89–010 

Calendar No. 425 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 111–204 

TO PROVIDE FOR EQUITABLE COMPENSATION TO THE SPOKANE TRIBE OF 

INDIANS OF THE SPOKANE RESERVATION FOR THE USE OF TRIBAL 

LAND FOR THE PRODUCTION OF HYDROPOWER BY THE GRAND COULEE 

DAM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

JUNE 10, 2010.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. DORGAN, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany S. 1388 ] 

The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the bill 

(S. 1388) to provide for equitable compensation to the Spokane 

Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation for the use of tribal 

land for the production of hydropower by the Grand Coulee Dam, 

and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do 

pass. 

PURPOSE

The purpose of S. 1388 is to provide fair and equitable compensation to the Spokane Tribe for the past and continued use of tribal 

lands by the federal government for the generation of hydroelectric 

power at the Grand Coulee Dam and Hydroelectric Project 

(Project), located on the main stem of the Columbia River in the 

State of Washington. S. 1388 would provide additional compensation for the Tribe’s losses, including the value of the land as a hydroelectric site, and make payments comparable to those made to 

the neighboring Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation 

(Colville Tribes) under their congressionally approved settlement 

with the United States for similar losses caused by the Project. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
2 

1See 16 U.S.C. § 835d–h. 

2See 16 U.S.C. § 835e. 

BACKGROUND

I. Planning and construction of Grand Coulee Dam 

Planning for the construction of the Project began during the period from 1927 to 1931, when the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), 

at the direction of Congress, investigated the Columbia River and 

its tributaries to identify sites at which dams could be constructed 

to produce hydroelectric power at low cost. The Corps recommended that dams be constructed at a number of sites, including the current site of the Project, located on the main stem of the 

Columbia River in the State of Washington. 

The Corps recommended that the construction of the Project be 

undertaken by local governments or private utilities under the authority of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 791a et seq. (FPA). 

If the Project had been constructed by a local government or a private utility, section 10(e) of the FPA (16 U.S.C. § 803(e)) would 

have required that the non-federal licensees pay the Tribe a reasonable annual charge, subject to the approval of the Tribe, for the 

use of its land to generate hydropower. In 1933, a non-federal entity was issued a preliminary permit to construct a hydroelectric 

project at the current site of the Project by the Federal Power Commission. 

Several years later, however, the Federal government assumed 

control of the project. Consequently, the FPA did not ultimately 

apply to the Project because federal dams are not subject to licensing pursuant to the FPA. This included section 10(e) of the FPA 

which would have provided compensation to the Tribe for the use 

of its lands by a non-federal licensee. 

II. Payment of compensation to tribes 

As a part of constructing the Project, under the Act of June 29, 

1940, Congress granted to the United States ‘‘all the right, title, 

and interest of the Indians in and to the tribal and allotted lands 

within the Spokane and Colville Reservations . . . as may be designated therefor by the Secretary of the Interior from time to time. 

. . .’’ 1 The Act also recognized that the Spokane Tribe and the 

Colville Tribes had compensable interests that would be injured by 

the Project. These interests included the development of hydroelectric power by the tribes, a salmon fishery vital to the tribes 

which would be destroyed by project construction, and the inundation of tribal lands already identified as potential hydroelectric 

power sites. The Act provided that the Secretary of the Interior 

was to determine an amount of ‘‘just and equitable compensation 

for the tribal lands taken.’’ 2

Pursuant to the Secretary of the Interior’s determination under 

the Act of June 29, 1940, the Tribe was paid $4,700 in compensation and the Colville Tribes were paid $63,000. On two occasions, 

October 2, 2003, and May 15, 2008, the Committee received testimony that the original payments made to the tribes, $4,700 and 

$63,000 respectively, were not adequate compensation. The testimony emphasized requirement of the Act of June 29, 1940, that the 

tribes were to be provided ‘‘just and equitable compensation.’’ The 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
3 

3 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation v. United States, 39 Ind. Cl. Comm. 159, 163 

(Nov. 18, 1976). 4 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation v. United States, 964 F. 2d 1102 (Fed. Cir. 

1992). 5 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Grand Coulee Dam Settlement Act, Pub. L. 

