U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

67–697 u WASHINGTON : 2000

H.R. 3112, TO AMEND THE COLORADO UTE

INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT TO

PROVIDE FOR A FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THE

CLAIMS OF THE COLORADO UTE INDIAN

TRIBES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 11, 2000, WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 106–92

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

GEORGE MILLER, California

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́, Puerto

Rico

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA MC CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

JAY INSLEE, Washington

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

MARK UDALL, Colorado

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER RESOURCES

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California, Chairman

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

MIKE SIMPSOM, Idaho

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

GEORGE MILLER, California

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

ADAM SMITH, Washington

DONNA MC CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California

ROBERT FABER, Staff Director/Counsel

JOSHUA JOHNSON, Professional Staff

STEVE LANICH, Minority Staff

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held May 11, 2000 ..................................................................................... 1

Statement of Members:

Doolittle, Hon. John T., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California ................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 1

McInnis, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Colorado, prepared statement of .................................................................. 4

Statement of Witnesses:

Baker, Jr., John E., Chairman, Southern UTE Indian Tribe, Ignacio,

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 23

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 25

Hayes, David J., Deputy Secretary, Department of Interior, Washington,

DC. ................................................................................................................. 2

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10

House, Chairman, Ernest, UTE Mountain UTE Tribe, Towaoc, Colorado .. 33

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 35

Remington, Sage Douglas, Director, Southern UTE Grassroots Organization, Ignacio, Colorado .................................................................................. 39

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 41

Additional Material Supplied:

Black, Michael, with Taxpayers for the Animas River, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 65

Griswold, Richard K., President of the Animas-La Plata Water Conservancy District, prepared statement of ......................................................... 46

Kroeger, Fred V., President of the Southwestern Water Conservation

District, prepared statement of .................................................................... 61

San Juan Water Commission in New Mexico, prepared statement of ......... 56

Turney, Thomas C., State Engineer with the State of New Mexico, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 52

(1)

HEARING ON: H.R. 3112, TO AMEND THE COLORADO UTE INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT TO PROVIDE FOR A FINAL

SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIMS OF THE COLORADO UTE INDIAN TRIBES, AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES

THURSDAY, MAY 11, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER,

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to other business, at 2:48 p.m.,

in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John T. Doolittle (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. DOOLITTLE. We will now proceed to the hearing on AnimasLa Plata. I thank the members. Let me invite our witnesses to

come forward. This is a legislative hearing on H.R. 3112.

May I ask you to please rise and raise your right hands. Do you

solemnly swear or affirm under the penalty of perjury that the testimony given will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Mr. HAYES. I do.

Mr. BAKER. I do.

Mr. HOUSE. I do.

Mr. REMINGTON. I do.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Let the record reflect that each answered affirmatively. We are very happy to welcome you here, gentlemen, and we will begin hearing from the Deputy Secretary of Interior, Mr. David Hayes. Welcome.

[The prepared statement of John T. Doolittle follows]

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

H.R. 3023, Greater Yuma Port Authority

H.R. 4132, Water Resources Research Act

S. 1211, Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act

Legislative Hearing on:

H. R. 3112, ‘‘to amend the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act to

provide for a final settlement of the claims of the Colorado Ute Indian Tribes, and

for other purposes.

2

Today we will first markup the following three bills, followed by a legislative

hearing on H.R. 3112, the Animas La Plata Project. The bills to markup include:

1. H.R. 3023, Greater Yuma Port Authority

To convey to the Greater Yuma Port Authority an area of land currently controlled by the Bureau of Reclamation consisting of approximately 330 acres, at fair

market value, just east of the City of San Luis, for the construction of a commercial

Port of Entry.

2. H.R. 4132, Water Resources Research Act

To reauthorize grants for water resources research and technology institutes established under the Water Resources Research Act of 1984.

These state water resource research institutes, under the authority of the Water

Resources Research Act, have established an effective federal/state partnership in

water resources, education and information transfer. They work with state and federal agencies and water resources stakeholders in their home states while acting as

a network for the exchange of water resources research and information transfer

among the states. I am pleased that among the 17 cosponsors we already have,

many of them are members of this Subcommittee, on both sides of the aisle. I look

forward to the rest of you joining us in cosponsoring this bill.

