U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

28–891 PDF 2018

S. HRG. 115–179 

S. 664 AND S. 1770 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 6, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota, Chairman 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico, Vice Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JON TESTER, Montana, 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

T. MICHAEL ANDREWS, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JENNIFER ROMERO, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on December 6, 2017 ........................................................................ 1 

Statement of Senator Flake .................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Statement of Senator Hatch ................................................................................... 3 

Statement of Senator Hoeven ................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2 

WITNESSES

Begaye, Hon. Russell, President, Navajo Nation .................................................. 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Buschatzke, Thomas, Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources .......... 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 26 

Clarke, Hon. Damon, Chairman, Hualapai Nation .............................................. 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Cox, Hon. Spencer J., Lieutenant Governor, State of Utah ................................. 24 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Mikkelsen, Alan, Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior ............................................................................................. 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

APPENDIX

Bennett III, Alfred, Shiprock/Northern Agency, Navajo Nation, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 40 

Kalt, Prof. Joseph P., Co-Director, The Harvard Project on American Indian 

Economic Development, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard 

University, prepared statement .......................................................................... 37 

Response to written questions submitted to Alan Mikkelsen by: 

Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto .......................................................................... 43 

Hon. Tom Udall ................................................................................................ 41 

Valencia, Hon. Robert, Chairman, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, letter ............................ 40 

(1) 

S. 664 AND S. 1770 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:50 p.m. in room 

628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Hoeven, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HOEVEN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good afternoon. I call this hearing to order. 

I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. 

Before we begin, I also want to extend my sincerest condolences 

to the Navajo Nation and to President Begaye, who is testifying before us today, on the recent loss of Navajo Nation Code Talker, 

George B. Willie, Sr. 

Mr. Willie served in the Marine Corps with the 2nd Marine Division. His bravery and sacrifices, and that of all code talkers, was 

absolutely invaluable in securing freedom and victory during World 

Wars I and II. 

On a personal note, my dad was a Marine. I can remember the 

movie on the code talkers. As a matter of fact, a friend of mine 

growing up, a fellow by the name of John Rice, I think, wrote the 

screenplay for that amazing, amazing movie about the code talkers 

of World War II. 

Certainly we remember and honor Mr. Willie’s service and life 

today. 

With that, this Committee will receive testimony on two Indian 

water rights settlement bills, S. 664 and S. 1770. 

In the early 1900s, the Supreme Court paved the way for Indian 

tribes to settle their water rights in the case of Winters v. United 

States. Since then, only a handful of the Indian tribes have settled 

their claims for water rights. Many more claims still need to be addressed. 

S. 664, the Navajo Utah Water Rights Settlement Act of 2017 is 

intended to resolve claims between the Navajo Nation and the 

State of Utah regarding water allocation in the San Juan River. The bill would authorize over $210 million for approved water 

development projects for the Navajo Nation and also would allocate 

81,500 acre feet per year of water from the San Juan River. 

S. 1770, the Hualapai Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2017 

would resolve the claims of the Hualapai Nation to water in the 

2 

Colorado River Basin. The bill would authorize approximately 

$173.5 million for water development projects and reallocate 4,000 

acre feet per year of water from the Central Arizona Project to the 

tribe. 

A lot of stakeholders have given their input on these bills and 

we appreciate our witnesses being here today to testify on them. 

Before turning to Senator Flake, I will turn to our Vice Chairman, Senator Udall, for his opening remarks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, let me recognize President Begaye who is here from 

the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation is the largest tribe in the 

Nation and overlaps into three States. He is one of the great leaders in Indian Country. I know the Senators who serve in those 

three States always respect having his point of view. 

It is wonderful to have you here today, President Begaye and all 

your distinguished people here with you. I know we also have two 

Navajo Council delegates here with you. 

Let me also echo what the Chairman has said regarding condolences for George Willie, one of the great code talkers. My father 

also served in World War II and talked a lot about the code talkers 

and the many Navajo code talkers he met during his life. It is a 

sad occasion when we have the passing of a code talker. 

With that, because we have votes fast approaching and we want 

to get to questions before we have to get over there and vote, I am 

going to ask the Chairman to put my opening statement in the 

record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Udall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

Thank you, Chairman Hoeven, for calling today’s legislative hearing. I’d first like 

to acknowledge and welcome President Begaye of the Navajo Nation. President 

Begaye is no stranger to this Committee. He is a strong advocate for the Navajo 

people. And I welcome his valuable input on behalf of the Navajo Nation. 

I’m glad that we have the opportunity to discuss the specifics of the bills we’re 

considering today... but I’d also like to underscore the importance of Indian 

water rights settlements generally. 

Indian water settlements are critically important—not only to fulfilling the United 

States’ fiduciary obligations to tribes, but also for the long-term economic vitality 

of the surrounding communities. This is especially true for my home state of New 

Mexico and across the west where water is the lifeblood of many communities, both 

Indian and non-Indian. 

I often say that western water has a 19th century legal framework—with 20th 

century infrastructure—and 21st century pressures of increasing demand and dwindling resources due to climate change. 

Our long-term water supply and consumption are out of balance—even with current conservation efforts. Every year brings a new ‘‘warmest year on record’’ forecast 

and with it increased water insecurity across the arid west. 

We must work together to tackle these big challenges. Collectively, we must step 

up our efforts to combat climate change as we plan for a changing planet and what 

it means for our future water supplies. 

I can go on about the threat of severe droughts, decreased snowpack, and increasing wildfire threats that ravage our precious watersheds. 

Instead, I would simply like to stress that we need more collaboration and less 

litigation when it comes managing water in the 21st century. 

3 

Indian water rights settlements are a perfect example of the benefits of collaboration over litigation. These settlements fund vital water infrastructure for communities that may have gone decades without adequate sources of water... while 

also providing certainty and fostering cooperation within and among communities 

and all water stakeholders. 

It is my sincere hope that the Department of the Interior prioritizes the management, negotiation and implementation of Indian Water Settlements now and into 

the future. 

For my part, I will work with my Senate colleagues to ensure that Congress fulfills its promise. And makes adequate funding available for these settlements. I’m 

particularly interested in exploring alternative funding mechanisms for future Indian water settlements, like extending the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund established in the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009. 

This could help provide some certainty in our commitment to work collaboratively 

on future Indian water rights settlements. 

Turning to the bills themselves, I appreciate the sponsors’ efforts to bring these 

bills forward. But have some questions on the specifics. I look forward to our witnesses’ testimonies, which will hopefully provide clarity on potential impacts to 

tribes in New Mexico and Arizona. 

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. With that, I would turn to our President Pro 

Tem, Senator Hatch. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN HATCH, PRESIDENT PRO 

TEMPORE, U.S. SENATE 

Senator HATCH. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share my thoughts with the Committee. 

I am here today to speak in support of the Navajo Utah Water 

Rights Settlement Act of 2017. In doing so, I would like to introduce two men who were instrumental in making this agreement a 

reality: the Lieutenant Governor of my home State of Utah, Spencer Cox and the President of the Navajo Nation, Russell Begaye. 

I am proud of both of you. 

These men are good friends who have kindly made the trip to 

Washington to provide testimony and speak to the merits of the 

legislation before us. I am proud to be able to say a few words 

about both of them. 

The Committee should know that the State of Utah, represented 

by Lieutenant Governor Cox, and the Navajo Nation, represented 

by President Begaye, has spent over 13 years formalizing a negotiated settlement over Navajo water rights claims on the Colorado 

River. 

Both parties invested significant time and resources on this issue 

because water rights settlements are critically important in many 

western States, especially in Utah. As everyone here can appreciate, reaching agreement on water settlements is extremely difficult, so I applaud our witnesses today and their hard work in 

helping us reach the settlement outlined in my legislation. 

My bill would settle the water rights claims of the Navajo Nation 

and the United States within the State of Utah by providing a permanent source of water for the Navajo Nation in Utah and a water 

settlement fund to be used for the construction of drinking water 

infrastructure on the Navajo reservation. 

In consideration for this water and funding, the Navajo Nation 

will waive its water-related claims against the United States and 

Utah. Importantly, this will provide both Navajo and non-Native 

Americans citizens in the Upper Colorado River Basin and Utah 

4 

with certainty regarding their respective water rights that will 

allow them to plan for their futures. 

It should come as no surprise that the State of Utah and the 

Navajo Nation strongly support this settlement. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, water settlement negotiations are 

high stakes, take years to complete and often involve contentious 

issues. I am appreciative that you are willing to face up to these 

issues and handle them. 

These negotiations can only be successful when the participants 

are dedicated to the cause, act in good faith and show they are willing to stand up for the people they represent. Lieutenant Governor 

Cox and President Begaye have proven to be valuable partners in 

the Utah-Navajo settlement discussions. 

Both are committed to moving the Utah-Navajo settlement forward and working with the Federal Government to resolve any outstanding issues. They are eager to secure benefits for the citizens 

both of the Navajo Nation and the State of Utah. Their leadership 

has been invaluable in advancing the settlement negotiations. I 

personally am confident they will continue to push the settlement 

forward until the job is done. 

I am honored to introduce these two wonderful men, these two 

witnesses to the Committee, and look forward to working with all 

involved stakeholders who share a common goal of enacting a mutually supportive settlement. 

Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to say these few 

words. I wish you the best as the leadership of the Committee. I 

appreciate the work you are doing. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for being with 

us today. 

Senator Flake. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF FLAKE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for being here. I especially want to welcome Dr. 

Clarke of the Hualapai Tribe and also Tom Buschatzke, the director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources. 

Because we are in such a rush, I will ask unanimous consent to 

have my opening statement included as part of the record. 

I described, in a similar hearing last year, the importance of this 

settlement, both for the tribe and for those outside of the reservation in the region. This is critically important to have some surety 

moving ahead in terms of the disposition of Colorado River water 

and the settlement claims of the Hualapai. 

It is also great to have Russell Begaye here from the Navajo Nation as well. 

I welcome all of you and look forward to the questions and answers. 

I would also ask unanimous consent to submit as part of the 

record some statements in support from Mohave County, as well as 

some other organizations. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

5 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF FLAKE, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, I appreciate you holding this hearing on S. 

1770, The Hualapai Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act. 

I would also like to welcome the Hualapai Tribe’s Chairman, Dr. Clarke, and the 

Director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources, Tom Buschatzke and thank 

them for their appearances before the Committee today. 

This is a widely supported settlement and I am pleased to see representatives 

from other parties to this settlement, the State of Arizona, the Central Arizona 

Water Conservation District, the Salt River Project, and the Freeport Minerals Corporation here in support of this settlement. 

I also ask that the unanimous resolution of support from Mohave County be included in the hearing record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

RESOLUTION NO. 2017–063 

A RESOLUTION CONVEYING THE UNANIMOUS SUPPORT OF THE MOHAVE 

COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE HUALAPAI WATER SETTLEMENT AND URGING SENATOR FLAKE, SENATOR MCCAIN AND CONGRESSMAN GOSAR AND THE ENTIRE ARIZONA CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION TO REINTRODUCE AND PURSUE THE PASSAGE OF S. 3300 ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED BY SENATORS FLAKE AND MCCAIN IN 2016 

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors met in Regular Session this 15th day of 

May, 2017; and 

WHEREAS, the Hualapai Tribe is a key member and economic driver of Mohave 

County; and 

WHEREAS, the water settlement they have negotiated with the State of Arizona 

as well as other parties represents a responsible and rational allocation of water for 

the Hualapai Tribe; and 

WHEREAS, the water will allow the Tribe to create hundreds of jobs for both 

residents of the Hualapai Reservation and non-reservation residents of Mohave 

County. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mohave County Board of Supervisors conveys its support of this water settlement and urges Senator Flake, Senator McCain, Congressman Gosar and the entire Arizona Congressional Delegation 

to reintroduce and pursue passage of S. 3300, originally introduced by Senators 

Flake and McCain in 2016. 

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 15th day of May, 2017. 

MOHAVE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

GARY WATSON, Chairman 

ATTEST: 

GINNY ANDERSON, Clerk of the Board 

This is an important piece of legislation for the tribe and for Arizona. 

The roughly one-million-acre reservation is ill-suited for an economy based on 

mining, oil and gas, timber, or agriculture and the Hualapai are building an economy based on one resource they have in abundance—people wanting to experience 

the Grand Canyon and Colorado River. 

Without access to additional reliable water supplies, they are unable to realize its 

full potential, which includes a residential community at Grand Canyon West for 

their tribal members who work there. 

In short, this legislation provides significant but fair benefits for the Hualapai. 

Mr. Chairman, as I described at a similar hearing last year, this settlement and 

legislation also have important benefits outside the reservation and region. 

The Hualapai Tribe makes a claim to Colorado River, a critically important water 

source for the state that provides roughly 40 percent of our water supplies. 

This fair settlement dedicates 4,000 acre-feet of CAP’s Colorado River water to the 

tribe in a way that puts them on par with existing CAP water users. 

Because of the priority of the tribe’s claims, there is the possibility that future 

development of their water rights would displace current water users in Arizona. 

I am pleased to see the Administration’s support of the policy of settling tribal 

water rights claims, but am somewhat disappointed with their continued resistance 

to support this particular settlement. 

The administration’s insistence on repeating the last administration’s commitment to endless groundwater studies is frustrating. 

6 

I ask that the 2015 memorandum from Natural Resource Consulting Engineers 

documenting the 16 studies of groundwater on the reservation that have been in the 

past 65 years be entered into the hearing record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 

Oakland, CA, December 4, 2015 

MEMORANDUM 

To: Hualapai Project Files 

RE: PREVIOUS GROUNDWATER STUDIES

This memorandum presents a list and brief description of previous groundwater 

studies on the Hualapai Reservation. The list of studies is separated between the 

deep regional aquifer and the alluvial-volcanic aquifers. 

Deep Regional Aquifer 

Description: The deep regional aquifer on the Hualapai Reservation includes the 

Redwall-Muav Aquifer (R-Aquifer) and the Tapeats Sandstone lying at the bottom 

of the Paleozoic section in contact with crystalline basement rocks. 

• Representative well yields from the R-Aquifer range from 5 to 40 gallons per 

minute, with 150 gallons per minute the highest reported in the region 

(Twenter, 1962; Myers, 1987; and others). 

• There is some evidence indicating that faults, fractures, and folds may enhance 

aquifer properties that can localize potential for larger well yields; however targeting these features using surface geophysics is speculative and drilling costs 

are very high. 

• The USGS conducted a hydrogeological study of the Reservation between 1957 

and 1962 (Twenter, 1962). The R-Aquifer was identified as the most promising 

aquifer, but drilling depths were prohibitive. 

• Several wells were drilled to various depths (mostly shallow) in the late ‘60’s 

and ‘70’s by the BLM and the BIA loosely based on Twenter’s recommendations 

but most were unsuccessful (Huntoon, 1977). 

• Several deeper wells were completed on the Hualapai Plateau in 1992 by the 

Bureau of Reclamation. One well drilled near the GCW resort in 1992 targeted 

the deep regional R-Aquifer. The well was deepened in 1999 (Watt, 2000). That 

well (GCW–1) encountered groundwater only in the Tapeats Sandstone. The 

shallower Redwall and Muav Formations were unsaturated. The well is 

equipped with an oilfield-type pumping unit but is currently unused due to low 

water quality and low yield (15–26 gpm). 

• NRCE was contracted in 2005 to investigate and evaluate all possible water 

supply options for the resort. The preferred alternative recommended diversion 

from the Colorado River. Groundwater development options were judged to be 

infeasible for a variety of reasons, but primarily because of their inability to 

supply the sustainable yield required by the Grand Canyon West resort at a 

reasonable overall project cost. 

• DOWL (2013) further assessed a few Colorado River alternatives considered in 

the NRCE study. Groundwater development alternatives were judged to be infeasible in this study for the same reasons as the 2005 study by NRCE. 

Alluvial-Volcanic Aquifers 

Description: The main alluvial-volcanic aquifers are in the northern Aubrey Valley 

around Frazier Wells (eastern part of the Reservation), Westwater Canyon, Peach 

Springs-Truxton Wash Valley, and elsewhere along the southwest flank of the 

Hualapai Plateau (e.g. Horse Flat area and the upper Milkweed Canyon). The alluvial-volcanic aquifers have areal extents that are limited by the valleys and washes 

that contain them. The volume of stored groundwater is similarly limited. Depth to 

water is generally shallow, typically less than 500 feet below ground level, and well 

yields of up to 170 gallons per minute have been reported. Water from these 

aquifers is generally acceptable for domestic use. 

• The Santa Fe Railroad drilled 6 fairly shallow wells within Peach Springs between 1903 and 1922. The Hualapai Tribe acquired use of water from the railroad spring-fed water system between 1931 and 1954. One well near the town 

is currently used. 

• The USGS conducted a study in 1942 to assist location of prospective sites for 

development of stock water supply on the Hualapai Reservation (Peterson, 

1942). In addition to a hydrogeological characterization of the region, the study 

7 

inventoried numerous existing wells and stock ponds. Peterson recommended 18 

sites across the Reservation for drill-testing. 

• N. J. Devlin evaluated the Peach Springs water system in 1973 and considered 

possibilities for development of additional water supplies for the town. Devlin 

recommended further development of the aquifer contained in the lake beds of 

Truxton Valley. Development of other springs and other exploration areas were 

judged to have low potential. 

• The Indian Health Service drilled two wells in Truxton Valley in 1972 to provide additional water supply for Peach Springs. A third well was drilled in 1976 

by the IHS in Truxton Valley near the wells drilled in 1972. These wells currently supply all of the water needs for the town of Peach Springs. 

• The Bureau of Reclamation drilled an unsuccessful hole into Cenozoic volcanics 

near the head of Milkweed Canyon in 1975. A second successful well in 

Westwater Canyon alluvium and volcanics was completed in 1975. This well 

currently provides most of the water to Grand Canyon West via a 30-mile pipeline. 