No. 103–436, 108 Stat. 4577 (Nov. 2, 1994) (Colville Tribes Settlement Act). 

testimony also noted the decades of lost compensation to the tribes 

because the Project had not been licensed by a non-federal entity 

under the FPA. 

III. Claims for compensation before the Indian Claims Commission 

Both the Spokane Tribe and the Colville Tribes asserted various 

claims before the Indian Claims Commission (ICC) under the Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946, Pub. L. 79–726 (ICCA). The 

ICCA included a requirement that all claims be filed within five 

years of the passage of the ICCA. Neither tribe asserted claims 

specifically related to the Project prior to the expiration of the 

ICCA’s five year statute of limitations. 

However, after the ICCA’s statute of limitations had run, the 

Colville Tribes asserted specific claims related to the Project. In 

1956, the Colville Tribes’ original ICC claim was divided into four 

separate claims, at that time, the Colville Tribes added specific 

fishery and hydropower claims to their original claim. Twenty 

years later, in 1976, the ICC ruled on the addition of these more 

specific claims. The ICC ruled that the Colville Tribes could amend 

their original claim even though the ICCA’s five year statute of 

limitations had run. The ICC determined that the Colville Tribes 

specific hydropower claims could ‘‘relate back’’ to the filing of their 

more general original claims and would not be barred by the ICCA 

statute of limitations.3

Litigation over the Colville Tribes additional claims continued 

until 1992, when the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit finally held that the ICCA’s ‘‘fair and honorable dealings’’ standard allowed the Colville Tribes to pursue its hydropower 

related claims against the United States.4 This decision led to negotiations between the Colville Tribes and the United States to settle the claims. In 1994, Congress ratified a settlement agreement 

between the Colville Tribes and the United States providing for 

payment of $53,000,000 million in damages and annual installments of $15,250,000 in perpetuity, adjusted annually based on 

revenues from the sale of hydroelectric power generated by the 

Project.5 The fiscal year 2008 annual payment to the Colville 

Tribes for the sale of hydroelectric power generated by Project was 

$18.2 million. 

Meanwhile, the Spokane Tribe did not attempt to amend its 

original ICC claims with more specific claims after the ICCA’s statute of limitations had run. And, in 1967, the Spokane Tribe settled 

its ICCA claims. The Spokane Tribe settled its various ICC claims 

(in 1967) long before the ICC ruled (in 1976) that the Colville 

Tribes and other tribes could amend their claims even though the 

ICCA statute of limitations had run. The Spokane Tribe also settled long before the federal courts held (in 1992) that these claims 

could be pursued against the United States under the ‘‘fair and 

honorable dealings’’ standard of the ICCA. 

None of the Spokane Tribes settled claims specifically addressed 

the loss of compensation for the generation of hydroelectric power 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
4 

6 Hearing on S. 1080, H.R. 2120, S. 2494, H.R. 2963, S. 531 Before the S. Comm. on Indian 

Affairs, 110th Cong. 21 (2008) (written testimony of Richard Sherwood, Chairman, Spokane 

Tribe of Indians). 7See 16 U.S.C. § 835e. 

8See id. 

9Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation Grand Coulee Dam Equitable Compensation Settlement Act: Hearing on S. 1438 Before the S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 108th 

Cong. 64 (2003) (testimony of Robert A. Robertson, United States General Accounting Office). 

by the Project. As the Tribe testified before the Committee,6 when 

it settled its claims, it believed that the United States was still 

planning to appropriately compensate the Tribe as set out in the 

Act of June 29, 1940, which authorized the Project and required 

‘‘just and equitable compensation for the tribal lands taken.’’ 7

IV. Discussions to appropriately compensate the Spokane Tribe 

Numerous records, beginning in the 1930’s and then again in the 

1970’s, support the Spokane Tribe’s testimony that the United 

States was planning, albeit belatedly, to appropriately compensate 

the Tribe as required by the Act of June 29, 1940 authorizing the 

Project. These records include high-level agency discussions, Solicitor’s Office Opinions and memoranda, interagency proposals and 

memoranda, congressional findings, hearings, and directives—including a Task Force Study from 1976 to 1980 at the direction of 

the Senate Committee on Appropriations, and negotiations with 

the two tribes regarding adequate compensation for the use of tribal lands to generate hydroelectric power by the Project.8 These historical and legal records often treat the legal basis for the Spokane 

Tribe’s claim as having the same validity as the claims that the 

Colville Tribes litigated under the ICCA. 

