Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.~. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />COMMENTS OF THE <br />COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD <br />ON <br />NAVAJO RESERVOIR OPERATIONS <br />ADV ANCED DKA.n' EN"VIRONiYlI!.NTAL iiviPACT 5T A TEiviEi'iT <br />January 25, 2002 Version <br /> <br />Indian Trust Assets and Environmental Justice <br /> <br />. Lines 78-80: Need to explain how Indian Water Rights are quantified, ifnot by <br />beneficial use. They are quantified by practicably irrigable acres and domestic needs, <br />which are in fact beneficial uses. They are constrained by interstate compacts as <br />concluded in Arizona v. California. The United States Congress approved this <br />limitation when it consented to the Upper Colorado River Compact. <br />. Line 105: Need to note that the states do not necessarily agree with the Navajos <br />claimed priority date. <br />. Lines 107-110: As noted at line 34, the United States must approve of agreements <br />that would adversely impact an Indian Trust Asset (ITA). We would add again that <br />the United States Congress has consented to both the Colorado River Compact and <br />Upper Colorado River Compact and therefore the Navajo claims must fit within a <br />states compact apportionment as concluded in Arizona v. California. The Navajo <br />may not pick and chose which laws of the United States they are impacted by. <br />Therefore, while they may want to claim most all waters in the San Juan River, they <br />are not entitled to such. This limitation needs to be included. <br />. Line 131: "Certain" is misspelled. <br />. Lines 146-149: Given the constraints of the compacts, the states believe the Navajo <br />claims may be limited to these projects. <br />. Lines 154-164: Need to add the Colorado River Compact and Upper Colorado River <br />Compact to the legal citations impacting the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project (NIIP). <br />The laws cited do not mean much without them. We suggest at line 154 stating, <br />"Pursuant to the Colorado River Compact, the Upper Colorado River Compact and <br />the Colorado River Storage Project Act, the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project was <br />authorized concurrently with the San Juan-Chama Project in 1962 ..." It would also <br />be good to know how many of these acres, if any, overlap the historically irrigated <br />acres discussed in lines 117 to 132. <br />. Line 231: Need to note that the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project can not be <br />completed without resolving Colorado River Compact and Upper Colorado River <br />Compact issues associated with the use of Upper Colorado River Basin water in the <br />Lower Colorado River Basin. We believe the compacts place restrictions on the use <br />of water from one basin in the other. We recommend that you have legal council <br />investigate this matter before deciding on the exact words. <br />. Lines 345-346: The settlement agreement with the Jicarilla Apache Nation we believe <br />places limitations on the ability of the Iicarilla's to market their water. These <br />limitations should be included in the ADEIS. <br />. Line 353: Use of the word depletion seems to get used interchangeably with both <br />diversion and consumptive use. We suggest making "depletion" a defined term and <br /> <br />Page 1 of6 <br /> <br />00700 <br />