• A well drilled in the Frazier Wells area in the eastern part of the Reservation 

serves a fish-rearing facility. An additional two boreholes were completed in the 

shallow alluvial aquifer in the Frazer Wells area in an effort by the Tribe to 

develop additional groundwater supply. Both wells were dry and were abandoned. 

• Regional hydrogeological mapping by Richard Young (State University of New 

York at Geneseo) focused on the Tertiary volcano-sedimentary aquifer in the 

area of Westwater Canyon near the well drilled by the Bureau of Reclamation 

(Young, R. A., 1987, 1991, 1992, 2007). Stantec (2009) estimated the safe yield 

of this aquifer to be approximately 600 afy. Further development of this aquifer 

is prohibited by tribal policy as it would likely reduce spring flow (considered 

to be a cultural resource) in its discharge area. 

• NRCE conducted an evaluation of the groundwater supply for the town of 

Peach Springs in 2011. That study included an inventory of wells in the subregional area, a comprehensive review of the regional geology, an evaluation of 

hydrologically attractive areas for development of additional groundwater supplies in the southern part of the Reservation, and made some specific recommendations for exploratory evaluation of both the R-Aquifer and 

alluvialvolcanic aquifers. The adequacy of natural aquifer recharge to support 

existing and future water needs was also assessed. 

Furthermore, I am frustrated that this administration continues to overlook the 

significant contributions by the tribe, Freeport Minerals, and the State. 

The non-federal contributions to this settlement are at least as significant as recently completed and currently pending settlements, yet the administration’s position is that it is still not enough. 

This legislation is an important step that the State of Arizona needs to take, both 

for the sake of the Hualapai Tribe and for all of us in Arizona who depend on Colorado River water 

I look forward to working with the tribe, the state parties, and the administration 

to find a way forward for this settlement. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Flake. 

With that, we will turn to the witnesses. I understand at this 

point, the witnesses have agreed to forego their opening statements 

in the interest of time because of the votes on the floor. However, 

I would ask if there is anything briefly that the witnesses want to 

put on the record in the form of an opening statement? I would 

offer this opportunity. 

Chairman BEGAYE. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL BEGAYE, PRESIDENT, NAVAJO 

NATION 

Mr. BEGAYE. Thank you, Chairman Hoeven, Senator Udall, Senator Flake and members of the Committee. 

8 

I want to really say thank you to the State of Utah for 

partnering and collaborating with the Navajo Nation to make this 

come about. This has been a very unusual relationship and partnership in making this come about. 

I want to publicly say, I appreciate the leadership from the Senators and members of Congress, from the Governor and members 

of the legislative body in the State of Utah for coming alongside 

Navajo and making this possible. I just want to express my appreciation in that regard. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Begaye follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL BEGAYE, PRESIDENT, NAVAJO NATION

Ya ́’a ́t’e ́e ́h Chairman Hoeven, Vice-Chairman Udall, and members of the Committee. My name is Russell Begaye. I am the elected President of the Navajo Nation. Thank you for this opportunity to present testimony on S. 664, the Navajo 

Utah Water Rights Settlement Act. I also wish to convey the gratitude of the Navajo 

Nation to Senator Hatch for his commitment to improving the lives of the Navajo 

People and for his leadership in sponsoring this important legislation. 

The Navajo Utah Water Rights Settlement Act accomplishes two things. First, the 

Act would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to execute, on behalf of the United 

States, the Navajo Utah Water Rights Settlement Agreement. The Settlement 

Agreement was approved by the Navajo Nation Council in January 2016. It reflects 

over a decade of negotiations involving officials from the Navajo Nation, State of 

Utah, and since 2013, the federal government. Second, the Act provides funding for 

water supply infrastructure intended to address short-term and long-term water development needs in the Utah portion of the Navajo Nation. The challenges of providing access to water on the Navajo Reservation in Utah are monumental and the 

conditions are dire—more than 40 percent of Navajo households lack running water 

or adequate sanitation in their homes. In some cases, such as in the community of 

Oljato on the Arizona-Utah border, a single spigot on a desolate road, miles from 

any residence, serves 900 people. 

As this Committee is well aware, in the Treaty of 1868, Navajo leaders pledged 

their honor to keep peace with the United States and, in return, the United States 

pledged to assist the Navajo People to create a permanent homeland on their reservation lands. The original Navajo Reservation on the border of present day Arizona and New Mexico was enlarged numerous times both by executive order and 

Congressional act to encompass lands where Navajos were already living. Land in 

Utah was added to the Reservation by executive orders in 1884 and 1905, and additional acreage was added by the Act of March 1, 1933, 47 Stat. 1418. These Utah 

Reservation lands would be valueless without a water supply. In the arid West, it 

is clear—no lands can be a permanent homeland without an adequate supply of 

water, especially potable water. The Navajo Nation will secure its water rights either through litigation or through settlement. As this testimony seeks to make clear, 

the advantages of settlement in this case far outweigh the costs, risks, and policy 

disadvantages of divisive litigation. 

I. The Settlement Agreement 

The Settlement would result in a win-win for the Navajo Nation and the State 

of Utah by quantifying the Navajo Nation’s water rights in the Upper Basin of the 

Colorado River in Utah in a manner that will benefit not only the State of Utah 

and the Navajo Nation, but the federal government and all water users in the Colorado River basin. Without a negotiated settlement, conflict over these water rights 

could easily devolve into protracted, expensive, and divisive litigation. Choosing a 

more conciliatory and productive path, the State of Utah and the Navajo Nation devoted years to developing an agreement that would protect existing uses while at 

the same time guarantee the Navajo Nation the firm supply of drinking water we 

need for our reservation to function as a permanent homeland. We are grateful to 

Utah Governor Gary Herbert, Lt. Governor Spencer Cox, their staff and advisors for 

their steadfast work to make this settlement a reality. 

Of course, Indian water rights settlements require the involvement and approval 

of the federal trustee. In February of 2013, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar appointed a federal negotiation team to participate in the resolution of the Navajo Nation’s claims in Utah. The Navajo Nation has been working with the federal team 

9 

to address their concerns about the terms of the settlement and to develop information required by the Criteria and Procedures for the Participation of the Federal 

Government in Negotiations for the Settlement of Indian Water Rights Claims, 55 

FR 9223 (Mar. 12, 1990). The Nation is particularly appreciative of the work that 

the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has undertaken at the behest of the federal team to evaluate the water development projects analyzed by the 

Nation in determining the dollar amount of the settlement Fund. For example, Reclamation’s Design, Estimating and Construction Advisory Team Review Report: Navajo Nation/State of Utah Water Rights Settlement Projects, a report completed in 

September 2013, made findings and recommendations that the Navajo Nation Department of Water Resources (NNDWR) has used to determine the best way to 

bring water to Navajo people in Utah. 

A. Quantifying the Nation’s Water Rights in Utah 

Turning first to the quantification of the Navajo Nation’s water rights in Utah, 

this settlement is a fair and comprehensive resolution to problems that affect not 

only the Navajo Nation, but also non-Indians in Utah and in other parts of the Colorado River Basin as well as federal interests such as Reclamation projects and endangered species. The work that has gone into this settlement has resulted in an 

agreement that is just and equitable to all parties. 

As is typically the case in an Indian water rights settlement, the Navajo Nation 

would agree through this settlement to forbear use of senior water rights that the 

Nation would likely be able to establish in litigation. Less typically, the Navajo Nation has worked in partnership with the State of Utah to develop an agreement that 

will maintain the delicate equilibrium that is the Law of the River. The Navajo Nation recognizes that the San Juan River, the source of its Utah water rights, is part 

of the Colorado River system. The Colorado River is the subject of several interstate 

Compacts and has been a touchstone for some of the most complex water litigation 

of the last century. The settlement is constructed to avoid further divisive litigation, 

including litigation over the applicability of those compacts to the reserved water 

rights of the Navajo Nation. 

Under the Settlement Agreement, the Navajo Nation has the right to deplete 

81,500 acre-feet per year of surface and groundwater from the Upper Colorado River 

Basin in Utah. The Nation further has the right to divert and store this water right 

at a rate of 435 cubic feet per second. The Nation would also secure the ability to 

market its water rights to the same extent as other Utah water rights holders. The 

bulk of the Nation’s Utah water rights would have a priority date of 1884, when 

the Utah portion of the Reservation was first set aside for the Navajo people. Finally, the Settlement Agreement provides for a water development fund to be used 

for water infrastructure development to allow the Navajo Nation to put these water 

rights to use. 

The subordination provisions in the agreement are of substantial benefit to the 

non-Indians in Utah. Non-Indian water development in the San Juan River Basin 

has been extensive, especially in comparison to development on the Navajo Reservation. The records of the Utah State Engineer identify 1,510 state law based permits 

in the San Juan River Basin in Utah for water rights, with major surface diversions 

totaling more than 158,000 acre-feet per year. In the Navajo Utah settlement, as 

in virtually every Indian water rights settlement, the State sought to protect existing non-Indian uses from impairment by potentially senior Indian water rights. This 

result is possible only by the Navajo Nation agreeing to subordinate it water rights 

to existing non-Indian water users. As a result of this subordination, it is estimated 

that existing and proposed Navajo uses supplied by infrastructure constructed with 

the Fund will experience shortages between 1.8 percent and 11.6 percent of the 

time, depending on how Navajo Dam is operated upstream. When the Navajo Nation puts its entire 81,500 acre-foot per year right to use, the subordination of the 

Nation’s water right to non-Indian uses could result in shortages for the Nation 11 

percent to 46 percent of the time. 

B. Value of the Settlement 

I understand that the Administration and this Committee have a keen interest 

in ensuring that water rights settlements, including this one, make sense for the 

United States and for the American taxpayer. I will address this concern briefly in 

this testimony, and I will be glad to provide additional follow up information to fully 

address any concerns expressed by members of Congress or the Administration’s Office of Management and Budget. There are various ways of calculating the value of 

the settlement, and I will highlight two of them today. 

First, the Navajo Nation will forbear the use of water that we would claim in litigation and to which we claim the senior right. Using conservative estimates of the 

10 

value of water in this water-stressed basin, at $3,000 to $10,000 per acre-foot for 

a perpetual supply of Colorado River water, the value of the water forborne by the 

Navajo Nation is in the range of $250 million to more than $850 million. These 

numbers provide clear evidence that the roughly $211 million authorization of appropriations in the bill as introduced is an excellent value for American taxpayers. 

A second approach to determining the value of this settlement is to look more 

closely at the potential liability of the United States, and the litigation and related 

costs that would be anticipated in the absence of settlement. The United States, as 

trustee for the Navajo Nation, has a responsibility to protect the Nation’s trust resources. In quantifying the Nation’s reserved water rights claims within the State 

of Utah, the settlement resolves potential claims that could be brought against the 

United States for failure to develop and protect Navajo water resources. These 

claims include the failure of the United States to ensure that the Upper Colorado 

River Basin Compact (UCRBC) does not limit Navajo uses of water in Utah. 

In the Settlement Agreement, the Navajo Nation made concessions to protect the 

State of Utah in two distinct ways. First, the Nation agreed to reduce the extent 

of its water right claim to enable Utah to stay within its Upper Colorado River 

Basin apportionment. Second, the Nation agreed not to make calls against upstream 

water users on the San Juan River in Colorado and New Mexico because the 

UCRBC does not allocate San Juan River water to Utah. By agreeing not to make 

calls against upstream water users, the Navajo Nation sidesteps the significant 

question of the effect of the interstate compacts on Indian tribes, and avoids the 

threat of litigation that could jeopardize the Law of the River. 

The costs of litigation of these issues would be incredibly high for all sides. The 

value of this settlement, when viewed as necessary to maintain existing interstate 

allocations of the Colorado River, is practically incalculable, and when this value (of 

keeping the settlement within Utah’s Upper Colorado River Basin Compact apportionment and avoiding the displacement of existing water rights) is added to the 

value of the water rights discussed above, enactment of S. 664 is undoubtedly very 

much in the interest of all taxpayers. Finally, the forgoing discussion of the return 

on investment from this settlement does not take into account the programmatic 

and policy priorities that would be fulfilled with the funding that this settlement 

proposes for water infrastructure development. 

II. Water Development Fund 

The settlement includes a water development fund (Fund). Funding for water 

management and delivery infrastructure included in this settlement would improve 

living conditions for the Nation’s citizens. The economic and human costs of hauling 

water—which consists of conveying water in non-sterile containers obtained from 

water sources ranging from relatively clean watering points to livestock storage facilities, often over very long distances—are significant. As the Navajo Nation’s population increases, the need for water delivery and treatment infrastructure intensifies. S. 664 would establish two funds, one for planning, design and construction and 

the other for operation and maintenance. The bill authorizes the appropriation of 

approximately $210 million dollars to these two funds. The State of Utah will contribute $8 million dollars to the funds for planning, design, and construction. The 

United States is also authorized to appropriate $1 million for the hydrographic surveys that are needed to complete the quantification of Navajo water rights. 

Unfortunately, as a result of the hurricanes that wrought havoc in Houston, Florida, and Puerto Rico this fall, the terrible economic and social costs associated with 

the lack of safe water supplies were thrown into vivid relief for many Americans. 

Whereas less than 1 percent of Americans overall live in areas without safe water 

supply and waste disposal facilities, the corresponding rate on the Navajo Reservation in Utah has been estimated to be at least 40 percent. Investment in basic water 

delivery infrastructure is essential for the Navajo people, as it is for all Americans; 

in the absence of the investment in human sustenance this settlement represents, 

more Navajo families will be consigned to living without running water. One study 

commissioned by the Nation found that while the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority, 

a Navajo government enterprise, delivers about 400 acre-feet of water per year for 

municipal and domestic use, meeting the projected water needs by the year 2050 

would require more than a fifteen-fold increase, to about 6,700 acre-feet/year. Significant investments must be made now if the Nation has any chance of meeting 

these future demands for water. 

Safe drinking water is a basic human need, and the consequences of lack of access 

to reliable potable water supplies can be staggering. The Indian Health Service 

(IHS) reports that for every dollar the agency spends on home sanitation facilities, 

at least a twentyfold return in health benefits is achieved. See https:// 

www.ihs.govinewsroom/index.cfm/factsheets/safewater/. Accordingly, the water inVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:01 Mar 13, 2018 Jkt 028891 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\28891.TXT JACK
11 

frastructure the Nation plans to construct with funding provided in this settlement 

will yield important benefits that will conserve federal health care dollars while 

sparing people the economic and human costs of illness directly attributable to contaminated water and lack of adequate sanitation facilities. 

In 2014, NNDWR produced a ‘‘White Paper’’ proposing a series of water development projects to address the water needs of Navajo communities in Utah. The White 

Paper was the culmination of work performed by NNDWR, the engineering firm of 

Brown & Caldwell, and Reclamation assessing alternatives methods that might be 

employed to meet Navajo water needs. After consideration of all viable alternatives, 

the Nation proposed a regional water infrastructure supply project as the primary 

method to meet the minimum needs for drinking water on the Navajo Reservation 

in Utah. The project as proposed would rely on groundwater and San Juan River 

water conjunctively to most effectively utilize available supplies. In an attempt to 

meet water needs in Utah in a comprehensive manner, the White Paper also proposed a package of smaller developments that would address long overdue projects 

on the IHS Sanitation Deficiency List, address necessary short-term capital improvements, and implement an agricultural water conservation program. The estimated cost of the projects included in the White Paper formed the basis for the 

amount of the settlement Fund. 

The Nation, together with the United States and the State of Utah, has expended 

significant time and effort to develop proposed uses of this funding that will give 

us the greatest return from the investment. However, there is flexibility built into 

the settlement, and once funds are appropriated under this Act, actual project design, construction, and management will be the full responsibility of the Navajo Nation. This Fund-based approach is unique. While other settlements authorize a federal agency to plan, design and construct water infrastructure projects, there are 

several reasons that we think a settlement fund is the right approach for this settlement. First, the Navajo Nation has an expert Department of Water Resources with 

the technical capacity to manage these kinds of projects and to build them in the 

most cost-efficient manner. Second, the water planning studies that have preceded 

this settlement make clear that future developments that cannot be accurately projected now—whether in population size, community development, water quality, or 

others—and the Nation needs flexibility to adapt its water infrastructure plans on 

an on-going basis. Third, given the fact that the Navajo Reservation extends into 

multiple states, there are potential costs savings in constructing water projects that 

may cross-state lines. Fourth, Navajo management of the funds is consistent with 

the federal goal of tribal self-determination. While the Nation is aware that funding 

associated with this settlement is limited to use within the boundaries of the State 

of Utah, the flexibility to adopt project designs that take advantage of economies 

of scale is particularly important for this settlement. In summary, the Navajo Nation has the institutional capacity to manage these funds effectively, to adapt to unforeseen developments, and to produce results demanded by the Navajo people. 

However ultimately configured, the projects that the Navajo Nation plans to undertake with the settlement Fund will make a lasting impact on the lives of the 

Navajo people in Utah. Together, a regional water supply project, coupled with 

short-term capital improvements and water/sanitation facilities connecting homes to 

the water supply project, though modest in terms of overall need, represent a comprehensive approach to meet current and future demands. The work on agricultural 

water conservation will help Navajo farmers deal proactively with the risk of water 

shortage, and allow for the potential leveraging of funds available from the USDA 

for water management. The Fund will make possible projects that will lead to improved water management and water availability, making the Navajo Reservation 

in Utah a place where people can live and work. 

Conclusion 

I cannot emphasize enough that securing the Nation’s water rights, and building 

infrastructure to convert paper water rights into wet water, are the necessary foundation for economic growth. S. 664 is important legislation that would confirm the 

settlement of the Nation’s water rights and help build desperately needed water infrastructure. When I campaigned for President, the need for infrastructure development was constantly brought up as a priority by my constituents, the Navajo people. 