Based on these circumstances, the General Accounting Office 

(GAO) previously testified before the Committee that it would be 

reasonable to settle with the Spokane Tribe in the same manner 

as the settlement with the Colville Tribes. The GAO testified: 

A reasonable case can be made to settle the Spokane 

tribe’s case along the lines of the Colville settlement—a 

one-time payment for the U.S. Treasury for past lost payments for water power values and annual payments primarily from Bonneville [Power Administration]. Bonneville 

continues to earn revenues from Spokane reservation 

lands used to generate hydropower. However, unlike the 

Colville tribes, the Spokane tribe does not benefit from 

these revenues. The Spokane tribe does not benefit because it missed its filing opportunity before the Indian 

Claims Commission. At that time it was pursuing other 

avenues to win payments for the value of its land for hydropower. These efforts would ultimately fail. Without congressional action, it seems unlikely that a settlement for 

the Spokane tribe will occur.9

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Settlement bills relating to the Tribe’s claims were introduced in 

the past five Congresses. At different times, some of these bills either passed the Senate or the House, but never in the same Congress. Bills were introduced in the 106th Congress (S. 1525 and 

H.R. 2664), in the 107th Congress (S. 2567 and H.R. 4859), in the 

108th Congress (S. 1438 and H.R. 1753), in the 109th Congress (S. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
5 

10 Hearing on S. 1080, H.R. 2120, S. 2494, H.R. 2963, S. 531 Before the S. Comm. on Indian 

Affairs, 110th Cong. 21 (2008) (written testimony of Richard Sherwood, Chairman, Spokane 

Tribe of Indians). 

881 and H.R. 1797) and in the 110th Congress (S. 2494 and H.R. 

6547). In the 111th Congress, Senator Cantwell introduced S. 1388 

for herself and Senator Murray on June 25, 2009. 

Three hearings have been held on the Tribe’s compensation bills. 

On October 2, 2003, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held 

a hearing on S. 1438, and on the same date, the Water and Power 

Subcommittee of the House Committee on Natural Resources held 

a hearing on H.R. 1753. On May 15, 2008, the Senate Committee 

on Indian Affairs held a hearing on S. 2494. 

On some of these occasions, the Committee received views on the 

introduced version of the bill and from the Administrations in place 

at that time. On June 28, 2005, the Bureau of Reclamation provided the Committee a letter with its views on S. 881. And, at the 

May 15, 2008, the then-Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

testified on S. 2494. The Committee understands that the bill it is 

currently reporting, S. 1388, reflects discussions with the Administration based on this prior correspondence. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF S. 1388

Under the proposed legislation, the Spokane Tribe would be compensated for the use of its lands for the production of hydroelectric 

power by the Grand Coulee Dam under a formula based in part on 

that by which the Colville Tribes were compensated in the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Grand Coulee Dam Settlement Act, Pub. L. 103–436, 108 Stat. 4577 (November 2, 1994). 

The Spokane Tribe’s lands being used by the Project are equivalent in area to 39 percent of the Colville Tribes’ lands being used.10

A settlement based solely on this factor would result in payments 

to the Spokane Tribe equal to 39 percent of the payments made to 

the Colville Tribes. However, the Spokane Tribe agreed to reduce 

this percentage to 29 percent, in recognition of the fact that certain 

lands located within the boundaries of the Spokane Reservation 

taken for the construction of the Project are to be restored to the 

Spokane Tribe under the terms of this legislation. 