3. S. 1211, Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act

To increase the current Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act authorization from $75 million to $175 million. In addition, the legislation requires the secretary

to file a report to address salt contributions from Bureau of Land Management

lands.

Prior to 1995, Reclamation’s efforts to reduce salinity were costing between $70 to more than $100 for each ton of salt that was controlled. One of the important

steps we took in reforming this program in 1996 was the introduction of private parties and the use of market forces to bring those costs down. It is a testament to

the use of entrepreneurial methods that I can now report that costs for salt removal

are around $30 per ton. In addition, for every $100 spent by the federal government,

an additional $43 is spent by the Basin States.

H.R. 3112, an amendment to ‘‘the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement

Act to provide for a final settlement of the claims of the Colorado Ute Indian

Tribes.’’

Two years ago, this Subcommittee held a hearing to address issues raised by the

Romer-Schoettler process regarding what direction to take with the Animas La

Plata Project, and to hear testimony from project proponents, opponents, and the

Administration. During the hearing, then Counselor to the Secretary of the Interior,

David Hayes indicated the desire of the Administration to address additional issues.

On August 11, 1998, the Secretary of Interior presented an Administration Proposal

to implement the Settlement Act. H.R. 3112 is an attempt by project beneficiaries

to implement these negotiations and come to a final Settlement Act.

Since the hearing the Tribes, and other project beneficiaries have agreed to a

much smaller ALP Project. In fact, if you consider the full cost of project, as anticipated in 1968, in 1999 dollars, the project would have an estimated price of $754

million. The bill before us today, specifically regarding the ALP project, is estimated

to costs between $180 and $240 million. This is a drastic reduction in the project

cost.

I commend the Project beneficiaries for their continuing flexibility to work with

the Administration to draft legislation that meets their demands, and one that provides an equitable settlement to the tribes. I would also just like to note the municipal and industrial water beneficiaries commitment to fully fund their portion of the

capital investment—in full and up front.

I look forward to hearing the testimony and discussing the issues with the witnesses.

STATEMENT OF DAVID J. HAYES, DEPUTY SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC.

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I have submitted a written statement that I would appreciate being entered into the record, Mr. Chairman.

In my oral comments, I would like to just briefly review some of

the highlights of what has brought us here to this hearing today

on H.R. 3112. This hearing, as the chairman noted at the outset,

is on a bill that is intended to provide a final settlement for the

3

claims of the Colorado Ute Indian Tribes in Southwestern Colorado

and Northern New Mexico. Those remaining claims exist in the

Animas and La Plata river basins in Southeastern Colorado and

their resolution also requires a resolution of issues associated

with the Animas-La Plata project that was originally authorized in 1968 and

which has not been built. We are very interested in resolving these very difficult

issues once and for all and we thank Congressman McInnis for introducing the bill.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McInnis follows:]

4

5

6

7

8

Mr. HAYES. The administration supports H.R. 3112 with some

modifications that are identified in my testimony. The reason we

support passage of this legislation is that we feel strongly that it

is time to resolve the longstanding claims of the Colorado Ute

Tribes, the Southern Utes and the Mountain Utes. In 1986, Congress passed the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Final Settlement Agreement, which identified the legal rights of the two tribes

to reserve water under the Winters doctrine. It anticipated that

those legal rights would be implemented through the construction

of the Animas-La Plata project that originally was authorized in

1968.

Unfortunately, however, that project could not be implemented in

the form in which it was authorized in 1968, and, in fact, this administration identified serious problems both with the original

project and also with the project commonly known as ‘‘ALP Lite’’,

which emerged out of the Romer-Schoettler process that the chairman referred to earlier in his comments. The administration was

concerned that even ALP Lite was too large a project, raised significant environmental concerns and financial concerns.

Yet Secretary Babbitt and the administration appreciated the

fact that it was necessary to bring closure to the tribal water rights

and we proposed in August 1998 that a further scaled-down project

that was geared toward the tribal water right proceed for full environmental review. That review has been undertaken and it is because the review has been undertaken with full public process that

we are here today believing it is time to go forward and write the

final chapter of Animas-La Plata.