Infrastructure development is one of the Four Pillars of my administration, together 

with job creation, and programs for Navajo veterans, elders and youth. Your assistance in enacting S. 664 into law will help the Navajo people to realize our economic 

potential, creating jobs and improving living conditions in a part of the country that 

has been ignored for far too long. 

Since signing the Treaty of 1868, the Navajo people have taken their treaty obligations seriously. When the United States needed us, brave Navajo men and women 

12 

heeded the call to serve in all branches of the armed forces. The Navajo Code Talkers used our language to devise an unbreakable code; there could be no better example of the way the partnership between the United States and Native peoples 

strengthens us all. For my people, fighting to preserve American freedom is also 

fighting to preserve the Navajo homeland. The American ideal is not just an abstraction; it is a place where communities like those within the Navajo Nation have 

a chance to develop into viable economies, where our young people can learn our 

values, and where our culture can thrive. We have a saying, to ́ bee iina ́—water is 

life; water helps us live. Without water and a means to get it to our people, we cannot survive. 

This settlement legislation, if enacted, will help the Navajo Nation to build vital 

infrastructure and help our next generation to be our most successful generation 

yet. We are asking the United States to fulfill its promises under the Treaty of 1868 

to work with us to a create a viable homeland. We stand ready to work with Congress and the Administration, together with the State of Utah, to push this settlement to this finish line and to ensure that it is implemented. Again, we appreciate 

Governor Herbert’s and Senator Hatch’s leadership and the Committee’s attention 

to this important issue. With your help, we can secure a bright and prosperous future for the Navajo Nation. Thank you. Ahe ́hee’. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Chairman Begaye. 

Mr. Mikkelsen. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN MIKKELSEN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. MIKKELSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my opening 

statement be submitted for the record. 

I would also simply like to note that the department, for the 

record, does support Indian water rights settlements, particularly 

as an alternative to the protracted and divisive litigation that often 

results if we do not do this. 

With that, I will forego my opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mikkelsen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALAN MIKKELSEN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF

RECLAMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Good afternoon Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall, and Members of the 

Committee. My name is Alan Mikkelsen, and I am the Deputy Commissioner at the 

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and Chair of the Working Group on Indian 

Water Settlements at the Department of the Interior (Department). I am pleased 

to appear before you today to discuss Indian water rights settlements, a subject I 

have first-hand and extensive experience with given my years working and living 

throughout the West. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department’s position on S. 1770, 

the Hualapai Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2017, which would approve and 

provide authorizations to carry out the settlement of certain water right claims of 

the Hualapai Tribe in Arizona (Tribe). The Department has significant concerns 

about the Federal costs of the settlement, totaling approximately $173.5 million in 

2016 dollars, which we believe may also underestimate its true cost. In addition, the 

United States has significant concerns regarding the overly-broad and unnecessary 

waiver of federal sovereign immunity in S. 1770. For these, and other reasons, the 

Department cannot support S. 1770 as introduced, but is eager to work with all of 

the interested parties to negotiate a settlement that adheres to the Criteria and 

Procedures. 

I. Introduction 

Before I begin discussing the Hualapai settlement, I want to note that the Department supports the policy that negotiated Indian water rights settlements are preferable to protracted and divisive litigation. Indian water rights settlements have the 

potential to resolve long-standing claims to water, provide certainty to water users, 

foster cooperation among water users within a watershed, allow for the development 

of water infrastructure, promote tribal sovereignty and self-sufficiency, and improve 

13 

environmental and health conditions on reservations. We understand that Congress 

plays an important role in approving Indian water rights settlements, especially 

when they involve federal spending, the alteration of the Tribe’s reserved water 

rights, or the waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity, and we stand ready 

to work with this Committee and Members of Congress to advance Indian water 

rights settlements. The framework the Department follows to guide the negotiation 

of Indian water rights settlements, and the support for legislation to authorize these 

settlements, includes four general principles set forth in the Criteria and Procedures 

published in 1990. First, settlements must be consistent with the Nation’s trust responsibilities. Second, Indian tribes must receive equivalent benefits in exchange for 

the rights they, and the United States as trustee, release as part of a settlement. 

Third, Indian tribes must obtain the ability to realize value from confirmed water 

rights, which ensures they do not receive legal rights to water supplies that never 

materialize in the delivery of water. Fourth, settlements must contain an appropriate cost-share by all parties benefiting from the settlement. In our current budget 

climate, concerns over federal costs are an area of particular interest to the Department as we evaluate Indian water rights settlements. 

II. Historical Context 

A. The Hualapai Reservation and the Hualapai Tribe 

The Hualapai Tribe’s aboriginal homeland is located in the Grand Canyon and 

plateau region to the south of the Grand Canyon. The Tribe’s main Reservation was 

established in January 4, 1883 by Executive Order, and is comprised of approximately 992,462 acres of tribal trust lands in northwestern Arizona. The tribal headquarters is Peach Springs, Arizona, near the southern boundary of the Reservation. 

The northern boundary of the main Reservation is 108 miles along the Colorado 

River in the Grand Canyon. There is also a 60-acre Executive Order Reservation 

located in the Big Sandy River Basin, approximately 40 miles south of the main 

Reservation. 

The population of the Reservation is 1,621, of whom 1,353 are tribal members, 

according to the 2010 U.S. Census. The total tribal membership in 2010, including 

members living off the Reservation, was 2,300. The majority of on-Reservation residents reside in or near Peach Springs. 

The primary sources of employment on the Reservation are recreation, tourism, 

and tribal and federal government services. The Grand Canyon is the primarily 

source of tourism on the Reservation, with considerable tourism activities located 

at the Tribe’s tourism center, Grand Canyon West, and from river rafting in the Colorado River. The Tribe also owns and operates the Hualapai Lodge, located in Peach 

Springs. 

In 2007, the Tribe completed Grand Canyon West, which includes the Skywalk, 

a horseshoe-shaped glass-bottom walkway that extends out from the rim of the 

Grand Canyon. Annual visitation at Grand Canyon West has steadily increased 

since its opening, and exceeded one million visitors for the first time in 2015, making it the primary economic driver on the Reservation. 

B. Water Resources of the Hualapai Reservation 

The main Reservation is located primarily in the Colorado River Basin with a 

small portion in the Upper Verde River Basin. The majority of on-Reservation 

streams are ephemeral. Several springs discharging from the regional aquifer at the 

bottom of canyons can provide base-low for short perennial reaches, which ultimately discharge to the Colorado River. The largest of these perennial streams are 

Diamond Creek and Spencer Creek, with mean annual flows of over 3,700 acre-feet 

per year (afy) and 4,600 afy, respectively. The springs that feed these streams are 

remotely located in deep canyons and are not practically accessible for use by the 

Tribe. Smaller springs on the plateaus provide water for livestock purposes. 

Groundwater resources on the Reservation occur in varying degrees of magnitude, 

depending on the type and location of water-bearing zones. The Department is conducting groundwater studies in an effort to accurately characterize the groundwater 

resources on and near the Reservation. 

The major water use on the Reservation occurs in two locations: the town of Peach 

Springs and Grand Canyon West. Three wells serve the Peach Springs public water 

supply system and are located approximately 6.5 miles southwest of the town. The 

current level of water use in Peach Springs is approximately 250 afy. All supply 

wells produce water from the Truxton aquifer, an aquifer in the Truxton Valley that 

extends off the Reservation. Water for Grand Canyon West is supplied via a pipeline 

from a well approximately 30 miles away. Current water use at Grand Canyon West 

is 40 afy. Current cumulative water use for the Reservation is approximately 300 

afy. 

14 

III. Proposed Hualapai Tribe Settlement Legislation 

The Tribe claims water rights in the Colorado, Verde, and Bill Williams River basins. Negotiations regarding potential settlement of the Tribe’s water rights claims 

have been ongoing since 2011, when the United States established a negotiating 

team to negotiate .a comprehensive settlement of all the Tribe’s water rights within 

Arizona. The settlement was divided into two phases; the first phase addressed reserved water rights to several off-reservation tracts in the Bill Williams River Basin 

and resulted in the Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Act of 2014, P.L. 

113–223. The second phase, addressed in S. 1770, covers additional water rights in 

the Bill Williams River Basin, as well as the remainder of the Tribe’s water rights 

in the Colorado River Basin and the Verde River Basin. 

S. 1770 would resolve the Tribe’s remaining water rights claims in Arizona; ratify, 

and confirm the Hualapai Tribe water rights settlement agreement among the 

Hualapai Tribe, the United States, the State of Arizona, and others; and authorize 

funds to implement the settlement agreement. The bill would reallocate 4,000 acrefeet of fourth-priority Central Arizona Project (CAP) non-Indian agriculture priority 

water to the Tribe to be used for any purpose on or off the Reservation within the 

lower Colorado River basin in Arizona. 

S. 1770 authorizes the appropriation of a total of $173,500,000 for the following 

purposes: 

• $134,500,000 to design and construct the Hualapai Water Project (Project), 

consisting of approximately 70 miles of pipeline from the Colorado River to 

Peach Springs and Grand Canyon West, two water treatment plants, several 

pumping plants, and other appurtenant features with an overall capacity designed to deliver 3,414 afy; 

• $32,000,000 for the Hualapai OM&R Trust Account, to be used by the Tribe 

for operation, maintenance, and replacement of the Project; 

• $5,000,000 for the Secretary of the Interior for operation, maintenance, and replacement of the Project until such time that title of the Project is transferred 

to the Tribe by the Secretary; and 

• $2,000,000 for the Secretary to provide technical assistance to the Tribe, including operation and management training for the Project. 

IV. Department of the Interior Positions on S. 1770 

While the Department continues to strongly support Indian water rights settlements, the Department has significant concerns about S. 1770 and cannot support 

the legislation as introduced. 

The Department is concerned about the scope and size of the Project given current 

and projected water uses on the Reservation. In addition, we believe the cost to construct a 70-mile pipeline from the Colorado River lifting water over 4,000 feet in 

elevation will greatly exceed the costs currently contemplated in S. 1770 and might 

trigger significant additional litigation. 

The Department believes it should evaluate the water rights, water availability, 

and water resource needs of the tribe from a holistic viewpoint, including information regarding available groundwater resources. Completing ongoing groundwater 

studies will inform the Department’s views on the proposed pipeline. 

The Criteria and Procedures require us to analyze whether the settlement 

‘‘include[s] nonFederal cost sharing proportionate to the benefits received by the 

non-Federal parties.’’ We believe that the State parties can and should contribute 

a commensurate share of the cost of the settlement in return for the benefits they 

will receive. As an example, the state of Montana, with barely one million residents, 

has contributed tens of millions of dollars in appropriated settlement funds to Montana Indian Water Rights Settlements. 

S. 1770 includes an overly broad waiver of sovereign immunity provision—which 

allows for suits against the United States by ‘‘[a]ny landowner or water user in the 

Verde River Watershed or the Colorado River basin within the State of Arizona’’ and 

for the interpretation of previously enacted statutes. This waiver of sovereign immunity is unnecessary and overly broad and presents a significant concern for the 

United States. 

S. 1770 also includes several additional provisions that the Department is concerned about, including an unnecessary reference to 25 USC Section 211, which we 

believe is of limited application based on more current statutes; ambiguous settlement fund management language; and unnecessary obligations placed on the Bureau of Reclamation with respect to the proposed Project. 

As a final matter, the Department must register serious concern about provisions 

of S. 1770 and the settlement agreement that prohibit the Tribe and the United 

15 

States from objecting to any use of groundwater outside the boundaries of the Reservation, even if those uses interfere with acknowledged Federal reserved groundwater rights. 

V. Conclusion 

The Department recognizes that the Tribe, the State of Arizona, and the state 

parties want to achieve a Hualapai water settlement and have devoted substantial 

efforts to that goal. The Department shares this goal and is committed to working 

with the Tribe and the parties to reach a final and fair settlement of the Tribe’s 

water rights claims that adheres to the Criteria and Procedures, and that we can 

fully support. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department’s position on S. 664, the 

Navajo Utah Water Rights Settlement Act of 2017, which would authorize the settlement of water right claims of the Navajo Nation (Nation) to the portion of its land 

within the State of Utah. The Department supports the goals of the settlement, 

which include quantifying the reserved water rights attached to the Utah portion 

of the Navajo reservation and facilitating the development of essential municipal 

water systems that will provide a reliable quantity and quality water supply for the 

communities within the Reservation, which currently lacks the sort of basic services 

that most Americans take for granted. The Department is working with the Nation 

and sponsor of S. 664 to ensure this bill meets these goals while adhering to the 

Criteria and Procedures that guide the Department’s participation in Indian water 

right settlements. 

I. Introduction 

Before I begin discussing the Navajo Utah settlement, I want to note that the Department supports the policy that negotiated Indian water rights settlements are 

preferable to protracted and divisive litigation. Indian water rights settlements have 

the potential to resolve long-standing claims to water, provide certainty to water 

users, foster cooperation among water users within a watershed, allow for the development of water infrastructure, promote tribal sovereignty and self-sufficiency, and 

improve environmental and health conditions on reservations. We understand that 

Congress plays an important role in approving Indian water rights settlements, especially when they involve federal spending or the waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity, and we stand ready to work with this Committee and Members 

of Congress to advance Indian water rights settlements. 

The framework the Department follows to guide the negotiation of Indian water 

rights settlements, and the support for legislation to authorize these settlements, includes four general principals set forth in the Criteria and Procedures published in 

1990. First, settlements must be consistent with the Nation’s trust responsibilities. 

Second, Indian tribes must receive equivalent benefits in exchange for the rights 

they, and the United States as trustee, release as part of a settlement. Third, Indian 

tribes must obtain the ability to realize value from confirmed water rights. This ensures Tribes do not receive legal rights to water supplies that never materialize in 

the delivery of water. Fourth, settlements must contain an appropriate cost-share 

by all parties benefiting from the settlement. In our current budget climate, concerns over federal costs are an area of particular interest to the Department as we 

evaluate Indian water rights settlements. 

II. Historical Context 

The Navajo Reservation is the largest Indian reservation in the United States 

with a current total membership of 300,048, of which 217,609 live on the reservation. The Navajo Reservation has a total unemployment rate five times the national 

average, a median household income of $20,005, and a poverty level of approximately 42 percent. The Navajo Indian Reservation consists of approximately 26,600 

square miles in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. Approximately 1,987 square miles 

lie in southeastern Utah and are the focus of this settlement. The current boundaries of the Navajo Nation Reservation in Utah were established over a period of 

time by two Executive Orders and two congressional Acts between the years of 1884 

and 1958. Currently, there are 5,029 Navajo tribal members residing within the 

Utah portion of the reservation. 

The portion of the Navajo Reservation in Utah is primarily a desert landscape 

with much of the area receiving about 7 inches of water per year. Surface water 

resources include the San Juan River and its tributaries, which flow along the much 

of the northern boundary of the Reservation in Utah. The primary potable water 

source is almost entirely from groundwater and the majority of the groundwater is 

of relatively low quality. The shallow aquifers near Monument Valley provide the 

16 

highest quality water, but those aquifers are nearly fully utilized. The deeper bedrock aquifers in the eastern portions of the Reservation contain more water but 

have significant water quality issues, including high total dissolved solids (TDS) and 

arsenic. Much of the Reservation in Utah lacks easy access to potable water. Of the 

2,581 households, only roughly half have indoor plumbing. Approximately 46 percent of households haul water, some as far as 50 miles round-trip from Halchita to 

Monument Valley. 

III. Proposed Navajo Utah Settlement Legislation 

Since 2003, the State of Utah, the Nation, and the United States have worked 

cooperatively, without litigation, to negotiate a water rights settlement for the portion of the Navajo Reservation within Utah. 

As introduced, S. 644 contains a number of provisions that the Department supports. The legislation recognizes a reserved water right of 81,500 acre-feet per year 

of depletion for the Navajo Nation, which will be deducted from the State of Utah’s 

allocation of water in the Upper Basin of the Colorado River. The Department believes that the amount of water negotiated is an appropriate quantification of the 

Nation’s water rights and is in keeping with important statutes, compacts, and regulations that make up the ‘‘Law of the Colorado River.’’ As part of the proposed settlement, the Navajo agree to subordinate their reserved water right to all perfected 

non-tribal water rights as of the date the settlement is signed, which is relatively 

common in in tribal water rights settlements. Finally, S. 664 provides for exchange 

and lease of Navajo’s water rights within Utah, allowing for greater flexibility in 

the use of water resources and greater drought resiliency. 

As introduced, Section 6 of the bill would authorize $198.3 million in appropriations for Reclamation to plan, design, and construct several Navajo water development projects. S. 664 also includes $11.4 million to establish an operation and maintenance fund to cover the initial operation and maintenance costs associated with 

projects constructed from the water development fund, as well as $1 million for a 

survey of all current water uses on the Utah portion of the Reservation, which will 

allow both the State and Nation to manage water resources. Section 6 also includes 

a state contribution of $8 million payable to the Secretary of the Interior for planning, design and construction of the Navajo water development projects. 

In evaluating the project plans and cost estimates, Reclamation identified deficiencies that would require significant time and effort to resolve and very likely 

would lead to project cost overruns in the future. Subsequent to the introduction of 

S. 664, the United States, the Nation, and the State discussed a simplified settlement, which would replace the Department’s construction obligations under Section 

6 with a water development fund to be used by the Nation to build water projects 

on an as needed basis. Such a revision would afford the Navajo Nation the opportunity to achieve economic efficiency and flexibility in designing and construction 

water projects over time as needs arise. We believe that a fund-based settlement 

would allow for tribal self-sufficiency in meeting future water needs while, at the 

same time, relieving the Department of the risks inherent in attempting to design 

and estimate the costs of projects that have not advanced beyond a conceptual level. 