Under S. 1388, an interest-bearing settlement fund would be established in the Treasury to be known as the Spokane Tribe of Indians Settlement Fund. Subject to the availability of appropriations 

the Secretary would deposit in the Fund $23,900,000 for fiscal year 

2010, and for each of the next four fiscal years $18,900,000. These 

funds would be held in trust by the Secretary, unless and until the 

Spokane Business Council submits a written request to the Secretary asking that all or part of the Fund be paid to the Spokane 

Business Council. In the event such a request is made, $5,000,000 

of the initial deposit would be used for the planning, design, construction, equipping, and operation and maintenance of a Cultural 

Resource Repository and Interpretive Center to house burial remains, funerary objects, and other cultural resources affected by 

the operation of the Project and to provide an educational facility 

addressing the culture and history of the Tribe. Of the remaining 

assets of the Fund, 25 percent would be used by the Spokane Business Council for discretionary purposes of general benefit to members of the Tribe, and 75 percent for resource development, credit, 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
6 

scholarship, or reserve, investment, and economic development programs. 

In addition, under S. 1388, beginning on March 1, 2010, the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration (Administrator) would pay the Tribe an amount equal to 29 percent of the 

annual payment due to the Colville Tribes under § 5(b) of the 

Colville Tribes Settlement Act for fiscal year 2009. On or before 

March 1 of each year thereafter, the Administrator would make annual payments to the Tribe equal to 29 percent of the Colville 

Tribes payment for the previous fiscal year. These funds, upon payment to the Tribe, could be used or invested by the Spokane Business Council in the same manner and for the same purposes as 

other Spokane Tribe government funds. 

Beginning in fiscal year 2020, S. 1388 would allow the Administrator to take a $1,300,000 credit against these payments to the 

Tribe in most years. The credit would come from funds that the Administrator would otherwise owe the Department of Treasury. 

Expenditure of funds transferred to the Tribe by the Administrator would not require approval by the Secretary of the Interior 

or the Administrator, and these officials would have no trust responsibility for the investment, administration, or expenditure of 

those funds. 

Section 9 discusses the transfer of administrative jurisdiction 

and restoration of ownership of certain lands. Sections 9(a) and (b) 

provide that the Secretary of the Interior is directed to transfer administrative jurisdiction for certain lands within the exterior 

boundaries of the Spokane Indian Reservation from the Bureau of 

Reclamation to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and that such lands 

would be held in trust for the benefit of the Spokane Tribe and remain a part of the Spokane Indian Reservation. These lands would 

be subject to the same trust responsibility as other tribal land held 

in trust within the Reservation. These lands would also be subject 

to a reservation of perpetual rights and easement on behalf of the 

United States regarding the use of these lands as is necessary for 

the operation of the Columbia Basin Project, which includes Grand 

Coulee Dam, and existing recreational facilities owned or permitted 

by the United States. 

Because the lands involved in section 9 include a boundary between the Spokane Tribe and the Confederated Tribes of the 

Colville Reservation, section 9(c) provides that nothing in section 9 

establishes or affects the precise location of the actual boundary between the Spokane Indian Reservation and the Colville Reservation 

along the Columbia River, the respective use rights of each Tribe 

in Lake Roosevelt as reserved by the Act of June 29, 1940 (16 

U.S.C. § 835d), or the common boundary of the Indian zones established pursuant to the 1940 Act. 

Section 9(c) also recognizes an agreement between the Spokane 

Tribe and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation that 

was formalized in a Joint Resolution adopted by the two Tribes on 

September 17, 1973. The Joint Resolution provides— 

(1) that the common boundary of the enlarged Indian zones 

between the Spokane and Colville Reservations follow the center line of Roosevelt Lake without reference to the course of 

the submerged Columbia River so that the Spokane Indian 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
7 

zone will be to the east of said center line and the Colville Indian zone to the west; 

(2) that the Tribes establish a policy of reciprocity within 

both Indian zones where they are adjacent to each other with 

the cross deputization of game wardens, patrols, and other officers and uniformity in the administration of tribal rights and 

jurisdiction in that area. 

(3) that there be reserved for later negotiations and accord 

the question of where the actual common boundary between 

the two reservations exists on the bottom of the Roosevelt 

Lake, that is, whether it is at the center line or the west bank 

of the submerged Columbia River. 

Finally, to help ensure coordinated and consistent management 

of the Project, the Recreation Area, and the tribal lands, Section 

9(d) also directs the Tribe and the relevant agencies of the Department of the Interior to enter into a memorandum of understanding 

regarding the lands. A similar agreement has already been reached 

between the Tribe and the State of Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife for management of law enforcement activities on acreage covered by the Act. 

