avoid further litigation, congressional <br />delay and unnecessary complexity. <br /> <br />The outstanding water obligation to the two Tnoes can be easili' determined using the Settlement <br />Agreement as a baseline. For example, the outstanding obligation to the Southern Utes under the <br />Senlement Agreement is 26,000 acre feet of municipal and industrial (M&I) water, and 3000 acre <br />feet of irrigation water. <br /> <br />Conceprually, water rightS acquired by the fund will substitute for "federal Indian reserve water <br />rig..ftts" that date back to the establish.."Ilent of the Ute reservations. Water rights acquired by <br />purchase under state law are not the same as "federal Indian reserve >;>,Q.ter rights." For example, <br />western state "use it or loose it" water laws do not apply to Indian reserve water rights. <br /> <br />An agreement will be needed that protects water rights acquired by the fund, in the same way that <br />Indian reserve water rights are protected generally. The Utes may wish to let some of their water <br />run dOVvLl the river for cultural reasons and/or downstream economic opportunities. They should <br />have this option -- it is their right. The feasibility study we are requesting needs to explore how <br />this can be done. <br /> <br />BENEFITS TO THE UTES <br /> <br />. "Wet water" in rivers where it will be useful to them, <br /> <br />. The cOSt of expensive new delivery systems is avoided, <br /> <br />. Increased ability to protect rivers of Ute cultural importance, <br /> <br />. No burdensome cost sharing or repayment obligations, <br /> <br />· The option to participate in future dO'Wl1Strea!!l Water marketing is preserved, <br /> <br />. Full satisfaction of Tribes water rights under the 1986 Settiemem Agreement instead of <br />something less as proposed by proponents of ~ ALP lite" (The scaled back ALP lite would stiI1 <br />not deliver a single drop of water to Ute Indian lands), and <br /> <br />. Benefits could begin flowing to Utes 'from the date the fund is established. The Tribes would <br />not be left waiting and wondering if.t>,LP I & II will ever be built. <br /> <br />2 <br />