We will continue to work with the Nation, the State, and the bill sponsor to craft 

changes to the proposed bill that would allow for Administration support. 

The Department also has other concerns about the bill as introduced. Of significant concern is how the water rights held by individual Indians on public domain 

allotments located within the exterior boundaries of the Reservation will be quantified and protected. We have made substantial progress with the Nation and the 

State in negotiating potential changes to bill language that would address this concern and are confident that we will be able to satisfactorily address this issue. The 

provisions on indexing the water development fund are also under discussion. Finally, the waiver language included in the bill as introduced needs to be modified 

to be consistent with current Administration policy. 

IV. Conclusion 

In conclusion, the Department supports the goals of the settlement which include 

quantifying the reserved water rights attached to the Utah portion of the Navajo 

reservation and facilitating the development of essential municipal water systems 

that will provide a reliable quantity and quality water supply for the communities 

within the Reservation. The Department is supportive of a fund-based settlement 

for the Navajo Utah Reservation, as it would allow the Nation the greatest flexibility and self-determination in meeting its future water needs. The Department is 

working with the Nation and sponsor of S. 664 to ensure this bill meets these goals 

while adhering to the Criteria and Procedures established for tribal water right settlements. 

17 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Clarke. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAMON CLARKE, CHAIRMAN, HUALAPAI 

NATION 

Mr. CLARKE. I wanted to thank you, Senator Hoeven, Senator 

Udall and members of the Committee, especially Senator Flake, for 

bringing this forward to the Committee for their consideration. 

I thank everyone else who has been a part of this to give us the 

opportunity to bring water to a very, very rural area. Without it, 

we would not be making strides to give our tribe that economic development. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Clarke follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DAMON CLARKE, CHAIRMAN, HUALAPAI NATION

Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall and members of the Committee, my 

name is Dr. Damon Clarke, Chairman of the Hualapai Tribe. 

The Hualapai Tribe strongly supports S. 1770, the Hualapai Tribe Water Rights 

Settlement Act of 2017. Before I describe the major elements of this legislation and 

the critical benefits the Tribe receives from it, let me briefly inform the Committee 

of the Tribe’s pressing water needs. 

The Hualapai Reservation encompasses approximately 1 million acres in northwestern Arizona. All lands on the Reservation are tribal trust lands; there are no 

allotments or fee inholdings. The Colorado River forms the 108-mile northern 

boundary of the Reservation through a portion of the Grand Canyon. 

Our Reservation has no significant surface streams other than the Colorado River, 

and has very limited groundwater resources. While the Tribe now relies on groundwater to serve Peach Springs, which is our principal residential community, that 

groundwater is a depletable resource and well levels on the Reservation are dropping. The Colorado River is the only feasible water supply for satisfying the longterm future needs of Peach Springs and of the rest of our Reservation. Our Tribe 

needs delivery of Colorado River water both to provide a permanent and secure 

water supply for the domestic and residential needs of our present and future population, and also to fully realize the unique opportunities for economic development 

that we have at Grand Canyon West—a world class on-Reservation tourist development that the Tribe operates on the western rim of the Grand Canyon. 

The Hualapai Reservation does not have the natural resources to permit commercial agriculture, timber or mineral development. But the Reservation’s virtually 

unique location on the Grand Canyon gives the Tribe a strong basis to create a selfsustaining tourism-based economy. Grand Canyon West is the centerpiece of the 

Tribe’s economy. The Grand Canyon Resort Corporation, a tribal corporation which 

operates Grand Canyon West and other tribal enterprises, along with the tribal government, currently employs more than 1,500 workers (more than 550 of which are 

non-Hualapai members). The Hualapai Tribe is the second largest employer in Mohave Country, Arizona. Grand Canyon West hosts over 1 million visitors a year. 

As successful as Grand Canyon West has been to date, there is an even greater 

unrealized potential to further develop Grand Canyon West—but we are unable to 

take advantage of this potential because of a critical lack of water. The nearest 

groundwater to Grand Canyon West is 35 miles away, and the supply from that lowproduction well is barely adequate for current operations, and completely inadequate for growth. With the Colorado River water that the Tribe would receive from 

this settlement, and with the infrastructure to deliver that water to Grand Canyon 

West that would be authorized by this legislation, the Tribe could take full advantage of the potential for further development of Grand Canyon West that would create additional jobs for both tribal members and non-Indians, as well as provide new 

revenues for our tribal government. 

But there would also be significant benefits beyond this. I am accompanied today 

by Professor Joseph P. Kalt from the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic 

Development at the John F. Kennedy School of Government. Professor Kalt was 

commissioned by the Tribe to analyze the economic impact that enactment of S. 

1770 would have on the regional economy of northwestern Arizona and southern Nevada, as well as on the economy of the State of Arizona and the Nation as a whole. 

Professor Kalt’s report, which is attached to his written testimony, states that the 

18 

significant increase in visitors to both Grand Canyon West and the Grand Canyon 

National Park in recent years serves as evidence that the Grand Canyon will continue to attract a growing number of visitors in the coming years. His report also 

states that the economic development of Grand Canyon West that would be triggered by the water and infrastructure authorized by this legislation would support 

an average of more than 6,500 jobs per year in Arizona, and close to 1,000 jobs per 

year in southern Nevada. For the Nation as a whole, the project would support an 

average of more than 10,000 jobs per year, nearly $1.5 billion in federal tax revenues in present value, and a present value of more than $9.3 billion in gross domestic product (GDP) for the United States. I believe this settlement is unique among 

Indian water settlements in supporting this level of regional and national economic 

benefits-benefits that dwarf the level of federal outlays authorized by S. 1770. 

The use and delivery of water for this kind of economic development is well within 

the parameters of past Indian water rights settlements. Most Indian water rights 

settlements in this century have provided federal funding for infrastructure development to support commercial as well as residential uses of water. There is, for example, ample recent precedent for federally-funded irrigation projects to deliver water 

to Indian reservations for purposes of commercial agricultural, where agriculture is 

the basis of a tribe’s economy. And in other recent settlements, federally-funded 

projects have delivered water to support other kinds of economic development—including hydropower and other energy development, and a retail travel center. Therefore, the infrastructure development for the Hualapai Tribe’s tourism-based economy that is authorized by S. 1770 is completely consistent with past Indian water 

rights settlements approved by Congress. 

The lack of water we currently suffer at Hualapai also imposes another substantial burden on our members. Grand Canyon West is located a two-hour drive on a 

dirt road from Peach Springs, where virtually all tribal members on the Reservation 

live. Thus, tribal employees at Grand Canyon West have daily round-trip commutes 

of four hours a day to their jobs, longer in inclement weather. Currently, it is impossible to locate a residential community at Grand Canyon West because of the lack 

of water there. This imposes an unsustainable burden on tribal members who work 

at Grand Canyon West, and on their families. The Tribe urgently needs Colorado 

River water at Grand Canyon West in order to allow the Tribe to construct a residential community there so tribal member can reside near to their jobs on the Reservation. 

Over the past seven years, the Hualapai Tribe has, in two phases, negotiated a 

settlement of all of the Tribe’s reserved water rights with the State of Arizona and 

major private entities in Arizona. The United States actively participated in these 

settlement negotiations through a Federal Negotiating Team consisting of representatives from affected Interior Department agencies and from the Department of Justice. In phase 1, the parties successfully resolved a portion of the Tribe’s water 

rights—those in the Bill Williams River watershed, where the Tribe has a small 

parcel of Reservation land and some allotted trust land—in a settlement that was 

ratified by the Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Act of 2014, Pub. L. 

113–223, 128 Stat. 2096 (Dec. 16, 2014). 

The Tribe and the State parties have now reached agreement on phase 2. The legislation now before the Committee, S. 1770, would resolve the Tribe’s remaining 

water rights claims on a comprehensive basis. The legislation is strongly supported 

by the State of Arizona and by the private entities which are parties to the settlement—the Salt River Project, Central Arizona Water Conservation District and 

Freeport Minerals Corporation. It is also strongly supported by Mohave County, the 

local jurisdiction in which most of the Reservation is located. 

Let me now summarize the principal elements of the comprehensive water rights 

settlement ratified by S. 1770: 

• The Act comprehensively settles of all of the Hualapai Tribe’s federally reserved water right claims for its Reservation and trust lands. 

• The Tribe receives exclusive rights to all groundwater and surface water on the 

Reservation and its other trust lands, and agrees not to object to any pumping 

of groundwater or diversions of surface water outside the Reservation or its 

trust lands. 

• The Tribe receives an allocation of 4,000 acre-feet a year of Central Arizona 

Project water from the Colorado River. Of this amount, 1,115 acre-feet a year 

will be ‘‘firmed’’ (half by the United States and half by the State) until 2108 

to protect against future shortages of the availability of Colorado River water 

in Arizona. The Act also provides that the Tribe itself can ‘‘firm’’ additional portions of the Central Arizona Project Water allocated to the Tribe in any year 

the water is available and is not needed for delivery to the Reservation. 

19 

• The legislation authorizes the expenditure of $134.5 million in federal funds 

(in 2016 dollars) to construct an infrastructure project to deliver up to 3,414 

acre-feet a year from the Colorado River to the Reservation. The project would 

divert water from the Colorado River on the Reservation at Diamond Creek and 

then deliver it through a 70-mile pipeline to both Peach Springs and Grand 

Canyon West. This system would replace the Tribe’s reliance on the existing 

groundwater wells (except when those wells are needed as an emergency 

backup). The legislation also authorizes an OM&R Trust Fund of $32 million 

for the Tribe partially to defray future costs of operating, maintaining and replacing the project works, $5 million for OM&R costs prior to transfer of the 

project to the Tribe, and $2 million for training of Tribal members in operating 

and managing the project. 

• Certain lands designated by the legislation owned by the Hualapai Tribe near 

the Reservation will be brought into trust status and certain other lands currently held in trust for the Tribe will be made part of the Hualapai Reservation. 

There are substantial non-federal contributions to this settlement. As part of the 

phase 1 Bill Williams settlement, the Freeport Minerals Company provided a significant multi-million dollar contribution to a Hualapai Tribe economic development 

fund which the Tribe can use to purchase Colorado River water rights to supplement the allocation of CAP water provided by the settlement. The 2014 Bill Williams Settlement Act expressly states that this substantial funding from Freeport 

constitutes a non-federal contribution to the Tribe’s comprehensive water rights settlement. Pub. L. 113–223 at sec. 5(d)(1)(B). Freeport also contributed an additional 

$1 million to the Tribe that enabled the Tribe to conduct an essential ‘‘appraisalplus level’’ study to determine the feasibility and costs of alternative infrastructure 

projects to bring Colorado River water to the Hualapai Reservation. That study is 

the technical report referenced in this settlement legislation. The State of Arizona 

is also making a contribution, which it values at approximately $3.2 million, in the 

form of ‘‘firming’’ 557.5 acre-feet-per year of the CAP water allocated to the Tribe, 

until the year 2108. Finally, the Tribe has agreed to fund the cost of constructing 

an electrical transmission line to the project, which the infrastructure study estimates will cost about $40 million. In aggregate these various non-federal contributions to the settlement constitute over 30 percent of the Federal costs of the comprehensive settlement. 

Passage of this legislation is absolutely essential if our Tribe is to realize the full 

economic potential of our Reservation. We have done everything possible to provide 

jobs and income to our people in order to lift them out of poverty—but the lack of 

a secure and replenishable water supply on our Reservation is our major obstacle 

to achieving economic self-sufficiency, a goal that Federal Indian policy has long favored. Passage of this legislation is essential to allow my Tribe to attain this goal. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have, and our Tribe will help in any way it can to secure enactment of this critical legislation. 

SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY

This supplemental testimony is in response to several ‘‘concerns’’ about the legislation set forth in the written testimony of Deputy BOR Commissioner Alan 

Mikkelsen, chair of the Department of Interior’s Working Group on Indian Water 

Settlements. 

The Hualapai Tribe remains disappointed that the Department of Interior continues to withhold its support for a water rights settlement that has the strong support not just of the Tribe, but also of all of the major State and local stakeholders— 

the Governor of Arizona, the Arizona Department of Water Resources, the Central 

Arizona Water Conservation District, the Salt River Project and Freeport Minerals 

Corp. The settlement also has the strong support of Mohave County, the local jurisdiction in which most of the Reservation is located. 

Disputes between Indian tribes and non-Indians over rights to the Colorado River 

are particularly contentious and divisive matters in Arizona. When, as here, the 

Hualapai Tribe and the State parties have worked hard over a period of seven years 

to resolve one of these disputes and to craft a compromise that will strengthen both 

the Tribe and the non-Indian stakeholders, the Department should respect that effort by giving its support to that settlement. 

For the reasons set forth below, I believe that the criticisms of the settlement legislation set forth in Deputy Commissioner Mikkelsen’s testimony are misguided. 

20 

1S. 2636, S. 3216, S. 3222, and S. 3300, Hearing before the Committee on Indian Affairs, 

United States Senate, 114th Cong., 2d. Sess. (Sept. 14, 2016) (hereafter ‘‘Hearing on S. 3300’’) 

at 17–20 (Supplemental Testimony of Dr. Damon Clarke, chairman of the Hualapai Tribe). 2 Id. at 48 (emphasis added). 

1. The Need for Additional Groundwater Studies 

The Deputy Commissioner’s testimony states that the Department must 

‘‘complet[e] ongoing groundwater studies’’ in order to ‘‘inform the Department’s view 

on the proposed pipeline.’’ 

This position is, for the Tribe, a particularly frustrating objection that is likely 

to lead to years of unnecessary delay in moving this settlement forward. I have previously pointed out to the Committee that the groundwater on the Hualapai Reservation has already been studied for decades, and none of the many prior studies 

has shown that there is a supply of groundwater sufficient to meet the long-term 

domestic and municipal needs of the Hualapai Tribe. Nor have any of the prior 

studies shown that the groundwater is sufficient to permit the Tribe to realize the 

significant opportunities for economic development that exist on the Reservation, 

but which the Tribe cannot pursue because of the lack of water. In my supplemental 

testimony to the Committee last year on S. 3300, I provided the Committee with 

a summary of all of the past Reservation groundwater studies that have been done. 1

This summary, which I attach again for the convenience of the Committee, references 16 prior studies of the groundwater on the Reservation, from 1942 through 

2011, most of which were done by agencies of the Interior Department, including 

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). None of these 

prior studies gives any reason to believe that the groundwater on the Reservation 

can serve as a sufficient and reliable source of water even for the Tribe’s short-term 

needs, much less for our long-term needs. 

In responses to written questions posed by Senator McCain after the Committee’s 

hearing on S. 3300 last year, then-Assistant Secretary Larry Roberts said that the 

prior studies provide ‘‘only general ranges of estimated groundwater discharges’’ and 

do not ‘‘give a high degree of certainty’’ about the occurrence and movement of 

groundwater on the Reservation. Further study, the Assistant Secretary said, ‘‘will 

provide improved understanding’’ of the hydrogeology and ‘‘may lead to improved 

characterization of groundwater resources.’’ 2

Deputy Commissioner Mikkelsen appears to adhere to this prior Departmental position. Although it is hard to dispute the proposition that more study ‘‘may lead’’ 

to more information, the relevant question is whether the additional information is 

likely to provide the assurance the Tribe must have if we are expected to rely on 

groundwater—a depletable resource—instead of Colorado River water, as a longterm solution to our Tribe’s critical water needs. And based on the many studies 

that already have been done—none of which shows that there are substantial 

groundwater resources on the Reservation—the answer to this question is certainly 

no. Further, the Department’s insistence on conducting additional groundwater studies comes at an unacceptable cost to the Tribe in terms of delay, which will certainly 

be measured in years. The Tribe’s experience with regard to the Department’s most 

recent groundwater study is instructive. 

In February 2015, four years after the Tribe and the State parties began negotiating this settlement with the active participation of the Interior Department, the 

Department—for the first time—told the Tribe that it wanted to conduct additional 

groundwater studies on the Reservation. The Department said that it first would 

commission the USGS to study the Truxton Aquifer, which partially underlies the 

Reservation in the Peach Springs area, and that the study would be completed in 

six months. 

The Tribe received the results of that study in January 2017—almost two years 

later. And the USGS report was, in the opinion of our hydrogeological experts, so 

flawed as to be neither credible nor useful. Our experts reviewed the study and concluded that it overstates the amount of groundwater in the Truxton Aquifer by a 

probable factor of 2. When we promptly provided the Department in February 2017 

with our experts’ reviews of the USGS study, we were told that USGS would consider those views and inform us as to whether it would revise its own report in light 

of them. Ten months later, we have heard nothing further. Thus, almost three years 

after the Department told the Tribe it intended to conduct additional groundwater 

studies, its first study is not yet complete. And the Department has admitted that 

other groundwater studies on the Reservation will also take years to complete. 

This delay is unfair, unjustified and unacceptable. It is unfair to the Tribe and 

the State parties, who have worked diligently and cooperatively for years to resolve 

21 

3 Id. at 49 4 Id. at 49–50 (emphasis added). 

the Tribe’s claims to the Colorado River, and whose work is being undermined by 

the Department’s call for years of additional studies. It is unjustified because multiple studies of groundwater on the Reservation have already been done, most of 

them by the Department itself, and none of the prior studies suggest that there is 

adequate groundwater to satisfy the Tribe’s long-term needs. And it is unacceptable 

because, as I discuss in my initial testimony, the lack of water on the Reservation 

is causing tribal members to suffer ongoing hardship by having to endure daily fourhour commutes from their homes in Peach Springs to their jobs at Grand Canyon 

West, where the lack of water prevents any residential development. A solution to 

this problem cannot be put off for an indefinite number of additional years in order 

to allow the Department to conduct more groundwater studies simply because those 

studies ‘‘may lead’’ to more information. 