The bill that Congressman McInnis has introduced is, in essence,

a consensus bill among the tribes, the administration, and the

project proponents. It eliminates the irrigation component of the

original ALP project, which was a serious concern for environmental purposes and also cost effectiveness purposes. It is a much

scaled-down reservoir, off-stream facility, that still allows the

Animas River to remain free-flowing.

Thirdly, it incorporates non-structural concepts and anticipates

that the tribes will purchase some of their water rights while also

having a structural facility for certainty for the bulk of their water

rights. And it is premised on full environmental review, full implementation under the Endangered Species Act and under NEPA.

And it finally anticipates that some water would be available for

municipalities in the area, but only unsubsidized water for M&I

uses only.

And most importantly, it will finally resolve the Ute Tribes’

water rights. We think that is important not only because of the

trust responsibility that we owe to the tribes, but also because resolution of those water rights will avoid the uncertainty of water

rights in the entire Southwestern Colorado and Northern New

Mexico area. If we do not bring closure here, the Settlement Act

of 1968 will go by the wayside, litigation will commence, and potentially very significant senior water rights claims will be brought

against current non-Indian water users in Southern Colorado and

Northern New Mexico. We think a consensual solution along the

lines of what has been developed among the parties and with the

9

administration’s help as reflected in Congressman McInnis’s bill is

the way to go.

A final point, we do think it is important to deauthorize the ALP

project and make it clear that this is the final chapter. We also

think it is important to reflect the concept of full repayment for the

M&I users. We think there is a way to do this that will be consistent with the needs of the water users and the interests of all

parties.

Finally, I will note that an important feature of this bill and the

administration’s proposal is a drinking water pipeline for the Navajo Nation between Farmington and Shiprock, a much needed replacement of an important municipal water supply that the current

pipeline of which has lived beyond its useful life.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and providing the opportunity to testify.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hayes follows:]

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Mr. DOOLITTLE. We are in the middle of a vote, but I think we

have time to take the testimony of one more person before that

happens, so we will hear from Mr. John E. Baker, Jr., chairman

of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Ignacio, Colorado.

STATEMENT OF JOHN E. BAKER, JR., CHAIRMAN, SOUTHERN

UTE INDIAN TRIBE, IGNACIO, COLORADO

Mr. BAKER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to

thank each and every one of you for allowing me this opportunity

to speak on behalf of my tribe.

Good afternoon. My name is John E. Baker, Jr. I am the chairman of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. On behalf of the tribe and

the Tribal Council, I offer unqualified support for the enactment of

H.R. 3112. We hope that the bill can be promptly enacted into law.

Last fall, I was elected chairman of the tribe on a platform that

included a new approach to tribal government. A lot has changed

since I took office, but one thing has not, the strong support for the

Animas-La Plata project. ALP is the only way to provide the tribe

with a water supply to meet its present and future needs. The

Tribal Council continues to support ALP just as a prior Tribal

Council did when my father, John E. Baker, Jr., was chairman,

just as the council did when my uncle, Chris A. Baker, Sr., was

chairman, just as the council did when my predecessor, Clement J.

Frost, was chairman, and just as the council did during the many

years of leadership under Leonard C. Burch.

The Tribal Council is elected to lead the Southern Ute Indian

Tribe. Over the years, the council has sought a firm and reliable

supply of water to serve as the foundation for tribal economic

growth and we as we move into the new century. The present council, like past councils, understands that economic success in the

arid Southwest requires a dependable water supply. Water will be

needed whether the future of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe includes continued success in natural resource development or reflects the recreation and tourist industry that is now an important

part of the economy of the Four Corners region. With an ever-growing tribal membership, we also need houses and domestic water

supply on the west side of our reservation no matter what economic

enterprises the tribe ultimately undertakes.

Based on the studies of the draft EIS, we know that storage is

required to provide the tribe with a firm and flexible supply of

water. The United States promised that the tribe would have such

a water supply in 1868 when it created the Ute Reservation. It confirmed that promise in 1988 when it passed the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act in 1988, 102 Stat. 2973. Now is

the time for the United States to carry out those commitments.

