WSP03571 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. The following sections provide additional information concerning the rationale for this decision, including the analysis performed; critical issues which were considered; and commitmen1s which are hereby made in association with the chosen alternative should Congress authorize its implementation. II. Back!!round & Associated Issues As noted earlier, the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Senlement Act of 1988 (Public Law 100- 585) relied, in part, on construction of ALP, a Bureau of Reclamation project authorized by the Colorado River Basin Project Act (P.L. 84-485) as a participating project of the Colorado River Storage Project Act (P.L. 90-537). Since its authorization, several studies have been-conducted regarding ALP. The results of these studies are summarized in the following documents: the 1979 Detinite Plan Report; a 1980 Final Environmental Statement; the 1991 Draft Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement; and the 1996 Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement (FSFES). In August 1998, after a decade of controversy over ALP had resulted in the: 1988 Senlement remaining unimplemented, the Secretary presented an Administration proposal to implement the 1938 Senlement Act. The proposal limited ALP depletions to an average of57,l00 acre feet per year and limited the project to only a municipal and industrial water supply for the Colorado Ute Tribes, the Navajo Nation, anc local non. Indian entities. .The proposal also contemplated a water acquisition fund to provide the Colorado Ute Trices with the opportunity to purchase additional water rights necessary to secure the quantities provided in the 1988 Senlement. RA4, which is a slightly modified version of the Administration proposal, would finalize implementation of the \988 Settlement and avoid the extensive litigation sure to occur over tribal water right:; claims. RA4 does, however, modify the terms of the senlement as originally agreed. The Colorado Ute Tribes' support is therefore necessary. Accordingly, the ability of each alternative to work in a senlement context is an additional factor reviewed as part of the NEP A analysis and this ROD. In addition, because RA4 is intended to resolve Indian reserved water rights claims, traditional cost-benefit analyses do not apply because it would not account for the primary benefits of an Indian water rights senlement which include avoiding direct and indirect litigation costs and resolving claims which might be associated with failure to protect tribal trust resources. Moreover, a significant federal investment to develop tribal resources is consistent with the federal trust responsibility to the Southern Ute Indian and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes. Finally, and perhaps most important, this ROD addresses an existing settlement Congress committed significant resources to secure. RA4, with projected new costs of $ 278 million, would preserve the settlement with a significantly down-sized project that is less than half the cost associated with the ALP concept incorporated into the original senlement (estimated at approximately $ 700 million). 3