2. The Cost Estimates for the Infrastructure Project 

Deputy Commissioner Mikkelsen repeats a criticism also made by the Department 

in its testimony before this Committee last year that the costs of the infrastructure 

project ‘‘will greatly exceed the costs currently contemplated in S. 1770. . . .’’ The 

Tribe has repeatedly asked the Department to substantiate this claim of cost overruns so we could respond to it, and the Department has failed to do so. 

The costs in the legislation are based on a thorough study conducted by a highly 

regarded engineering firm, DOWL, of Tucson, Arizona. The DOWL study included 

significant field investigations and was conducted at above the appraisal-level 

standard commonly used in Indian water settlements. Further, DOWL designed and 

completed its study in conjunction with staff from the Bureau of Reclamation, and 

based its study on BOR cost estimating methods. Another nationally recognized 

water resources specialty contractor, ASI Contractors, independently developed cost 

estimates for the project which were used by DOWL as a check on its own estimates. In short, the Tribe knows of no reason to expect cost overruns in this project, 

and nothing in Deputy Commissioner Mikkelsen’s testimony, or in any other information the Department has provided to the Tribe, is a basis for concluding otherwise. 

In his responses to Senator McCain’s written questions last year, then-Assistant 

Secretary Roberts did list certain broad cost categories for which he said BOR concluded that DOWL had underestimated the costs. 3 But he also said that BOR has 

‘‘no finalized specific reports with respect to costs of the infrastructure project.’’ Id. 

Without specific information about which costs the Department believes DOWL has 

underestimated, by how much, and why, it is simply impossible for the Tribe (or 

for DOWL) to evaluate the Assistant Secretary’s generic summary of BOR’s generic 

claim of cost overruns, or to respond to it. We do not think it is responsible for the 

Department to continue to criticize the DOWL cost estimates without substantiating 

its criticisms, providing specific information to the Tribe, and allowing us the opportunity to address the merits of the specific cost estimates that concern BOR. 

3. The Threat of Litigation 

Another unsubstantiated Departmental criticism repeated by Deputy Commissioner Mikkelsen is that the Hualapai settlement ‘‘might trigger significant additional litigation.’’ (emphasis added). The Tribe knows of no litigation threat that has 

been made about the infrastructure project in the Hualapai settlement, even though 

information about the project has been in the public domain for well over a year, 

since the bill was first introduced in September 2016 in the 114th Congress. 

In his responses to Senator McCain’s written questions last year, Assistant Secretary Roberts said it is ‘‘likely that environmental and conservation organizations 

will oppose the project, and such opposition may include litigation. . . .’’ 4 This is 

speculation on top of conjecture. To the Tribe’s knowledge, no environmental or conservation organization has publicly expressed opposition to the project, much less 

threatened litigation. If the Department has information to the contrary, it has a 

responsibility to discuss that information with the Tribe, which would permit the 

Tribe to reach out to the concerned organization in an effort to allay its concerns. 

The fact that the Department has never given the Tribe any specific basis for its 

fear of litigation, and instead appears to be basing its concern on no more than what 

‘‘may’’ happen, is hardly a reasonable ground for not supporting the settlement. 

22 

5 I would also like to take this opportunity to correct a misstatement made in my answer to 

a question at the hearing about the number of jobs that would be created if S. 1770 is enacted. 

I have again reviewed Professor Kalt’s report which concludes, at page 51, that the economic 

4. The Non-Federal Cost Share 

Deputy Commissioner Mikkelsen criticizes S. 1770 because, he says, the State 

parties have not contributed ‘‘a commensurate share of the costs of the settlement 

in return for the benefits they will receive.’’ 

As I pointed out in my principal testimony, the non-federal cost share in S. 1770 

is over 30 percent of the amount of the federal cost, when all non-federal contributions are taken into account (including the Tribe’s own very substantial contribution 

to the cost of constructing the project). 

It is, however, illuminating to see that the Department raised no issue with the 

nonfederal cost share in the Navajo Utah settlement in S. 664, a bill that was also 

examined by the Committee at the December 6 hearing. In his testimony on that 

legislation, Deputy Commissioner Mikkelsen says that S. 664 authorizes a total of 

$210.7 million in federal appropriations for the projects contemplated in that settlement, and includes a State contribution of $8 million. That non-federal cost share 

by Utah is less than 4 percent of the federal cost of that settlement, as compared 

to a non-federal cost-share in the Hualapai settlement that is a full 30 percent of 

the federal cost. 

Indeed, just one element of the non-federal cost share in the Hualapai settlement—the contribution by Freeport Minerals to the Tribe’s economic development 

fund—is by itself larger than the entire contribution by the State of Utah in S. 664, 

even though the federal cost of the Hualapai settlement is 18 percent less than the 

federal cost of the Navajo Utah settlement. And as I previously pointed out, Congress specifically stated in the 2014 Bill Williams Settlement Act that this Freeport 

contribution is to be treated as a non-federal contribution to the comprehensive 

water rights settlement in S. 1770. Pub. L. 113–223, sec. 5(d)(1)(B). 

Thus, as compared to the Navajo Utah settlement, the non-federal cost share in 

the Hualapai settlement is more than six times greater in absolute terms (approximately $50 million v. $8 million), and more than seven times greater relative to the 

federal cost of each settlement (approximately 30 percent v. 4 percent). Yet the Department raises no objection to the nonfederal cost share in the Navajo Utah settlement while it criticizes the Hualapai settlement as having a non-federal cost share 

that is not ‘‘commensurate.’’ 

The Department’s differential treatment of the non-federal cost share in these two 

settlements is stark, unexplained and unfair. 

5. Off-Reservation Groundwater Pumping 

The final significant concern raised in Deputy Commissioner Mikkelsen’s testimony is that S. 1770 prohibits the Tribe from objecting to any use of groundwater 

outside the Reservation boundaries. 

This concern ignores the fact that the Tribe is given the right to the exclusive use 

of all groundwater on the Reservation, thereby prohibiting any non-Indian from objecting to any tribal use of groundwater on the Reservation. It also ignores the fact 

that this settlement is a negotiated compromise, with reciprocal concessions by the 

parties. As the Department surely knows from its participation in the six years of 

negotiations that led to this settlement, the State parties firmly refused to agree to 

any restrictions on groundwater pumping outside the Reservation, and advised the 

Tribe that such restrictions would require changes to State law that would, as a 

practical matter, be impossible to enact in the Arizona Legislature. 

The Tribe’s agreement to forego such off-Reservation groundwater restrictions is 

reasonable because the thrust of the settlement is to provide the Tribe with sufficient water from the Colorado River to meet its domestic, commercial and municipal 

needs, so that the Tribe is not solely reliant on groundwater, as it is at present. 

In this light, the Department’s concern that the Tribe has waived its right to object to off- Reservation groundwater pumping is neither wise nor practical: had the 

Tribe adopted the Department’s policy position, it would only have led to an impasse 

among the parties and a failure of the settlement negotiation. 

While I am disappointed in Deputy Commissioner Mikkelsen’s testimony, I am 

pleased that he said the Department is ‘‘eager to work with all of the interested parties’’ in the Hualapai settlement to reach a ‘‘final and fair settlement of the Tribe’s 

water rights claims’’ that the Department can support. The Tribe intends to engage 

the Department promptly on this promise, but we nonetheless urge the Committee 

to support S. 1770 and to report the bill for action by the full Senate. 

I appreciate the opportunity to submit this supplemental testimony to the Committee. 5

23 

development caused by the Diamond Creek pipeline would support an average of slightly over 

10,000 jobs per year. 

Attachment 

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 

December 4, 2015 MEMORANDUM 

To: Hualapai Project Files 

From: NRCE, Inc. 

RE: PREVIOUS GROUNDWATER STUDIES

This memorandum presents a list and brief description of previous groundwater 

studies on the Hualapai Reservation. The list of studies is separated between the 

deep regional aquifer and the alluvial-volcanic aquifers. 

Deep Regional Aquifer 

Description: The deep regional aquifer on the Hualapai Reservation includes the 

Redwall-Muav Aquifer (R-Aquifer) and the Tapeats Sandstone lying at the bottom 

of the Paleozoic section in contact with crystalline basement rocks. 

• Representative well yields from the R-Aquifer range from 5 to 40 gallons per 

minute, with 150 gallons per minute the highest reported in the region 

(Twenter, 1962; Myers, 1987; and others). 

• There is some evidence indicating that faults, fractures, and folds may enhance 

aquifer properties that can localize potential for larger well yields; however targeting these features using surface geophysics is speculative and drilling costs 

are very high. 

• The USGS conducted a hydrogeological study of the Reservation between 1957 

and 1962 (Twenter, 1962). The R-Aquifer was identified as the most promising 

aquifer, but drilling depths were prohibitive. 

• Several wells were drilled to various depths (mostly shallow) in the late 1960s 

and 1970s by the BLM and the BIA loosely based on Twenter’s recommendations but most were unsuccessful (Huntoon, 1977). 

• Several deeper wells were completed on the Hualapai Plateau in 1992 by the 

Bureau of Reclamation. One well drilled near the GCW resort in 1992 targeted 

the deep regional R-Aquifer. The well was deepened in 1999 (Watt, 2000). That 

well (GCW–1) encountered groundwater only in the Tapeats Sandstone. The 

shallower Redwall and Muav Formations were unsaturated. The well is 

equipped with an oilfield-type pumping unit but is currently unused due to low 

water quality and low yield (15–26 gpm). 

• NRCE was contracted in 2005 to investigate and evaluate all possible water 

supply options for the resort. The preferred alternative recommended diversion 

from the Colorado River. Groundwater development options were judged to be 

infeasible for a variety of reasons, but primarily because of their inability to 

supply the sustainable yield required by the Grand Canyon West resort at a 

reasonable overall project cost. 

• DOWL (2013) further assessed a few Colorado River alternatives considered in 

the NRCE study. Groundwater development alternatives were judged to be infeasible in this study for the same reasons as the 2005 study by NRCE. 

Alluvial-Volcanic Aquifers 

Description: The main alluvial-volcanic aquifers are in the northern Aubrey Valley 

around Frazier Wells (eastern part of the Reservation), Westwater Canyon, Peach 

Springs-Truxton Wash Valley, and elsewhere along the southwest flank of the 

Hualapai Plateau (e.g. Horse Flat area and the upper Milkweed Canyon). The alluvial-volcanic aquifers have areal extents that are limited by the valleys and washes 

that contain them. The volume of stored groundwater is similarly limited. Depth to 

water is generally shallow, typically less than 500 feet below ground level, and well 

yields of up to 170 gallons per minute have been reported. Water from these 

aquifers is generally acceptable for domestic use. 

• The Santa Fe Railroad drilled 6 fairly shallow wells within Peach Springs between 1903 and 1922. The Hualapai Tribe acquired use of water from the railroad spring-fed water system between 1931 and 1954. One well near the town 

is currently used. 

• The USGS conducted a study in 1942 to assist location of prospective sites for 

development of stock water supply on the Hualapai Reservation (Peterson, 

1942). In addition to a hydrogeological characterization of the region, the study 

24 

inventoried numerous existing wells and stock ponds. Peterson recommended 18 

sites across the Reservation for drill-testing. 

• N. J. Devlin evaluated the Peach Springs water system in 1973 and considered 

possibilities for development of additional water supplies for the town. Devlin 

recommended further development of the aquifer contained in the lake beds of 

Truxton Valley. Development of other springs and other exploration areas were 

judged to have low potential. 

• The Indian Health Service drilled two wells in Truxton Valley in 1972 to provide additional water supply for Peach Springs. A third well was drilled in 1976 

by the IHS in Truxton Valley near the wells drilled in 1972. These wells currently supply all of the water needs for the town of Peach Springs. 

• The Bureau of Reclamation drilled an unsuccessful hole into Cenozoic volcanics 

near the head of Milkweed Canyon in 1975. A second successful well in 

Westwater Canyon alluvium and volcanics was completed in 1975. This well 

currently provides most of the water to Grand Canyon West via a 30-mile pipeline. 

• A well drilled in the Frazier Wells area in the eastern part of the Reservation 

serves a fish-rearing facility. An additional two boreholes were completed in the 

shallow alluvial aquifer in the Frazer Wells area in an effort by the Tribe to 

develop additional groundwater supply. Both wells were dry and were abandoned. 

• Regional hydrogeological mapping by Richard Young (State University of New 

York at Geneseo) focused on the Tertiary volcano-sedimentary aquifer in the 

area of Westwater Canyon near the well drilled by the Bureau of Reclamation 

(Young, R. A., 1987, 1991, 1992, 2007). Stantec (2009) estimated the safe yield 

of this aquifer to be approximately 600 afy. Further development of this aquifer 

is prohibited by tribal policy as it would likely reduce spring flow (considered 

to be a cultural resource) in its discharge area. 

• NRCE conducted an evaluation of the groundwater supply for the town of 

Peach Springs in 2011. That study included an inventory of wells in the subregional area, a comprehensive review of the regional geology, an evaluation of 

hydrologically attractive areas for development of additional groundwater supplies in the southern part of the Reservation, and made some specific recommendations for exploratory evaluation of both the R-Aquifer and 

alluvialvolcanic aquifers. The adequacy of natural aquifer recharge to support 

existing and future water needs was also assessed. 

The CHAIRMAN. I apologize. I should have said President Begaye 

and Chairman Clarke. I just wanted to correct the record. 

Lieutenant Governor Cox, do you have any initial comments? 

STATEMENT OF HON. SPENCER J. COX, LIEUTENANT 

GOVERNOR, STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. COX. I would just say in my small town, we have a saying 

that whiskey is for drinking and water should be for fighting. 

Mr. Chairman, I am so grateful that we are not fighting about 

this one because it has been 15 years, a long time. It has been a 

wonderful relationship. We appreciate President Begaye and his 

leadership in making this happen. The entire State of Utah is in 

full support of this bill and this settlement. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cox follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SPENCER J. COX, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, STATE OF

UTAH

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today and to highlight an important example of two groups with sometimes 

differing interests coming together to find a solution to a critical challenge. 

Utah is one of the driest states in the Nation. Water is our lifeblood. Generally, 

water rights in Utah may only be created under state law. We recognize, however, 

that properly-established, federally-reserved water rights, particularly tribal rights, 

25 

are an important exception to that rule. We have committed to use negotiation rather than litigation as our preferred method of resolving reserved right claims. Such 

negotiations require commitment, patience, and trust. 

We have developed a high level of trust with the Navajo Nation as we have 

worked together for nearly 15 years to develop a reasonable and equitable resolution 

of water right claims for the portion of the Nation located within Utah’s borders. 

This settlement is tremendously important to Utah because it fits within the structure of the Colorado River compacts, protects state-based water rights, and improves 

life for Utah Navajos. 

With these facts in mind, we wholeheartedly support Senator Hatch’s 

Senate Bill 664 which embodies the Utah/Navajo Settlement and we ask you 

to quickly pass the bill. 

The following principles guided Utah in its settlement discussions with the Navajo Nation: 

• Protecting existing water right commitments, including those dictated by the 

structure and language of the Colorado River compacts, the Law of the Colorado 

River generally, and water rights established under Utah law; 

• Providing finality with respect to the amount of Utah’s Colorado River allocation available for appropriation under Utah law; 

• Improving economic opportunities and quality of life for citizens of the Nation 

who live in Utah, many of whom lack basic necessities; including safe drinking 

water and water for agriculture and industry, 

• Respecting neighboring sovereigns, both the Nation and sister states; and 

• Promoting positive outcomes from negotiation which would be unattainable 

through litigation; 

The agreement Senate Bill 664 embodies was initially negotiated between Utah 

and the Nation. Confident a settlement could be achieved, in 2007 the sovereigns 

petitioned the Department of Interior for the appointment of a federal negotiating 

team. The Department appointed a team in 2013. Review of the settlement by members of that team has resulted in helpful input. 

The Utah Legislature expressed support for the settlement by passing legislation 

in 2012 which established a water right settlement fund for Utah’s monetary contribution toward the settlement. The State legislature has put $2 million in that 

fund with the understanding that additional, necessary funds will come from the 

State’s ‘‘rainy-day’’ fund. 

We recognize funding for this settlement must compete for limited federal resources with other pressing needs. Nevertheless, we believe the settlement is essential for success of the Navajo Nation in Utah. The State and the Nation agree that 

the contemplated expenditure of about $200M of federal funds to achieve the settlement is both justified and appropriate. Both parties also agree that the appropriate 

State share for the settlement is $8M and Utah proposes to contribute that amount. 

The settlement fits within the structure of the Colorado River compacts and protects existing Utah water right commitments. It also ensures the United States’ 

compliance with its trust obligation to the Navajo Nation and provides important, 

related waivers of liability regarding water rights and past water resource development. The settlement is fair, reasonable, and equitable to all parties. It benefits 

Utah, the Navajo Nation, and all states in the Colorado River Basin. 

This bill, and the process that led to it, is the essence of cooperative federalism. The state and tribal governments, with input and assistance from 

the federal government, have worked together to find an equitable solution 

to pressing challenges. This is the kind of agreement we should celebrate 

and try to do more often. Again, we recommend the Committee act favorably on this bill. 

And with that Mr. Chairman, I’m happy to answer any questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Buschatzke, any opening comments before 

we proceed with some questions? 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS BUSCHATZKE, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA 

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 

Mr. BUSCHATZKE. Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall, and 

Senator Flake, I too want to express my support to the Hualapai 

26 

Tribe and the rest of the State parties who have helped us to negotiate this settlement. It is really important to the State of Arizona. 

It is one in a line of settlements the State has been able to work 

through with tribes in the State. I think it is a great step forward. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Buschatzke follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS BUSCHATZKE, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT

OF WATER RESOURCES

I. Introduction 

My name is Thomas Buschatzke. I am the Director of the Arizona Department 

of Water Resources. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the State 

of Arizona on S. 1770, the Hualapai Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2017. The 

State of Arizona strongly supports S. 1770. 