Section 10 provides that the making of the prescribed payments 

by the Secretary of the Interior and the Administrator, together 

with the restoration of ownership and the taking of the specified 

land into trust on behalf of the Tribe, would constitute full satisfaction of the Spokane Tribe’s claims for past and continued use of 

tribal lands and to a fair share of hydroelectric revenues generated 

as a result of the use of those lands. 

Section 11 would authorize the appropriation of such funds as 

are necessary to accomplish its purpose. 

Section 12 states that the Act would not establish any precedent 

or is binding upon the Southwestern Power Administration, Western Area Power Authority, or Southeastern Power Administration. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION OF S. 1388

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 states that the Act may be cited as the ‘‘Spokane Tribe 

of Indians of the Spokane Reservation Grand Coulee Dam Equitable Compensation Settlement Act.’’ 

Section 2. Findings 

Section 2 provides findings made by Congress that describe the 

background and reasons for this legislation. 

Section 3. Purpose 

Section 3 states that the purpose of this Act is to provide fair and 

equitable compensation to the Tribe for the use of its land for the 

generation of hydropower by the Grand Coulee Dam. 

Section 4. Definitions 

Section 4 provides definitions for various terms used in the Act. 

Section 5. Settlement Fund 

Section 5(a) establishes an interest-bearing settlement fund account in the Treasury of the United States to be known as the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
8 

11 ‘‘Computed Annual Payment’’ is defined in section 4 of the bill as the payment calculated 

under paragraph 2.b. of the Colville Settlement Agreement, without regard for any increase or 

decrease in the payment under section 2.d. of the agreement. 

‘‘Spokane Tribe of Indians Settlement Fund,’’ consisting of amounts 

deposited in the Fund under subsection (b) and any interest earned 

on investment of amounts in the Fund. 

Section 5(b) provides that, from amounts made available under 

section 11, for fiscal year 2010, the Secretary shall deposit in the 

Fund $23,900,000, and for each of the 4 fiscal years thereafter, the 

Secretary shall deposit in the Fund $18,900,000. 

Section 5(c) provides that the Fund shall be maintained and invested by the Secretary in accordance with the Act of June 24, 

1938 (25 U.S.C. § 162a). 

Section 5(d) provides that at any time after funds are deposited 

into the Fund, the Spokane Business Council may submit to the 

Secretary written notice of the adoption by the Spokane Business 

Council of a resolution requesting that the Secretary pay all or portion of the amounts in the Fund to the Spokane Business Council, 

and provides further that not later than 60 days after receipt of 

such notice, the Secretary shall pay the amount requested to the 

Spokane Business Council. 

Section 5(e) provides that, of the initial deposit under subsection (b)(1), $5,000,000 shall be used by the Spokane Business Council 

for the planning, design, construction, equipping, and continuing 

operation and maintenance of a Cultural Resource Repository and 

Interpretive Center to house, preserve, and protect the burial remains and funerary and cultural resources affected by the operation of the Grand Coulee Dam, and provide an interpretive and 

educational facility regarding the culture and history of the Spokane Tribe. The section also provides that the funding of these activities does not alter or affect any authority, obligation, or responsibility of the United States under the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. §§ 3001 et seq.), the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 470aa et seq.), 

the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 470 et seq.), or 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 

et seq.). Of all other amounts deposited in the Fund (including interest generated on those amounts), 25 percent shall be reserved by 

the Spokane Business Council and used for discretionary purposes 

of general benefit to all members of the Spokane Tribe, and 75 percent shall be used by the Spokane Business Council to carry out 

resource development programs, credit programs, scholarship programs, or reserve, investment, and economic development programs. 

Section 6. Payments by the Administrator 

Section 6(a) provides that on March 1, 2010, the Administrator 

shall pay to the Tribe an amount equal to 29 percent of the Computed Annual Payment for fiscal year 2009.11

Section 6(b) provides that not later than March 1, 2011, and 

March 1 of each year thereafter, the Administrator shall pay the 

Tribe an amount equal to 29 percent of the Computed Annual Payment for the preceding fiscal year. 