The project that would be constructed under the present legislation is much different than the originally proposed ALP. It is much

different than Phase I of the project which was to be constructed

under the terms of the 1986 Settlement Agreement and the 1988

Settlement Act. It is also much different than the ALP Lite project,

which was proposed only 2 years ago. All of the changes that have

been made respond to arguments by the project opponents.

First of all, the project is now unquestionably an Indian water

rights project.

24

Second, the major environmental issues associated with irrigation and the Endangered Species Act have been eliminated by

downsizing the project.

Third, the cost of the project has been greatly reduced.

Fourth, the proposed legislation contains no short cut to environmental compliance.

Despite these major changes to the project, there is still opposition. The opponents would oppose any water project, no matter how

small its impact and no matter who gets the benefits. Congress

should not be swayed by the arguments that are raised against the

project but should move forth to carry out the promises made to

the two Ute Tribes. The bill is still a good solution to a very difficult problem. It should be passed.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation for

your work on this matter. I also want to note Congressman

McInnis’s leadership on this difficult issue. We appreciate his hard

work and support.

Finally, we want to say thank you to Secretary Babbitt, Deputy

Secretary Hayes, and the Department of the Interior for their work

on these matters. We also want to state our appreciation for the

sacrifices made by our non-Indian neighbors who have never

wavered in their insistence that the United States should honor its

commitments to the two Ute Tribes.

In closing, I sit here as a veteran of this country and I believe

that we live in the greatest country of the world and I think it is

only honorable that we honor the agreements made between the

United States and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. Thank you.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker follows:]

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The committee will now recess for the votes,

which I think there are two, so we should be back here in about

20 minutes.

[Recess.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The subcommittee will reconvene and we will

hear from Mr. Ernest House, chairman of the Ute Mountain Tribe

in Colorado. Mr. House?

STATEMENT OF ERNEST HOUSE, CHAIRMAN, UTE MOUNTAIN

UTE TRIBE, TOWAOC, COLORADO

Mr. HOUSE. My name is Ernest House, Sr. I am the tribal chairman for the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. I am honored to testify today

in support of H.R. 3112, the Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendment of 1999.

It is difficult to describe my tribe’s long-term commitment to obtain a fair and just settlement of our water claims in Southwest

Colorado and Northwest New Mexico. I thought the best way to do

so might be to introduce you to my father, Thomas House, Sr., who

served on the Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Council more than a quarter of a century ago.

I also wanted to demonstrate to the chairman and members of

the committee that the real reason we have remained so committed

in spite of the many years which have passed and delays which

have been endured. The Ute Mountain Tribe and our sister tribe,

Southern Utes, entered into a settlement and have patiently waited

for its implementation for the future of our tribe. Joining me today

are my son and daughter, the picture of our future generation who

will benefit from this firm supply of water. I ask you to welcome

my son, Ernest House Jr. and my daughter, Michelle House.

I was a young tribal member, like them, in 1968 when my grandfather, the late Chief Jack House appeared before the House Interior and Insular Affairs to testify in support of the Animas-La

Plata project. I was also a tribal chairman in 1986 when the Southern Ute Tribe and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe signed the original settlement agreement with the State of Colorado. The agreement

eventually became the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988, which was passed by Congress and signed into

law by President Ronald Reagan. Needless to say, the Ute Mountain Ute people rejoiced with the Southern Ute people and our nonIndian neighbors because we thought we had finally won the long

battle to acquire a firm water supply to meet the present and future needs of our Indian people of Southwest Colorado.

Two years ago when we came before the subcommittee in support

of legislation to implement the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights

Settlement Act, the Clinton administration refused to support our

cause. Today, however, I understand, hopefully, that the Clinton

administration will support H.R. 3112, along with the State of Colorado, New Mexico, and sister tribe, the Southern Ute Indians.

H.R. 3112 will provide for the final settlement of the water rights

claims of the Southern Ute Indian and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes

in Southwestern Colorado. The legislation creates substantial new

water supply to the Ute Tribes and supplemental supplies to the

non-Indian communities in our area.

34

We urge you to promptly consider and approve the legislation so

that at the conclusion of our environmental process, the Secretary

of the Interior can move forward with a record of decision and construction of this crucially needed water supply project.