II. Importance of settling Indian water rights claims in Arizona 

There are 22 federally recognized Indian tribes within the State of Arizona. The 

total population of all Indian tribes in Arizona as of 2010 was 234,891, which is the 

third highest among all states. The total area of all Indian reservations in Arizona 

is approximately 20 million acres, which is second only to Alaska. Arizona ranks 

first among all states in the percentage of tribal land in the state—27.7 percent. 

Half of the 22 federally recognized Indian tribes in Arizona still have unresolved 

water rights claims. Resolving these claims through settlement is a strategic priority for the State, not only because it will avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigating the claims, but it will provide certainty to all water users in the state regarding available water supplies in the most expeditious manner possible. In many 

cases, a settlement will also provide the tribe with funding to construct the infrastructure necessary to put its water supplies to beneficial use. 

III. Hualapai Tribe’s water rights claims 

The Hualapai Tribe is one of the eleven Indian tribes in Arizona with unresolved 

water rights claims. The Tribe’s main reservation covers approximately one million 

acres in the northwestern portion of the state. The Colorado River forms the northern boundary of the reservation, and the Grand Canyon National Park is located 

immediately north of the reservation. The Tribe also has reservation and trust lands 

south of its main reservation in the Bill Williams River watershed. 

The Tribe has asserted claims for both groundwater and surface water for its reservation and trust lands. The Tribe’s claims include a claim to water from the Colorado River, a critical water supply for agricultural, municipal and industrial water 

users along the Colorado River, as well as water users in Central Arizona using Colorado water delivered through the Central Arizona Project (CAP). 

The Tribe claims a right to Colorado River water for domestic, municipal and industrial uses on its reservation and trust lands, including use at Grand Canyon 

West. Grand Canyon West is a major tourist attraction located adjacent to the 

Grand Canyon on the Tribe’s main reservation. One of the main features of Grand 

Canyon West is the Skywalk, a glass walkway overhanging the Grand Canyon 

where tourists can walk out and look through the glass walkway to the bottom of 

the Canyon. 

IV. Settlement Negotiations with Hualapai Tribe 

In late 2011, the State of Arizona and several other major water users in the state 

(collectively referred to as the ‘‘State Parties’’) began negotiating with the Hualapai 

Tribe for a comprehensive settlement of the Tribe’s water rights claims. The United 

States participated in the settlement negotiations through a negotiating team appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. 

Early in the settlement negotiations, the Tribe and State Parties agreed that as 

part of a comprehensive settlement of the Tribe’s claims, the Tribe should receive 

an allocation of CAP water from the volume of Non-Indian Agricultural (NIA) priority CAP water set aside for future Indian water rights settlements in Arizona in 

the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004 (Public Law 108–451). The Tribe and 

the State Parties also agreed that the settlement should include an authorization 

by Congress of an appropriation of monies to construct a pipeline to carry the CAP 

water from the Colorado River to Peach Springs, the Tribe’s main residential center, 

and Grand Canyon West. 

27 

V. Hualapai Phase 1 Settlement 

In late 2012, the parties agreed to bifurcate the settlement into two phases, with 

Phase 1 consisting of a limited settlement of the Tribe’s water rights claims in the 

Bill Williams River watershed and Phase 2 consisting of a comprehensive settlement 

of all the Tribe’s water rights claims in Arizona, including the Tribe’s claims to 

water for its main reservation. The settlement was bifurcated so that Phase 1 could 

become effective as soon as possible without waiting for the comprehensive settlement to be negotiated. Finalization of the Phase 1 settlement by the end of 2015 

was necessary to expedite a water rights transfer as part of the settlement, resulting in benefits to a state party, the federal government and the environment. 

The Phase 1 settlement was approved by Congress in December 2014 and became 

law on December 16, 2014 (Public Law No: 113–223). The settlement became effective in December 2015 after all the conditions for the settlement were met. 

Although the Phase 1 settlement was not a comprehensive settlement of the 

Tribe’s water rights claims, it included provisions designed to facilitate a comprehensive settlement that would include an allocation of NIA priority CAP water 

to the Tribe and the construction of a pipeline to carry the water to the Tribe’s reservation. Those provisions are the following: 

1. The settlement agreement provides that Freeport Minerals Corporation 

(‘‘Freeport’’), one of the State Parties, will transfer $1 million to the Tribe 

as a contribution toward the cost of the Tribe’s study of water project alternatives for its main reservation. 

2. The settlement agreement provides that Freeport will contribute money to 

the Hualapai Tribe Economic Development Fund. Both the settlement agreement and the legislation approving the settlement provide that the money 

may be used only for the purpose of facilitating settlement of the claims of 

the Tribe for rights to Colorado River Water by enabling the Tribe to acquire 

Colorado River water rights with the intent to increase the security of the 

Tribe’s water rights, and to otherwise facilitate the use of water on the 

Tribe’s reservation. 

3. Both the settlement agreement and the legislation approving the settlement 

provide that Freeport’s contribution to the Hualapai Tribe Economic Development fund shall be considered a non-federal contribution that counts toward 

any non-Federal contribution associated with a settlement of the claims of 

the Tribe for rights to Colorado River water. 

Before the Phase 1 settlement agreement became effective, Freeport transferred 

$1 million to the Tribe for the study of water project alternatives. After the Phase 

1 settlement became effective, Freeport made a multi-million dollar contribution to 

the Hualapai Tribe Economic Development Fund for the purposes described above. 

VI. Hualapai Phase 2 Settlement 

During negotiations for a Phase 2 settlement, the Tribe contracted with an engineering firm to conduct a study of alternative projects to bring water from the Colorado River to Peach Springs and Grand Canyon West on the Tribe’s reservation. 

The Tribe paid for the study in substantial part with the $1 million that Freeport 

contributed for that purpose as part of the Phase 1 settlement. The study concluded 

that the most feasible project was a pipeline carrying Colorado River water from Diamond Creek, located near the southeastern portion of the Tribe’s reservation, to 

Peach Springs and then on to Grand Canyon West, a total of 70 miles. 

In June 2016, the Tribe and the State Parties agreed to the terms of a Phase 2 

settlement. The key terms of the settlement are the following: 

1. The Tribe will receive an allocation of 4,000 acre-feet per year of NIA priority 

CAP water from the volume of NIA priority CAP water set aside for future 

Indian water rights settlements in the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 

2004. 

2. The United States and the State of Arizona will each firm 557.50 acre-feet 

per year of the Tribe’s NIA priority CAP water to the equivalent of the higher priority CAP municipal and industrial priority water during water shortages. 

3. The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of the Bureau 

of Reclamation, will plan, design, and construct the Hualapai Water Project, 

which includes a pipeline to convey not less than 3,414 acre-feet per year of 

Colorado River water from Diamond Creek to Peach Springs and Grand Canyon West for municipal, commercial, and industrial uses. Congress will authorize an appropriation of $134.5 million for construction of the Project, $32 

28 

million for operation, maintenance and replacement costs by the Tribe, and 

$7 million for use by the Secretary of the Interior in operating the water 

project before title is conveyed to the Tribe and to provide technical assistance to prepare the Tribe for the operation of the Project. 

4. The Tribe will have the right to use all groundwater under and surface water 

on its reservation and trust lands. 

5. Certain lands adjacent to the Tribe’s reservation will be brought into reservation status and certain lands owned in fee by the Tribe near its reservation 

will be held in trust for the Tribe by the Secretary of the Interior. No additional lands may be brought into trust for the Tribe without approval by Congress. 

6. The Tribe, the United States and the State Parties will execute mutual waivers of claims for water rights and injury to water rights. 

A bill approving and authorizing the Phase 2 settlement was introduced in Congress by Senator Jeff Flake on September 8, 2016 (S. 3300), with Senator John 

McCain as a co-sponsor. The bill was heard by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on September 14, 2016, but no further action was taken on the bill. On September 7, 2017, Senator Flake reintroduced the bill with minor changes, again with 

Senator McCain as a co-sponsor. The reintroduced bill, S. 1770, is before you today. 

VII. The State of Arizona Supports S. 1770 

The State of Arizona strongly supports S. 1770. The State believes the Phase 2 

settlement authorized by the bill is a reasonable and fair settlement that will benefit the Hualapai Tribe, the State of Arizona, Arizona water users and the United 

States. 

A. Hualapai Tribe 

For the Hualapai Tribe, the settlement provides a renewable water supply and 

the infrastructure to convey that water supply from the Colorado River to critical 

areas on the Tribe’s reservation. Because there are no significant surface water 

streams on the reservation, water from the Colorado River is the only renewable 

water supply available to the Tribe. The water supply will serve the Tribe’s main 

population center at Peach Springs, which is currently served groundwater from 

wells that are experiencing declining water levels. The water supply will also serve 

Grand Canyon West, the only viable economic development area on the Tribe’s reservation. Grand Canyon West is currently served groundwater from a low-production well approximately 35 miles away. 

A pipeline to bring Colorado River water to Grand Canyon West is essential for 

further economic development on the Tribe’s reservation. The Tribe’s reservation is 

in a location with breathtaking views of the west rim of the Grand Canyon. This 

provides the Tribe with a unique asset that is a significant economic development 

resource. Currently, approximately one million visitors come to Grand Canyon West 

each year to walk on the Skywalk and experience the views of the Grand Canyon. 

The Tribe would like to further develop Grand Canyon West to include additional 

tourist attractions that would significantly increase the number of visitors each 

year. However, development at Grand Canyon West, and the annual number of visitors, is essentially capped at current levels due to the lack of additional water supplies for the area. Construction of a pipeline to bring Colorado River to Grand Canyon West would remove that cap and allow the Tribe to fully utilize the unique 

asset on its reservation for economic development. 

In addition, the current lack of water supplies prevents the Tribe from constructing housing near Grand Canyon West for the employees who work there. As 

a result, most of those employees live in Peach Springs and drive to work each day 

over a dirt road. The travel time is two hours each way in good weather, for a total 

travel time of four hours each day. Travel time is significantly longer in wet or 

snowy conditions. Construction of a pipeline to carry Colorado River water to Grand 

Canyon West would allow the Tribe to construct a residential community near 

Grand Canyon West where its employees can live. Housing closer to Grand Canyon 

West will benefit the employees and their families who would have more time together. 

B. State of Arizona and Arizona Water Users 

For the State of Arizona, the settlement is a major step toward resolving the outstanding water rights claims of Indian tribes in the state. Resolving the Hualapai 

Tribe’s claims through settlement will avoid the costs and risks associated with litigating the claims and will provide certainty to water users in the state. Perhaps 

the main risk to water users in the state from litigating the Tribe’s claims is a risk 

29 

to their Colorado River water supplies. As mentioned previously, the Tribe’s reservation is located adjacent to the Colorado River and the Tribe has asserted claims to 

water from the River. The Colorado River supplies the Tribe will receive through 

the settlement will not affect the Colorado River entitlements of other water users 

in the State because the Tribe will receive a portion of the NIA priority CAP water 

being held by the Secretary of the Interior for Indian water settlements in the state. 

Another benefit to the State of Arizona is that the settlement will provide the 

Tribe with a renewable water supply to replace its current groundwater pumping. 

Use of renewable water supplies instead of groundwater is consistent with the 

State’s policy of preserving groundwater supplies for times of drought. Additionally, 

because the aquifer beneath the Tribe’s reservation extends to areas off the reservation, the Tribe’s use of a renewable water supply will help preserve groundwater 

supplies not just for the Tribe, but for non-tribal water users in the region. This 

is especially important in this area of the state, where the groundwater supplies are 

limited and there is minimal groundwater recharge. 

C. United States 

For the United States, the settlement will avoid the costs and risks to the United 

States associated with litigating the Tribe’s water rights claims. The risks include 

the possibility that the Tribe would prevail in an action in the Court of Federal 

Claims to recover damages against the United States for failing to protect its water 

rights in the Arizona v. California litigation. 

In addition to avoiding the costs and risks of litigation, the settlement would likely result in a significant economic benefit to the United States Treasury. The Tribe 

contracted with Professor Joseph P. Kalt, Ford Foundation Professor (Emeritus) of 

International Political Economy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at 

Harvard University, to prepare a report on the economic benefits of a pipeline to 

carry Colorado River water to Grand Canyon West. In his report, Professor Kalt 

concluded that the pipeline would result in significantly more visitors to Grand Canyon West, and that over a 50-year period, the benefits to the United States from 

increased federal tax revenues resulting from the additional visitors would greatly 

exceed the federal outlays for construction, operation, and maintenance of the pipeline. Professor Joseph P. Kalt, Economic Impact of the Hualapai Water Rights Settlement and Proposed Diamond Creek Pipeline, July 16, 2017. 

VIII. Issues Raised by the Department of the Interior with the 2016 Bill and 

Phase 2 Settlement 

On September 14, 2016, the previous administration provided this Committee 

with a statement (‘‘Statement’’) of its position on the bill introduced in 2016 (S. 

3300). The statement raised several issues with the bill and with the Phase 2 settlement. I would like to address two of those issues. 

A. Non-Federal Contribution 

In its Statement, the Department of the Interior stated that ‘‘the State Parties 

have failed to make earnest efforts to provide for adequate cost-sharing relative to 

the benefits they will receive in this Indian water rights settlement.’’ The State of 

Arizona disagrees with this statement. As previously mentioned, Freeport made a 

multi-million dollar contribution to the Hualapai Tribe Economic Development Fund 

as part of the Phase 1 settlement. The Tribe may use this money only for the purpose of facilitating settlement of its claims for rights to Colorado River Water by 

enabling it to acquire Colorado River water rights to increase the security of the 

Tribe’s water rights, and to otherwise facilitate the use of water on the Tribe’s reservation. 

As required by the federal legislation approving the Phase 1 settlement, Freeport’s financial contribution to the Hualapai Tribe Economic Development Fund 

must be considered a non-federal contribution towards the Phase 2 settlement. Freeport’s payment of $1 million to the Hualapai Tribe to use toward a study of water 

project alternatives to bring water to the Tribe’s reservation should also be considered a non-federal contribution because it was made for the purpose of facilitating 

the Phase 2 settlement. 

In addition to Freeport’s large financial contribution, the State of Arizona has 

agreed to firm 557.5 acre-feet of the Tribe’s 4,000 acre-feet per year allocation of 

NIA priority CAP water to the equivalent of CAP municipal and industrial priority 

during water shortages until 2108. The State estimates the cost to firm this water 

at $3.2 million dollars. 

Finally, the Tribe has agreed to pay the cost of constructing an electric transmission line to supply power to pump the water through the pipeline. The Tribe’s 

consultant estimates this cost at approximately $40 million. Although this is not a 

contribution by a State Party, it is a contribution that should be considered when 

30 

evaluating the percentage of the costs of the settlement that the federal government 

will not be paying because of non-federal contributions. 

The financial contributions that will be made to this settlement by Freeport and 

the State of Arizona are very substantial. The State firmly believes that these contributions show that the State Parties have made an ‘‘earnest effort’’ to provide for 

adequate cost-sharing relative to the benefits they will receive from the settlement. 

When the $40 million contribution by the Tribe is added to the State Parties’ contribution, the non-federal contributions to the settlement are more than adequate. 

B. CAP Fixed OM&R Charges 

The Department of the Interior also expressed opposition to the provision in the 

bill requiring the Tribe to pay a CAP fixed OM&R charge for the use of NIA priority 

CAP water on the Tribe’s reservation. This charge is an annual charge assessed 

against all users of CAP water based on the amount of CAP water they use. The 

charge is used by the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) to pay 

its fixed costs in operating the Central Arizona Project. The Department stated that 

it did not support the charge because it believed it amounted to a double charge 

to be paid by the Tribe for water deliveries—the Tribe’s OM&R costs to bring the 

water to its reservation through the pipeline to be constructed on the reservation, 

and the CAP fixed OM&R charge. The State of Arizona disagrees with the Department’s position on this issue. 

First, the Colorado River water the Tribe will receive in this settlement is legally 

classified as CAP water. It is appropriate for all users of CAP water to pay the CAP 

fixed OM&R charge because without proper operation, maintenance and replacement of the CAP, there would be no CAP canal and no CAP water. 

Second, the Tribe’s payment of CAP fixed OM&R would not amount to a double 

charge. All users of CAP water are responsible for paying the expenses relating to 

their own delivery systems, as well as CAP fixed OM&R charges relating to the CAP 

system. These are separate and distinct charges. 

Third, the Department’s argument that the Tribe will not use the CAP canal to 

bring its CAP water to its reservation misses the point. The settlement reduces the 

water supply that otherwise would be available to be diverted through the CAP and 

used for other purposes, so the Tribe should pay the CAP fixed OM&R charge for 

the CAP water it receives. If the Tribe were relieved of the requirement to pay the 

charge, the reduced supply in the CAP system would cause an increase in the 

charges assessed against all other CAP users, including other Indian tribes that receive CAP water. It is important to retain the provision in the bill to avoid this inequitable result. 

Moreover, the Tribe has the ability to use the CAP canal in the future to carry 

its CAP water for storage in central Arizona or for use pursuant to a water exchange or lease. The Tribe should therefore be required to help pay the fixed costs 

of operating, maintaining and replacing the CAP. 

Finally, it is important to note that the Tribe agreed to pay the CAP fixed OM&R 

charge during the negotiations for the Phase 2 settlement in return for the benefits 

it will receive through the settlement. It is also important to note that payment of 

the charge by the Tribe will not impose any additional costs on the federal government. For those reasons, it is not inequitable to either the Tribe or the Federal Government to retain the provision in the bill. 