Section 6(c) provides that in accordance with the payment schedule described in subsection (b), the Administrator shall make comVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:05 Jun 11, 2010 Jkt 089010 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR204.XXX SR204

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
9 

12Section 6 of the Saginaw Chippewa Act provides that distributions of certain funds paid to 

that tribe under the Act to its enrolled members are not subject to Federal, State, or local income taxes and that such distributions may not be used as a basis for denying or reducing (1) 

financial assistance or other benefits under the Social Security Act to such tribal member or 

the member’s household, or (2) any other Federal financial assistance or benefit to which the 

tribal member or member’s household may be otherwise entitled. 

mensurate cost reductions in expenditures, on an annual basis, to 

recover each payment to the Tribe under this section. 

Section 7. Treatment after funds are paid 

Section 7(a) provides that payments made to the Spokane Business Council or Spokane Tribe under section 5 or 6 may be used 

or invested by the Business Council in the same manner and for 

the same purposes as the Tribe’s other governmental funds. 

Section 7(b) provides that neither the Secretary nor the Administrator shall have any trust responsibility for the investment, supervision, administration, or expenditure of any funds after the date 

on which the funds are paid to the Spokane Business Council or 

Spokane Tribe under section 5 or 6. 

Section 7(c) provides that the payments of all funds to the Spokane Business Council and Spokane Tribe under sections 5 and 6, 

and the interest and income generated by the funds, shall be treated in the same manner as payments under section 6 of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan Distribution of Judgment 

Funds Act (100 Stat. 677).12

Section 7(d) provides that after the date on which funds are paid 

to the Spokane Business Council or Spokane Tribe under section 

5 or 6, the funds shall constitute Spokane Tribe governmental 

funds and shall be subject to an annual tribal government audit. 

Section 8. Repayment credit 

Section 8(a) provides that the Administrator shall deduct from 

the interest payable to the Secretary of the Treasury from net proceeds (as defined in section 13 of the Federal Columbia River 

Transmission System Act (16 U.S.C. § 838k)) in fiscal year 2020, 

$1,300,000; and in each subsequent fiscal year in which the Administrator makes a payment under section 6, $1,300,000. 

Section 8(b)(1) provides that except as provided in paragraphs (2) 

and (3), each deduction made under this section shall be a credit 

to the interest payments otherwise payable by the Administrator to 

the Secretary of the Treasury during the fiscal year in which the 

deduction is made, and shall be allocated pro rata to all interest 

payments on debt associated with the generation function of the 

Federal Columbia River Power System that are due during the fiscal year. Section 8(b)(2) provides that if, in any fiscal year, the deduction is greater than the amount of interest due on debt associated with the generation function for the fiscal year, the amount 

of the deduction that exceeds the interest due on debt associated 

with the generation function shall be allocated pro rata to all other 

interest payments due during the fiscal year. Section 8 (b)(3) provides that to the extent that a deduction exceeds the total amount 

of interest described in paragraphs (1) and (2), the deduction shall 

be applied as a credit against any other payments that the Administrator makes to the Secretary of the Treasury. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
10 

Section 9. Transfer of administrative jurisdiction and restoration of 

ownership of land 

Section 9(a) provides that the Secretary shall transfer administrative jurisdiction from the Bureau of Reclamation to the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs over all land acquired by the United States under 

the Act of June 29, 1940 (16 U.S.C. § 835d), that is located within 

the exterior boundaries of the Spokane Indian Reservation established pursuant to the Executive Order of January 18, 1881. 

Section 9(b)(1) provides that all land transferred under this section shall be held in trust for the benefit and use of the Tribe and 

shall remain part of the Spokane Indian Reservation. 

Section 9(b)(2) provides that the Federal trust responsibility for 

all land transferred under this section shall be the same as the responsibility for other tribal land held in trust within the Spokane 

Indian Reservation. 

Section 9(c) provides that nothing in this section establishes or 

affects the precise location of the boundary between the Spokane 

Indian Reservation and the Colville Reservation along the Columbia River and Lake Roosevelt or the agreements and rights established and provided for in the Act of June 29, 1940 (16 U.S.C. 