As a tribal leader on the national, State, and local level for several years, I have witnessed on many occasions major confrontation

and battles between Indians and non-Indians on various issues affecting tribal sovereignty, tribal natural resources, social and economic issues.

Finally, I would like to thank on behalf of the Ute Mountain Ute

tribe and our other tribal and non-tribal partners in Colorado and

New Mexico, both the Congress and the Clinton administration for

their leadership. Through the efforts undertaken different times

with different styles, a commitment has emerged from both the

U.S. Congress and the Clinton administration to resolve once and

for all this lengthy struggle to find a legally and scientifically supportive solution. We are indeed fortunate that the elected leaders

from the tribes, La Plata and Montezuma Counties, and the States

of Colorado and New Mexico, and elected and non-elected officials

in Denver and Washington, DC., have put aside their differences

and worked to develop a rational and equitable solution.

It is time to move forward. I want my father to see this project

in his lifetime and I am hopeful my children will be able to focus

their efforts on other important tribal issues and will not 10 years

from now be sitting here where I am today asking for the water

for my people.

I thank you, Chairman, for the time that you have allowed me.

Also, for the record, I would like to say that the State of Colorado

has submitted their support and it is in the record, to let the committee know that the State of Colorado also supports the water

project. Thank you very much.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. House follows:]

35

36

37

38

39

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Our next witness is Mr. Sage Douglas Remington, Director of the Southern Utes Grassroots Organization from

Colorado. I might note, it is my understanding that Mr. Remington

has been quite ill and has spent a good deal of time here today

waiting for us to get through this hearing, so we hope you are feeling better and I appreciate your patience. Mr. Remington?

STATEMENT OF SAGE DOUGLAS REMINGTON, DIRECTOR,

SOUTHERN UTE GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATION, IGNACIO,

COLORADO

Mr. REMINGTON. Thank you. My name is Sage Douglas Remington and I am a representative of the Southern Ute Grassroots

Organization, which represents Southern Ute Tribal members who

are deeply concerned about the Animas-La Plata project and its

long-term effect on water resources of the Southern Ute Tribe.

First of all, a number of groups that are concerned about the

ALP water project are not present because verbal testimony has

been limited to one representative. Therefore, I am not in a position to address or cover their issues of concern.

Our main concern is that there has been little communication between the Southern Ute Tribal membership and the Tribal Council

about the long-term benefits of the Animas-La Plata water project.

We are not opposed to ALP. What we are opposed to is the autocratic attitude of the Southern Ute Tribal Council.

The ALP water project does not meet the legal mandate of NEPA

or other fiscal and environmental laws and the Bureau of Reclamation has ignored the alternative proposed by the opponents to the

project. The indefinite purposes and needs for the project violates

NEPA, the Clean Water Act, and is not consistent with sound taxpayer public policy.

The SEIS states that the purpose of and the need for the preferred ALP alternative is to implement the Colorado Ute Water

Rights Settlement Act by providing the Ute Tribes with an assured

long-term water supply and water acquisition fund in order to satisfy the tribes’ senior water rights claims as quantified in the Settlement Act and to provide for identified M&I water needs in the

project area.

What the concerned members of the tribe believe is that the proposed project does not implement the Settlement Act. Instead, it

proposes an entirely different configuration of the water development as originally proposed. Settling Indian water claims may be

a purpose, but implementing the 1988 Settlement Agreement clearly is not.

The Bureau’s position is that no uses of the water must be identified because it implements an Indian water rights settlement.

The proposed action does not, however, identify any need for nonIndian water in the project. As a matter of fact, it does not even

justify why non-Indian water is needed, if needed at all. There is

no valid comparison of the alternatives if the purpose of the project

is not clearly defined.

Absent is any specification of how the Ute Tribes will actually

use their water. According to the SEIS, the ultimate use of project

water, about three-fourths of the total water supply, by the Ute

Tribes would be more specifically defined by those tribes as future

40

needs develop. The SEIS lists a number of non-binding different

water uses that the tribes may or may not decide to pursue in the

future. Noticeably absent is a discussion of firm tribal plans to utilize their water. It appears that the only presently foreseeable use

is tribal water marketing.