IX. Conclusion 

The State of Arizona strongly supports S. 1770, the Hualapai Tribe Water Rights 

Settlement Act of 2017. The bill is important to the State of Arizona because it authorizes a comprehensive settlement of the Hualapai’s Tribe’s water rights claims, 

including its claims to the Colorado River—a critical water supply for water users 

in the state. Settlement of the Tribe’s water rights claims is an important step in 

achieving the State’s goal of settling all outstanding Indian water rights claims in 

the state. Settlement of the claims will avoid the costs and risks of litigation, and 

will provide certainty to water users in the state. 

The settlement will provide significant benefits to the Hualapai Tribe in return 

for settling its water rights claims. The settlement will allow the Tribe to replace 

its groundwater use with a renewable water supply, consistent with the State’s policy of preserving non-renewable groundwater supplies for use during drought conditions. The settlement will allow the Tribe to maximize economic development on the 

reservation by providing the water necessary for expansion of development at Grand 

Canyon West. The Tribe will also have sufficient water to construct a residential 

community near Grand Canyon West so that employees will no longer be required 

to endure a daily commute of two-hours to work and two-hours back to their homes. 

31 

Finally, the settlement will provide significant benefits to the United States. The 

settlement will avoid the costs and risks to the United States of litigating the 

Tribe’s water rights claims. It will also provide a significant financial benefit to the 

United States Treasury through increased tax revenues resulting from the Tribe’s 

expansion of Grand Canyon West. The financial benefits that the United States will 

receive through the settlement will greatly exceed the costs that the United States 

will incur in constructing a pipeline to bring water from the Colorado River to the 

Tribe’s reservation. 

The CHAIRMAN. Again, thanks to all of our witnesses for being 

here. 

I would open with a question for Mr. Buschatzke. In Mr. 

Mikkelsen’s testimony, he points out that ‘‘Parties can and should 

contribute commensurate share of the costs of the settlement in return for benefits they receive.’’ 

He notes, the State of Montana and that they have contributed 

millions of dollars in appropriated settlement funds to the Montana 

Indian Water Rights Settlement. 

My question, has the State of Arizona decided how much of their 

money should be contributed or will be contributed to the Indian 

water rights settlement? 

Mr. BUSCHATZKE. Chairman Hoeven, the total non-Federal contribution from within the State of Arizona among the State parties, 

including the State itself, is about 30 percent compared to the Federal appropriation. We think that is a pretty significant contribution. 

The State of Arizona itself is putting $3.2 million towards furthering of non-Indian agricultural CAP water. The threshold for 

meeting the criteria for a reasonable split between Federal and 

non-Federal is a little unclear. 

I would note that in Mr. Mikkelsen’s testimony on S. 664, the 

total contribution from the State of Utah was about 8 percent compared to the appropriation. I think from the perspective of the 

State of Arizona and the State parties, our non-Federal contributions are significant and do come up with a fair and reasonable 

mixture between non-Federal and Federal. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would ask President Begaye for his thoughts on 

that same issue. 

Mr. BEGAYE. I just want to say that this bill will provide water 

to 40 percent that do not have water in the State of Utah, members 

of my Nation. We have waited years for the opportunity to be able 

to say to Utah Navajos that this settlement will give all of our 

Utah Navajos water. 

Right now, many of them do haul water. A lot of the contamination that is up there they deal with on a daily basis. To have this 

settlement done and providing water to all of our Utah Navajos is 

something we are looking forward to. The quality of water will be 

there. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Lieutenant Governor Cox, in your testimony, you 

state the settlement proposed by S. 664 is fair, reasonable and equitable to all parties. You went on to say that this bill benefits all 

States in the Colorado River Basin. 

Talk about that a bit in terms of the big picture and how it benefits all the States? 

32 

Mr. COX. In the big picture, it gives us some certainty when it 

comes to the water rights in the Colorado River Basin by finally 

putting to bed this outstanding claim. Within the water rights already reserved for the State of Utah, it gives us an opportunity to 

have certainty while protecting existing water rights. We are now 

able to ensure the water rights of the Navajos as well. 

One thing I would add to your previous question, Mr. Chairman, 

is that none of the infrastructure that is contemplated with the 

proceeds of this bill would be used for non-Indian rights. Unlike 

the Arizona bill, this is 100 percent for the Navajo Nation and 

those in need. 

The State of Utah has already set aside $2 million for this 

project and has committed to set aside another $6 million in addition for a total of $8 million, again 100 percent going to bringing 

drinking water to the Navajos in Utah. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Lieutenant Governor. 

Commissioner Mikkelsen, from the perspective of the Bureau, 

your thoughts on these settlements in terms of support and benefit? 

Mr. MIKKELSEN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

We do not have a formula to determine whether State or local 

cost share is sufficient, but we must be mindful of what funding 

the Federal Government can provide in assisting communities to 

resolve these longstanding disputes. 

We have not made a determination on such for the Navajo-Utah 

settlement. However, just as a general matter, the higher the State 

and local contribution, the better. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Again, I would like to thank all of the witnesses for being here 

today and turn to Vice Chairman Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this very important hearing. 

Mr. Mikkelsen, it has been brought to my attention that S. 1770 

has a reference to an outdated statute from 1918 that deals with 

reservation lands. That statute is 25 U.S.C. 211. It says ‘‘No Indian 

reservation shall be created, nor shall any additions be made to 

one, within the limits of the States of New Mexico and Arizona except by an act of Congress.’’ 

If you go back and read the Congressional Record from 1918 

when this was proposed, the intent is very clear that Senators at 

the time wanted to restrict Native Americans from acquiring land. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to include this legislative history in 

today’s Committee record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

33 


1206a3.eps

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 
34 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Mikkelsen, do you feel it is appropriate to cite this statute 

in S. 1770? Is it needed to accomplish the bill’s goals? 

Mr. MIKKELSEN. Mr. Chairman, Senator, thank you. 

We are aware of the Section 211 language in this bill and have had several conversations with tribes about this language. This Administration has concerns about 

citing Section 211 in this bill. 

Senator UDALL. Do you basically consider this an obsolete provision that should 

just be ignored? 

Mr. MIKKELSEN. Again, we have concerns about citing Section 211 and we have 

not reached any determinations beyond that at this time, sir. 

Senator UDALL. Will you give me in writing the opinion of the department in consultation with your solicitor as to how you feel about this specific provision? 


1206a4.eps
35 

Mr. MIKKELSEN. Certainly. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. 

As I understand it, the Navajo-Utah project could be the first of its kind project 

where the Federal Government gives the money directly to the tribe to plan, design 

and construct the water project as opposed to Congress giving the funds to the Bureau of Reclamation and they would do those activities. 

President Begaye, can you please describe for the Committee why the tribe prefers planning and constructing the project itself versus Reclamation constructing the 

project for the tribe? 

Mr. BEGAYE. What is really important in this situation with that is by Navajo Nation constructing the project, we use Navajo purpose, meaning that unemployment 

being at 46 percent, we would be able to address much of that by using Navajo people to construct any of the construction that will be taking place. That is one that 

is really important to us, that we put our Navajo people to work using these dollars. 

Secondly, we would be able to use our own Navajo Nation laws. That is also important to us because we have assumed authority over our surface land, so any type 

of archeological or clearances, we will be able to use Navajo Nation laws in that regard. 

We can expedite the process of any kind of construction that may take place. It 

is important as a sovereign Nation that we are able to do that, employ our people 

and use our laws in order to build and construct any kind of construction that may 

take place in relationship to this. That is really important to us. 

Thank you. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, President Begaye. 

Mr. Mikkelsen, is this model where Congress provides planning and construction 

dollars directly to tribes the new normal? What are the implications of this new 

model to the Federal trust responsibility? 

Mr. MIKKELSEN. Each Indian water rights settlement is unique in its own way 

so it is difficult to say broadly that this is the new direction of Indian water rights 

settlements. However, that being said, we are confronting serious cost gaps on specific projects included in recent settlements. This has underscored the problems inherent in trying to estimate costs on projects at a conceptual level. 

A fund-based settlement allows the tribes to make the decisions on the kinds of 

projects that best fit their needs as noted by the President. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you so much. 

We are now five minutes into a vote. I have a number of other questions. I will 

submit those to you for the record and hope you will get back to us promptly on 

those. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Flake. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be as brief as I can. 

Mr. Buschatzke, can you clarify a response given to an earlier question? Will any 

of the infrastructure contemplated in the bill, the Hualapai bill, serve non-Indian 

entities? 

Mr. BUSCHATZKE. Senator Flake, the entire breadth of that bill does create infrastructure to deliver water exclusively to the Hualapai Tribe and on the reservation 

itself. 

Senator FLAKE. Exclusively to the Hualapai, no non-Indian uses. Thank you. 

Mr. Mikkelsen, thanks for your leadership for the Bureau of Reclamation and 

services as chair of the Working Group on Indian Water Rights Settlements. I am 

pleased with the commitments we have received from Secretary Zinke to work with 

me to advance the settlement. I appreciate the work the working group has done. 

I am a bit troubled, however, that despite these commitments we continue to see 

old concerns raised that were raised and addressed during the last Administration. 

The Administration’s position is additional non-Federal contributions are required 

but to the best of my knowledge, the Administration has not set a required threshold for State parties. 

As I have said before, I think the non-Federal contributions in the settlement are 

larger than other completed or pending settlements. Will the department work with 

State parties to better define a threshold for non-Federal contributions it thinks is 

appropriate? 

Mr. MIKKELSEN. The answer to that question is obviously yes. We will work with 

all the parties to advance these settlements. 

Senator FLAKE. Dr. Clarke, you make a very compelling case for what this settlement means for the economy of the Hualapai people. I appreciated the study that 

Professor Kalt produced. I was impressed by the economic benefits that it showed 

for the tribe, the State and the region. 

36 

Have you had a chance to explain the tribe’s perspective and Professor Kalt’s 

study to the OMB? 

Mr. CLARKE. No, we have not. We have asked for numerous meetings with OMB 

and we have been turned away. We would still like to meet with them to provide 

them with this opportunity to show what Professor Kalt has given us. 

Senator FLAKE. Very briefly, what are some of the economic benefits that will accrue to the tribe? 

Mr. CLARKE. The economic benefits are going to be that we want to provide numerous jobs, over 10,000 jobs. At this time, I would like to defer this question to 

Professor Kalt. 

Mr. KALT. Senator, I won’t recap my entire study but in a nutshell, while the 

Hualapai Water Rights Settlement arises in the context of an Indian water rights 

dispute, it actually economically should be viewed as a regional economic development project. 

The current water situation is such that not only is the Hualapai Tribe and its 

population being capped by limited water supplies, but the very successful and 

growing economic development occurring particularly with the tribe’s Grand Canyon 

West Tourism Development Enterprise, it is reaching its maximum given the water 

supplies that are available. 

Removing that cap via the settlement would produce substantial net benefits, not 

only to the United States GDP, but also to the Federal Government. Even from a 

Federal perspective, my research, using modeling routinely employed by Federal 

agencies, for example, in studying their impacts, my research finds this project 

would pay off the Federal appropriation of roughly $173 million in less than three 

years and have 47 years of benefits if you have a 50-year life to a pipeline. 

This is a net positive for the Nation. It is a regional economic development project 

in its economic instance. It happens to arise in this case in the context of an Indian 

water rights settlement. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Director Buschatzke, the State has done very good work. There is a 

great partnership between the tribes and the State and with our office will have 

to try to advance this settlement and others. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Flake. 

I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here today. I apologize that we had 

to move through this as quickly as we did because of the votes. I think your being 

here and the information you provided is very important and very helpful for the 

process. 

Vice Chairman, do you have anything else? 

Senator UDALL. I would just thank the witnesses very much. We really appreciate 

it. 

The CHAIRMAN. With that, the hearing record will be open for two weeks. 

Again, thanks to our witnesses for being here. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(37) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PROF. JOSEPH P. KALT, CO-DIRECTOR, THE HARVARD

PROJECT ON AMERICAN INDIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, JOHN F. KENNEDY

SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT, HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony concerning S. 1770, the 

Hualapai Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2017. My name is Joe Kalt and I 

am the Ford Foundation Professor (Emeritus) of International Political Economy at 

the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University and co-director of 

The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development. For more than 30 

years, the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development has been engaged in research into the sources of, and impediments to, sustained economic development on America’s Indian reservations. 

I have been asked by the Hualapai Tribe to examine the regional economic implications of the proposed settlement of the Tribe’s water rights claims, as this settlement is set out in S. 1770. The centerpieces of the settlement are: (1) the proposed 

federally-funded construction of a 70-mile pipeline that would divert Colorado River 

water at Diamond Creek on the Hualapai reservation to the Hualapai Tribe’s principal residential community at Peach Springs, Arizona, and to the Tribe’s worldclass tourist development on the south rim of the Grand Canyon at Grand Canyon 

West; and (2) provision of a maximum of 4,000 acre feet of low priority Central Arizona Project (CAP) Non-Indian Agricultural water for use on the reservation. Under 

the settlement, the federal outlays for construction, operation, and maintenance of 

the Pipeline are calculated to be $173.5 million. 

I find that this expenditure would pay for itself many times over in terms of any 

metric of relevance. Specifically, in terms of jobs and worker income, business revenues and gross domestic product, and state, local and federal tax collections, the 

cost to the Federal Government of building the Pipeline would be swamped by the 

benefits that the expansion of adequate water supplies via the Pipeline would generate. These results are set out in detail in my report to the Tribe, attached hereto. 

The reasons for the overwhelmingly positive payoffs of the proposed Hualapai 

water rights settlement are straightforward. First, without the additional water 

supplies that the Diamond Creek Pipeline would deliver, the Hualapai Tribe is effectively maxed out in its ability to accommodate further growth in its onreservation 

population because its current water supplies will not support the housing and related infrastructure that the Tribe’s citizens will need. This portends forcing increasing numbers of Hualapai citizens to live off-reservation. 

Second, with critical implications for the entire regional economy of northwest Arizona and southern Nevada and at the heart of the federal and overall US public’s 

interest in the settlement, existing water supplies and sources are insufficient to 

support further economic development of the Hualapai Tribe’s thusfar highly successful Grand Canyon West tourism enterprise. Grand Canyon West, with its iconic 

Skywalk overlook at the western reaches of the Grand Canyon, currently enables 

approximately 1.1 million tourists per year to visit and experience the Grand Canyon. Foreign visitors to the United States, many of whom utilize Las Vegas as a 

‘‘jumping off’’ point, make up a very large portion of Grand Canyon West’s patrons. 

The visitors to Grand Canyon West spend their money on locally-provided travel 

and tourism services. This has proven to be a tremendous boon to the regional economy, with the Hualapai Tribe’s Grand Canyon Resort Corporation (which owns 

Grand Canyon West) employing more than 1,500 workers. More than 550 of these 

workers are non-Hualapai, and the Tribe is now the second largest employer in Mohave County, Arizona. 

The consuming public of the United States and beyond has a strong and growing 

demand for the recreational and tourism experiences that Hualapai enterprises 

produce: Paralleling the experience of the United States’ National Park Service at 

Grand Canyon National Park, visitorship at Grand Canyon West has skyrocketed 

in recent years. Allowing inadequate water supplies at Hualapai to now choke off 

demand at Grand Canyon West will demonstrably and severely harm not only the 

38 

Hualapai Tribe, but also the recreational tourism industry and the workers and suppliers who support that industry in Arizona, Nevada and, ultimately, the nation. 

While the proposed Diamond Creek pipeline arises in the context of an Indian 

water rights settlement, in its economic essentials, the Pipeline is properly viewed 

as a region-wide economic infrastructure project. Such projects are in the national 

economic interest when they support economic growth and activity with net economic benefits for the nation which exceed project costs. This is decidedly the case 

here. 

My research finds that building the Diamond Creek Pipeline and supplying the 

much-needed water it will carry to the region will create and sustain decades of economic growth and development for Hualapais and non-Hualapais alike. Using 

standard and widely-accepted tools of regional economic impact modeling of the 

same type routinely used by federal agencies in assessing the impacts of those agencies’ spending, I find that over a useful pipeline life of at least fifty years, and expressed in terms of net present value, the growth in visitorship and economic development made possible by the Pipeline would support an average of more than 

10,100 American jobs per year, nearly $1.5 billion in federal tax revenues in present 

value, over $6.2 billion in income for US workers in present value, and more than 

$9.3 billion in gross domestic product (GDP) for the United States (in present 

value). These results are summarized in Figure 1. 

The job and value generation that would be supported by the Diamond Creek 

Pipeline would accrue to the benefit of the US economy as a whole, with the most 

concentrated impacts occurring in Arizona and southern Nevada. The human results 

would be substantial improvement in economic conditions for Hualapai and nonHualapai citizens alike. For the federal government, the Pipeline would be a substantial net revenue generator. Looking at the net present value of federal tax revenues on a levelized basis (i.e., treating the federal tax receipts generated over the 

life of the pipeline like an annual mortgage payment made to the Federal Government), the settlement would result in $58 million in annual levelized federal tax collections. Economically, this means that the settlement would have an effective ‘‘payback’’ period of only 3 years, leaving decades of continuing federal tax collections 

after paying off the $173.5 million federal cost of the settlement. The proposed 

Hualapai water rights settlement would be a net benefit to the U.S. taxpayer. 

Upon reflection, the foregoing economic impacts of the proposed settlement should 

not be surprising. The very positive effects that the proposed settlement would have 

for the federal treasury and the U.S. economy as a whole arise because the Diamond 

Creek Pipeline would ultimately enable far greater numbers of U.S. and non-U.S. 

consumers to enjoy resources that can be supplied by the Hualapai Tribe. Those reVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:01 Mar 13, 2018 Jkt 028891 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\28891.TXT JACK

1206a1.eps
39 

sources take the form of the scenic wonder that is the Grand Canyon and the experiences the Tribe’s tourism enterprises create around that scenic wonder. If current 

water supply constraints at Hualapai are allowed to cap the Tribe’s economic development, the Tribe’s—and the nation’s—resource that is the Grand Canyon will have 

much of its productive potential for the consuming public untapped. Economics 

would say that failure to adopt the settlement and build the Diamond Creek Pipeline would leave an incredible and durable national resource ‘‘underemployed’’ in 

serving the wants and desires of the consuming public. The consuming public and 

the many parts of the U.S. economy that directly and indirectly undergird the 

Hualapais’ tourism economy will be the losers if the Diamond Creek Pipeline project 

does not go forward. 

