Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Fax:303B663558 <br /> <br />Feb 4 '99 13:43 <br /> <br />P.04 <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />Bureau found that the project delivery system is state-of-the-art and offers no water savings <br />opportunities. <br /> <br />This alternative provides no benefits whatsoever for non-Indian M&l or agricultural uses. ' <br /> <br />These are just a few of many unresolved issued raised by this alternative; the Bureau's <br />preliminary studies identified many others. In light of these problems, both tribes have <br />already emphatically rejected this option. I think this process will show that they had good <br />reasons for doing so, This is no solution, but II way for those who will never agree to any <br />structural alternative to place insurmountable burdens on the backs of the tribes and other <br />water users. <br /> <br />4. 1996 Final Supplement to the ,Final Environmental Statement recommended <br />action. The State supported this proposal, but the tribes, the water users, and the State have <br />since put forward an alternative proposal (the Reconciliation Plan Or Animas-ALP Lite). <br /> <br />5. Administration Proposal with an alternative water supply for non-Ute entities. <br />In proposing Animas-La Plata Lite, the tribes and non-Indian entities reached a compromise <br />that provides some Animas-La Plata water for non-Indian uses. The amount of water for' <br />non-Indians is much less than what was originally authorized. The non-Indian water users <br />are parties to the settlement and cost sharing agreements and changes to the settlement must <br />be acceptable to them. ' <br /> <br />6. Citizens Progressive Alliance Proposal, This proposal would allow the tribes to <br />leave their water in the stream and lease it for downstream uses. This proposal appears to <br />contemplate interstate water marketing on the Colorado River system, which is contrary to <br />Colorado state law and two interstate compacts. Most, ifnot all, of the seven Colorado River <br />basin states would probably oppose it. The likelihood of Congress approving this al~ative <br />is virtually nil and any attempt to implement it would almost certainly lead to lengthy multi- <br />party litigation, probably in the U.S. Supreme Court. <br /> <br />7. No action alternative. This would violate the settlement agreement and betray the <br />United States' trust responsibility to the tribes. It would also be likely to result in many years <br />of uncertainty and bitter, costly litigation, pitting Indians against non-Indians, all of which <br />the settlement was intended to avoid. To give an example, the Big Horn river adjudication in <br />Wyoming began in 1977 and was decided by the Wyoming Supreme Court for the first time in <br />1988. The case then went to the U.S. Supreme Court. Since then, the case has been to the <br />Wyoming Supreme Court four more times, yet the issues still have not been finally resolved. <br />There is presently a proceeding undelWay to resolve disputes over quantification of private <br />rights derived from tribal lands. All told, the State of Wyoming and the United States have <br />spent tens of millions of dollars litigating the Wind River Reservation claims for mOTe than <br />m,'enty years, and the re~ult is continuing conflict and animosity. <br />