§ 835d). 

Section 9(d)(1) provides that the United States reserves a perpetual right, power, privilege, and easement over the land transferred under this section to carry out the Columbia Basin Project 

under the Columbia Basin Project Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 835 et seq.). 

Section 9(d)(2) provides further that the rights reserved under 

paragraph (1) further include the right to operate, maintain, repair, 

and replace boat ramps, docks, and other recreational facilities 

owned or permitted by the United States and existing on the date 

of enactment of this Act. Section 9(d)(3) provides that land transferred under this section that, before the date of enactment of this 

Act, was included in the Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area 

shall remain part of the Recreation Area, and further provides that 

nothing in this section shall affect the authority or responsibility 

of the National Park Service to administer the Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area under the Act of August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 

535, chapter 408; 16 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.). Section 9(d)(4) provides 

that the cognizant agencies of the Department of the Interior shall 

enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Tribe to provide for coordination in applying this subsection. 

Section 10. Satisfaction of claims 

Section 10 provides that payment by the Secretary under section 

5 and by the Administrator under section 6 and restoration of ownership of land in trust under section 9 constitute full satisfaction 

of the claim of the Tribe to a fair share of the annual hydropower 

revenues generated by the Grand Coulee Dam project for the past 

and continued use of land of the Tribe for the production of hydropower at the Dam. 

Section 11. Authorization of appropriations 

Section 11 authorizes the appropriation of such sums as are necessary to carry out this Act. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
11 

Section 12. Precedent 

Section 12 provides that nothing in this Act establishes any 

precedent or is binding on the Southwestern Power Administration, 

Western Area Power Administration, or Southeastern Power Administration. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND TABULATION OF VOTE

On September 10, 2009, the Committee on Indian Affairs convened a business meeting to consider S. 1388 and other measures. 

By voice vote, the Committee voted to have the bill favorably reported without amendment. 

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The cost estimate for S. 1388, as calculated by the Congressional 

Budget Office, is set forth below: 

S. 1388—Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation 

Grand Coulee Dam Equitable Compensation Settlement Act 

Summary: S. 1388 would provide compensation to the Spokane 

Tribe of Indians for the use of tribal lands to generate hydroelectric 

power by the Grand Coulee Dam. The bill would require the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) to make annual payments to 

the tribe from receipts generated from the sale of electricity. CBO 

estimates that those payments would increase direct spending by 

$8 million over the 2010–2019 period. 

The bill also would create the Spokane Tribe of Indians Settlement Fund as compensation for land taken to build the Grand Coulee Dam. CBO estimates that implementing this provision would 

cost $100 million over the 2010–2014 period, assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts. 

Finally, beginning in 2020, the bill would reduce BPA’s interest 

payments to the Treasury by $1.3 million annually for as long as 

BPA makes payments to the tribe. Such reductions would increase 

direct spending by $1.3 million a year starting in 2020. 

S. 1388 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 1388 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget functions 450 (community and 

regional development) and 270 (energy). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2010– 

2014 

2010– 

2019 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Estimated Budget Authority .. 6 6 ¥4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 

Estimated Outlays ................. 6 6 ¥4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Authorization Level ................ 24 19 19 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 

Estimated Outlays ................. 24 19 19 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill 

will be enacted near the start of fiscal year 2010 and that the authorized amounts will be appropriated each year. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
12 

Direct spending 

S. 1388 would require BPA to make annual payments to the Spokane Tribe. Under the bill, such payments would equal 29 percent 

of the annual payment BPA currently makes to the Colville Tribes. 

Those payments would continue so long as electricity continues to 

be generated at the Grand Coulee Dam. CBO estimates that payments to the Spokane Tribe would begin in 2010 and would average about $6 million per year. Because BPA’s operating costs are 

driven by market and environmental conditions that are difficult to 

control, CBO expects that the agency would not be able to offset 

the cost of this bill by reducing operating expenses as directed by 

the bill. Instead, we anticipate that BPA would increase the rates 

it charges for electricity to cover those costs. 