In short, the nature of the resource that is the Grand Canyon is such that the 

most basic economic ‘‘outputs’’ that visitors seek—i.e., the vistas, the cultural impact, and the other experiences that the Grand Canyon ‘‘produces’’—can be ‘‘reused’’ 

or ‘‘re-consumed’’ by visitors again and again, one consumer after another, at effectively little or no incremental cost. The only costs are the costs of enabling consumers to be at Grand Canyon West with the kind of tourism support services (lodging, meals, the Skywalk, etc.) provided by the Hualapai Tribe and made possible 

by an adequate water supply. We know from the willingness of consumers to pay 

on the order of $100 per day for more than a million tickets per year that expanding 

the ability of consumers to experience the Grand Canyon yields tremendous economic value. The proposed Diamond Creek Pipeline project has the capacity to do 

just that—and thus yield benefits which far exceed the costs to the Hualapai Tribe, 

the regional economy, the national economy, and state, local, and federal governments that far outweigh its costs. When we look for infrastructure projects which 

can benefit the nation and its economy, the Diamond Creek Pipeline is precisely the 

kind of project we should be looking for. 

*The report, Economic Impact of the Hualapai Water Rights Settlement and Proposed Diamond Creek Pipeline has been retained in the Committee files.* 

40 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALFRED BENNETT III, SHIPROCK/NORTHERN AGENCY, 

NAVAJO NATION

I’m Alfred Bennett 3rd of Shiprock, New Mexico, Shiprock/Northern Agency, Navajo Nation. Part of the Shiprock Agency extends into Southern Utah.First of all I’m 

against S.664 because it is not in the best interest of my People as a whole. Your 

version has it as a final work, but it is a proposed legislation from our Council (legVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:01 Mar 13, 2018 Jkt 028891 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\28891.TXT JACK

1206a2.eps
41 

1Testimony of John Bezdek, Senior Advisor to the Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department 

of the Interior, in U.S. Congress, House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Water 

and Power, Legislative Hearing on Water Settlements, 110 Congress, 2nd sess., May 24, 2016, 

available at http://democrats-naturalresources.house.gov/irno/media/doc/testimonvbezdek.pdf 

islation no. 0412–15 Approving the ‘‘Proposed’’ Navajo Utah Water Rights Settlement Agreement 01/26/2016 passed yea 13 nay 07 not voting 04).As in past AngloNative American histories all agreements & treaties has always been changed or 

broken to take advantage of the different Native Nations thru out history. So this 

agreement is an example of what has happen in the past. I can say our Navajo 

President was out of line by agreeing to this ‘‘Proposed’’ settlement. The reason is 

that he is giving away our claims of 60∂or- miles of water of the Big Colorado 

River/Lake Powell in Utah for nothing. The U.S.Government has not even finish 

constructing the 12 farm blocks in the 1962 Navajo Indian Irrigation Project (NIIP) 

Act, but they did finish the Rio Chama diversion tunnel under the Continental Divide in New Mexico in the 1970s. They even enlarged the tunnel during construction. Which our leaders are now in Washington D.C. requesting money to finish this 

project. This delay cost us hundreds of thousands or millions of acre feet of water 

per year. Only God knows! The priority date is also wrong because there were Navajos hiding out in the canyons of southern Utah who never surrendered and went 

to Ft.Sumner/Bosque Redondo and signed the Treaty of 1868. The Navajo water 

rights priority date on this agreement should be 1866 not what is in S.664! There 

is no real goal & timetables in this agreement and no Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that I have seen. Mr. Chairman and Committee members thank you for 

your time and blessing to all. Vote no until we are truly compensated for our losses 

of the past. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

ALAN MIKKELSEN

Question 1. Funding for Indian water rights settlements can often include a mix 

of discretionary spending and mandatory spending, as you know. Mandatory funds 

are an increasingly important part of the spending equation, given Interior’s budget 

constraints. 

This falls against the backdrop of growing backlog of ‘‘authorized but unfunded’’ 

settlements, potentially as large $1 billion dollars as of FY2016, as Interior asserted 

at a 2016 hearing before the House Committee on Natural Resources. 1

a. The department did not specify the methodology for the figure referenced above 

(i.e., whether it includes expenditures that have been foregone when they were initially expected to take place and/or those that are planned for obligation in future 

years). Please provide a list of projects referenced in the testimony that remain ‘‘authorized but unfunded.’’ 

b. Please provide a list of Indian water rights settlements in which Congress provided direct/mandatory funds, the amount of mandatory appropriations versus discretionary appropriations, and any remaining amounts necessary relative to the authorization ceiling. 

Answer. The following tables provide a list of Indian water rights settlements that 

are currently authorized, but have not been fully funded or have on-going, statutorily mandated costs. As requested, the tables distinguish between mandatory and 

discretionary appropriations. 

Table 1 

Settlement Source of Funding Estimated Cost Appropriated 

through 9/30/17 

Balance to Complete 

Aamodt Litigation Construction 65,287,000 29,266,993 36,020,007 

Trust Fund 37,500,000 37,500,000 0 

Mandatory 73,100,000 56,400,000 16,700,000 

Total 175,887,000 123,166,993 52,720,007 

Crow Construction 198,139,000 36,152,413 161,986,587 

Trust Fund 0 0 0 

Mandatory 277,935,000 277,935,000 0 

Total 476,074,000 314,087,413 161,986,587 

Navajo-Gallup Construction 771,593,000 432,717,449 338,875,551 

42 

Table 1—Continued 

Settlement Source of Funding Estimated Cost Appropriated 

through 9/30/17 

Balance to Complete 

Trust Fund 50,000,000 41,978,000 8,022,000 

Mandatory 680,000,000 180,000,000 500,000,000 

Total 1,501,593,000 654,695,449 846,897,551 

Pechanga Construction 0 0 0 

Trust Fund 37,166,000 400,000 36,766,000 

Mandatory 0 0 0 

Total 37,166,000 400,000 36,766,000 

Blackfeet Construction 246,500,000 0 246,500,000 

Trust Fund 234,290,000 800,000 233,490,000 

Mandatory 0 0 0 

Total 480,790,000 800,000 479,990,000 

Federal Total Construction 1,281,519,000 498,136,855 783,382,145 

Trust Fund 358,956,000 80,678,000 278,278,000 

Mandatory 1,031,035,000 514,335,000 516,700,000 

Federal Total 2,671,510,000 1,093,149,855 1,578,360,145 

Table 2 

Other Ongoing: IWRS Settlements—Federal 

Appropriated in 

FY 2017 

Ak Chin 15,735,000 

Animas La-Plata 2,652,000 

Nez Perce 5,184,000 

Pyramid Lake 142,000 

San Carlos Apache 1,550,000 

Total Other 25,263,000 

Note: Table 2 lists the FY2017 appropriated funding for those enacted settlements with ongoing costs but no authorization ceiling. That funding provides for 

a variety of activities. Funding for the Ak Chin and Animas La Plata water 

rights settlements will predominantly provide for ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for completed water projects. Funding for the Nez Perce 

water rights settlement will allow for annual leasing of water from willing sellers to augment the flow of the Snake River. Funding appropriated for the Pyramid Lake water rights settlement will be used to cover the Federal portion of 

the preparation and implementation of the Truckee River Operating Agreement 

(TROA). For the San Carlos Apache water rights settlement, the annual appropriations will be used to continue planning, designing, and completing pre-construction activities for a project to deliver 12,000 acre-feet of allocated Central 

Arizona Project (CAP) water. 

Question 2. In 2014, The Bureau of Reclamation’s Upper Colorado Region and 

Lower Colorado Region, in collaboration with the 10 member tribes of the Colorado 

River Basin Tribes Partnership commenced the Colorado River Basin Ten Tribes 

Partnership Tribal Water Study to build on the technical foundation of the Colorado 

River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study. Please provide a status update on 

Tribal Water Study? 

Answer. The Colorado River Basin Ten Tribes Partnership Tribal Water Study is 

nearly complete. The Study’s Draft Report has been reviewed by the member tribes 

of the Ten Tribes Partnership and is currently under review by DOI and Reclamation. We anticipate the Study’s Final Report will be published in 2018. 

Question 3. What are the Department’s views regarding the applicability of 25 

USC 211 in S. 1770? (Question posed during hearing) 

Answer. Enacted in 1918 (40 Stat. 570), the statute placed certain limitations on 

the creation of Indian reservations in New Mexico and Arizona. However, it has 

43 

been the longstanding position of the Department that, following the enactment of 

the Indian Reorganization Act (25 USC 5101 et seq.) in 1934, Section 211 does not 

limit the addition to (or creation of) Indian reservations when done consistent with 

Congressional enactments such as the IRA. That position has been confirmed by the 

Interior Board of Indian Appeals and a federal district court. Accordingly, the Department does not believe its citation in the pending legislation would be relevant 

or useful, but would instead be unnecessary and potentially create confusion regarding applicable authorities. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO

TO ALAN MIKKELSEN

Question 1. The Bureau of Reclamation, like so many other agencies within the 

Federal Government, have dealt with shortfalls in budgetary funding, which has 

hurt our government’s ability, at times, to partner effectively with necessary stakeholder, and have sometimes inflicted negative impacts on our public lands, natural 

resources, and conservation programs. 

Do you believe more funding would allow the Interior Department to be a better 

partner to industry and the taxpayer? 

Answer. The Administration is committed to making the tough decisions that will 

lead to a balanced budget. At the same time, Reclamation remains fully committed 

to upholding Reclamation’s mission to deliver water and power in an economically 

and environmentally sustainable manner in the interest of the American public. We 

must continue to prioritize our resources in order to ensure we uphold Reclamation’s 

mission and remain vigilant stewards of taxpayer money. 

Question 2. The recent budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation is $1.1 billion, a cut of $209 million. The request proposes cuts for WaterSMART grants [the 

50/50 cost share funding program used by irrigation/water districts, Tribes, and 

States can to quickly implement projects that conserve and use water more efficiently—and helping to increase use of renewable energy and protect fragile environment], water recycling and reuse projects, drought response, and rural water 

projects. The state of Nevada gets the least rainfall than any other state in the Nation so we have to be incredibly mindful of persistent drought conditions as well as 

infrastructure improvements. 

a. Do you believe these cuts Will undermine these successful programs that help 

Nevada and other locations in the West respond to drought conditions in innovative 

ways? 

Answer. The President’s FY 2018 budget proposes to balance program priorities. 

WaterSMART grants, water recycling and drought response activities allow Reclamation to assist local communities in their need to address current and future 

water shortages. In addition to those activities, rural water projects help build 

strong, secure communities and are important to supporting the livelihood of local 

economies. In order to ensure Reclamation continues to deliver water and generate 

hydropower into the future, we must work to carryout Reclamation’s mission in an 

efficient and sustainable manner. 

b. The Bureau of Reclamation operates significant facilities in both the Upper and 

Lower Colorado River Regions. How will these budget cuts affect needed rehabilitation of aging water delivery infrastructure in both regions? 

Answer. As Reclamation’s assets continue to get older, there is a growing need 

to monitor and rehabilitate Reclamation’s infrastructure. It is essential that Reclamation maintain and improve its existing infrastructure in order to deliver reliable water and power, ensure system reliability and maintain safety and sustained 

water conservation. Reclamation’s annual budget includes the best yearly representations of the appropriated funds needed for maintenance at Reclamation facilities. 

When funding is not available from revenues, customers or other federal agencies, 

Reclamation aims to strategically leverage its appropriated funds to ensure the delivery of water and power benefits. 

c. In rural communities, the availability of funding and resources to meet treatment standards and improve water reuse is more challenging. Do you believe that 

funding cuts will undermine your administration of these programs, if you are confirmed? 

Answer. The WaterSMART program assists entities as they plan for and implement actions to increase water supply reliability and maintain economic productivity in the western United States in the face of serious water challenges brought 

on by wide-spread drought, increased populations, aging infrastructure, and enviVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:01 Mar 13, 2018 Jkt 028891 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\28891.TXT JACK
44 

ronmental requirements. The Department requested $59.1 million in funding for 

this program in the FY18 budget. 

Question 3. Most people know the Colorado River is the economic engine of the 

southwest and supplies drinking water to 36 million Americans, and that the use 

of that water outstrips supply. The seven states, water users, federal agencies and 

even the country of Mexico have a history of close cooperation, which has become 

ever more important as drought and increased water demands have left the two big 

reservoirs, Lakes Powell and Mead, at all-time lows. 

Projections show that if no action is taken to reduce water use, usage restrictions 

could devastate the environment, cripple our communities and agriculture, and stall 

the economy. 

Several years ago, four large municipal water suppliers (Denver, Las Vegas, Phoenix and southern California) partnered with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation on a 

pilot $11 million ‘‘system conservation’’ program. This System Conservation Program (SCP) pays water users to conserve and dedicate extra water to storage in 

Lakes Powell or Mead. 

The program has successfully demonstrated that farmers and ranchers want to 

participate in programs that provide for temporary, compensated and voluntary reductions of water use. Now demand from farmers and ranchers is so high that the 

program can only afford one in four requests. In 2016, the Senate voted 77 to 23 

to authorize appropriations up to an additional $50 million for SCP, and it was included in the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act. 

Can you say whether the Bureau of Reclamation will continue and expand this 

market-based program that compensates farmers and ranchers for voluntarily conserving water? 

Answer. Reclamation is currently investing significant effort to contend with the 

long-term impacts of the multi-year drought in the Colorado River Basin, which, 

among Colorado River 

water conservation activities, includes the Pilot System Conservation Program. 

The System Conservation Program was conceived by the funding entities and Reclamation as a 2-year program to test the viability of voluntary, compensated, water 

conservation projects that reduce consumptive use and create ‘‘system water’’ to assist with maintaining storage in Lakes Powell and Mead. Although Reclamation is 

currently operating under a continuing resolution for 2018 and Reclamation’s 2018 

budget is uncertain, Reclamation has obtained commitments for additional funding 

from the non-federal partners and additional conservation projects will be implemented for the fourth consecutive year. Under the Consolidated and Further Continuation Appropriations Act, 2015, Public Law No 113–235, Section 206 (128 Stat. 

2312), the Secretary of the Interior is required to submit to Congress by September 

30, 2018, a report evaluating the effectiveness of the pilot projects and making a 

recommendation whether the activities undertaken by the pilot projects should continue. Reclamation continues to work with funding entities to determine the future 

of the program. 

Question 4. Regarding the Colorado River, the years-long drought in the West 

have taken a toll on our water resources, as you know. Both the Lower Basin states 

and the Upper Basin States are working to develop Drought Contingency Plans 

(DCP) to improve water management in way that stabilizes reservoir levels. Lake 

Mead is one of the two largest storage reservoirs on the Colorado River system. 

Lake Mead water levels are important to Nevada because they determine whether 

a shortage is declare on the Colorado River. If a shortage is declared, Nevada would 

see a reduction in its water supply. The proposed DCP specifies voluntary reductions for each of the Lower Basin states in order to protect the water in Lake Mead. 

Meanwhile, the Upper Basin States are reviewing the DCP and developing actions 

of their own as well. If an agreement were to be implemented, my constituents especially would have greater certainty about the longer-term reliability of the Colorado 

River, supporting the economic and environmental health of southern Nevada. 

Will you exercise your authority and leadership to help the states finalize their 

DCPs, work with them on the legislation necessary to implement it, and then help 

them make implementation successful? We need your help to make finalizing the 

DCP a priority. 

Answer. Reclamation continues to be engaged in ongoing conversations regarding 

the development of Drought Contingency Plans in the Lower and Upper Colorado 

River Basins. We are encouraged by the diligent efforts of all the Basin States in 

working toward final agreement on their Drought Contingency Plans and to work 

within available water supplies. Reclamation has conducted modeling that indicates 

that the current plans proposed by the States would benefit both the Upper and 

Lower Basin states. Reclamation and Interior have actively participated in negotiaVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:01 Mar 13, 2018 Jkt 028891 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\28891.TXT JACK
45 

tions between the states and between the basins, have suggested solutions and have 

encouraged the States to finalize their plans. We look forward to continuing our 

work throughout the Colorado River Basin to develop plans that prevent Lake Mead 

and Lake Powell from reaching critically low elevations. 

Question 5. A March 2016 Reclamation study says, ‘‘One of the greatest challenges 

we face is dealing with the impacts of climate change on our nation’s water. . . We 

need to continue to develop collaborative strategies across each river basin to ensure 

that our nation’s water and power supplies, agricultural activities, ecosystems, and 

other resources all have sustainable paths forward.’’ 

Specifically in regards to the Colorado River Basin, the report projects that the 

growing threat of climate change impacts the region saying that reductions in 

spring and early summer runoff could translate into a drop in water supply for 

meeting irrigation demands and adversely impact hydropower operations at reservoirs. 

Obviously, climate change impacts play a large factor in the further work to be 

done on water settlements. Can you describe the challenges climate change poses 

to this process and how Reclamation takes these issues into consideration? 

Answer. Reclamation is at the forefront of dealing with changing conditions in the 

Colorado River Basin, whether due to the highly variable flows into the Basin, the 

ongoing 18 year historic drought, or the growing demands on Colorado River water 

supplies from competing interests. As mentioned above, Reclamation is actively involved with the Basin States through Drought Contingency Planning to address 

short and long term solutions for the basin to work within the Law of the River 

and the water supplies available during the current drought and potential long-term 

supplies. 

Æ