The failure to identify actual uses for tribal water is a fundamental law that infects the analysis undertaken by the Bureau of

Reclamation in the SEIS. Without knowing how Ute water will be

used, it is difficult to rationalize whether or not the proposed reservoir is necessary. Other than providing water uses proximate to

the proposed reservoir or within the Animas basin, it is difficult to

see what advantages the Ridges basin reservoir will achieve that

could not be accomplished by exchange using the numerous other

Federal storage facilities in the greater project area. The end uses

of the water are connected and interdependent actions and NEPA

on them must be completed before the project can be approved.

The failure to specify actual water uses is not remedied by the

speculative non-binding uses offered in the SEIS. While several of

these may have merit at some point in the future, others, notably

the single largest water use proposed for a project, a coal-fired

power plant which the tribal membership does not know anything

about, are speculative and painfully strain even the most optimistic

assumptions about future development in the Four Corners region.

No private sector investor, whether for-profit or not-for-profit,

would ever direct valuable resources into such a pipe dream regardless of the beneficiaries.

The Animas-La Plata project is not needed to facilitate tribal

water marketing and will impose serious legal and economic penalties on the tribal attempts to market water. Because the SEIS offers no foreseeable use for the majority of tribal water other than

marketing, Interior and other Federal departments have failed to

justify any actual need for the Animas-La Plata project.

The membership of SUGO feels that if the settlement of the Indian water rights claim is truly a purpose of the project, then the

issue of tribal water leasing or sale out of State must be considered. Thank you.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Remington follows:]

41

42

43

44

45

Mr. DOOLITTLE. It seems to me over the 10-years I have been on

this committee, I have heard several hearings on Animas-La Plata,

so hopefully we will actually make this happen this time.

I would like to include in the record statements from Richard K.

Griswold, President of the Animas-La Plata Water Conservancy

District; Thomas C. Turney, State engineer with the State of New

Mexico; the San Juan Water Commission in New Mexico; Fred V.

Kroeger, President of the Southwestern Water Conservation District; and Michael Black with the Taxpayers for the Animas River.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Griswold follows:]

46

47

48

49

50

51

[The prepared statement of Mr. Turney follows:]

52

53

54

55

[The prepared statement of the San Juan Water Commission follows:]

56

57

58

59

60

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kroeger follows:]

61

62

63

64

[The prepared statement of Mr. Black follows:]

65

66

67

68

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Hayes, it has been implied that this legislation impedes the tribe from interstate water marketing and I wondered if you agree that the tribe has given up any right to market

their water or would they be required in any case, with or without

this bill, to abide by State law in marketing their water.

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, the marketing constraints have been

identified in the existing Animas-La Plata legislation and the proposed amendments would not affect that in any way. So the status

quo in terms of authorization would continue in place, and there

are some restrictions on interstate marketing in the current authorization.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. So we are not making anything worse in that regard by the present legislation?

Mr. HAYES. There is no change.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. There is language in this bill, I think, intended

to address the administration’s concern about the desire to deauthorize the project; it is on page seven at the bottom, paragraph

three, which says, ‘‘if constructed, the facility described in paragraph 1(a) shall not be used in conjunction with any other facility

authorized as part of the Animas-La Plata project without express

authorization from Congress.’’ Does that legislation meet your concern and cause you to support the bill, Mr. Hayes?

Mr. HAYES. On this issue, the language that have set forth would

address the issue satisfactorily from the administration’s perspective, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. This project is much reduced from

what it was. Personally, I would have preferred the larger version,

but perhaps some of you would, too. In any event, this is where we

are. It has been a long, difficult process. I appreciate the patience

you have had with our committee. It really would not have taken

very long if we had not been delayed by those votes.

The subcommittee is pretty familiar, I think, with this project because of the number of times it has been before us. I would hope

we could go to markup fairly soon after this hearing and go from

there and hopefully it can move through the Senate side expeditiously.

I would like to thank all of you for your attendance today. We

may have further questions and I would ask you to respond expeditiously to those that we would tender following the hearing. With

that, the hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:19 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]