Because BPA has already set the rates it will charge customers 

for electricity in 2010 and 2011, CBO expects that the agency 

would use reserve funds to make payments to the tribe in those 

years. Information from BPA indicates that the agency has already 

collected roughly $8 million to cover a portion of payments the 

agency anticipated it might be obligated to make to the tribe if legislation similar to S. 1388 were enacted. CBO expects that, under 

the bill, BPA would spend $12 million of reserves for payments to 

the tribe in 2010 and 2011 and that the agency would raise its 

rates in 2012 to replenish the portion of reserves paid to the tribe 

that was not specifically collected for that purpose (about $4 million). CBO expects that, under current law, BPA would not spend 

reserve funds currently designated for making payments to the 

tribe because the agency has no authority or requirement to do so. 

Beginning in 2012, CBO expects that the $6 million annual payment to the Spokane tribe would become part of BPA’s cost structure and would be fully offset by an increase in the rates it charges 

for electricity. 

Spending subject to appropriation 

S. 1388 would create the Spokane Tribe of Indians Settlement 

Fund as compensation for land taken to build the Grand Coulee 

Dam. The bill would authorize the appropriation of $100 million 

over the 2010–2014 period to that fund. Assuming appropriation of 

the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that implementing S. 1388 

would cost $100 million over the 2010–2014 period. 

Payments to certain tribal trust funds that are held and managed in a fiduciary capacity by the federal government on behalf 

of Indian tribes are treated as payments to a nonfederal entity. As 

a result, CBO expects that the entire amount deposited to the fund 

in any year would be recorded as budget authority and outlays in 

that year. The Secretary of the Interior would be required to invest 

the appropriated funds in government securities until those funds 

are expended by the tribe. Subsequently, the trust fund would be 

nonbudgetary, and any use of such funds and interest payments to 

the tribes would have no effect on the federal budget. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1388 contains no 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA 

and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

The payments authorized by this bill would benefit the Spokane 

Tribe. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
13 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Jeff LaFave; Impact on 

state, local, and tribal governments: Melissa Merrell; Impact on the 

private sector: Marin Randall. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATION

The Committee has not received an executive communication 

from the Administration on the provisions of S. 1388. 

REGULATORY AND PAPERWORK IMPACT STATEMENT

Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires that each report accompanying a bill evaluate the regulatory and paperwork impact that would be incurred in carrying 

out the bill. The Committee has concluded that the regulatory and 

paperwork impacts of S. 1388 should be de minimis. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the enactment of 

S. 1388 makes no changes to existing law. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
(14) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR CANTWELL 

The following sets forth Senator Cantwell’s views concerning the 

effect of section 9 on the boundary between the reservations of the 

Spokane and Colville tribes: 

Section 9 also provides that nothing in this section establishes or 

affects the precise location of the actual boundary between the Spokane Indian Reservation and the Colville Reservation along the Columbia River, the respective use rights of each Tribe in Lake Roosevelt as reserved by the 1940 Act, or the common boundary of the 

Indian zones established pursuant to the 1940 Act in a Joint Resolution adopted by the two Tribes on September 17, 1973. 

That agreement provides: 

1. That the common boundary of the enlarged Indian zones between the Spokane and Colville Reservations follow the center line 

of Roosevelt Lake without reference to the course of the submerged 

Columbia River so that the Spokane Indian zone will be to the east 

of said center line and the Colville Indian zone to the west. 

2. That the Tribes establish a policy of reciprocity within both Indian zones where they are adjacent to each other with the cross 

deputization of game wardens, patrols, and other officers and uniformity in the administration of tribal rights and jurisdiction in 

that area. 

3. That there be reserved for later negotiations and accord the 

question of where the actual common boundary between the two 

reservations exists on the bottom of the Roosevelt Lake, that is, 

whether it is at the center line or the west bank of the submerged 

Columbia River. 

Nothing in this section affects these rights and agreement inter 

se. It is recognized that the actual boundary between the two Reservations on the Columbia River and Lake Roosevelt is a matter 

to be resolved by further negotiation and accord between the Spokane and Colville Tribes. Accordingly, it is recommended that any 

unresolved issues regarding the common Reservation boundary 

should be a matter to be resolved through further negotiations between the two Tribes and are not affected in any way by the proposed legislation. 

MARIA CANTWELL. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS