U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

52-312 PDF 2009

H.R. 3254, TAOS PUEBLO INDIAN 

WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT 

OF 2009; AND H.R. 3342, AAMODT 

LITIGATION SETTLEMENT ACT OF 

2009. 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 

Serial No. 111-34 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

or 

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Jim Costa, California 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas 

Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Diana DeGette, Colorado 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Joe Baca, California 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts 

Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico 

Don Young, Alaska 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Adrian Smith, Nebraska 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

Paul C. Broun, Georgia 

John Fleming, Louisiana 

Mike Coffman, Colorado 

Jason Chaffetz, Utah 

Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming 

Tom McClintock, California 

Bill Cassidy, Louisiana 

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff 

Rick Healy, Chief Counsel 

Todd Young, Republican Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Chairwoman 

TOM McCLINTOCK, California, Ranking Republican Member 

George Miller, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Jim Costa, California 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Joe Baca, California 

Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia, ex officio 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington, 

Adrian Smith, Nebraska 

Mike Coffman, Colorado 

Doc Hastings, Washington, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Wednesday, September 9, 2009 .................................................. 1 

Statement of Members: 

Baca, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Heinrich, Hon. Martin, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New Mexico ............................................................................................... 7 

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

McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 3 

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

Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from the State 

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

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Connor, Hon. Michael L., Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. ........................................... 10 

Prepared statement on H.R. 3254 ........................................................... 14 

Prepared statement on H.R. 3342 ........................................................... 18 

Cordova, Hon. Nelson J., Councilman and Water Rights Coordinator, 

Pueblo of Taos, Taos, New Mexico ............................................................... 22 

Prepared statement on H.R. 3254 ........................................................... 24 

Dorame, Hon. Charles J., Chairman, Northern Pueblos Tributary Water 

Rights Association, Albuquerque, New Mexico .......................................... 32 

Prepared statement on H.R. 3342 ........................................................... 33 

Luja ́n, Hon. Ben Ray, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Mexico ................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7 

Martinez, Palemon A., President, Taos Valley Acequia Association 

(TVAA), Taos, New Mexico ........................................................................... 45 

Prepared statement on H.R. 3254 ........................................................... 47 

Montoya, Hon. Harry B., Commissioner of District 1, Santa Fe County 

Commission, Santa Fe, New Mexico ........................................................... 48 

Prepared statement on H.R. 3342 ........................................................... 49 

Supplemental statement submitted for the record ................................. 70 

Sanders, DL, Chief Counsel, Office of the State Engineer, Santa Fe, 

New Mexico, on behalf of John R. D’Antonio, Jr., P.E., New Mexico 

State Engineer, Interstate Stream Commission Secretary ....................... 37 

Additional materials supplied: 

D’Antonio, John R., Jr., P.E., New Mexico State Engineer, Interstate 

Stream Commission Secretary, Prepared statement on H.R. 3254 ......... 38 

Prepared statement on H.R. 3342 ........................................................... 42 

Pojoaque Basin Water Alliance, Statement submitted for the record .......... 75 

Richardson, Hon. Bill, Governor, State of New Mexico, Letter submitted 

for the record ................................................................................................. 77 

Rivera, Governor George, Pueblo of Pojoaque, Statement submitted for 

the record on H.R. 3342 ............................................................................... 71 

List of documents retained in the Committee’s official files ......................... 78 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3254, TO 

APPROVE THE TAOS PUEBLO INDIAN 

WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ‘‘TAOS 

PUEBLO INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT OF 2009’’; AND H.R. 3342, TO 

AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, ACTING THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER OF RECLAMATION, TO DEVELOP 

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE RIO 

GRANDE BASIN, AND TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT OF THE WATER RIGHTS CLAIMS 

OF THE PUEBLOS OF NAMBE, POJOAQUE, 

SAN ILDEFONSO, AND TESUQUE. ‘‘AAMODT 

LITIGATION SETTLEMENT ACT OF 2009.’’ 

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:03 p.m. in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Grace Napolitano 

[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Napolitano, McClintock, Inslee, Baca. 

Also Present: Representatives Heinrich and Luja ́n. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GRACE NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Good afternoon. The meeting of the Subcommittee on Water and Power will come to order. 

The purpose of today’s meeting is to hold a legislative hearing on 

H.R. 3254 and H.R. 3342. I ask unanimous consent that Congressman Ben Ray Luja ́n and Congressman Heinrich be allowed to sit 

on the dais and participate in the Subcommittee proceedings today. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

2 

After my opening statement, I will recognize all of the members 

of the Subcommittee for any statement they may have. We will 

need to move expeditiously, because they are expecting votes 

between 2:15 and 2:30 p.m. 

Any Member who desires to be heard will be heard. Additional 

material may be submitted for the record by the Members, by any 

witness, or by any interested party. The record will be kept open 

for 10 business days following today’s hearing. 

The five-minute rule with our timer, which is in front of you and 

in front of me, will be enforced. Green means go, yellow indicates 

one minute remaining, and red means stop or I will stop you. 

Today’s legislative agenda focuses on two water rights settlements, which affect five New Mexican Pueblos. The settlement reflects the large amount of work, time, patience, and money of the 

Pueblos and the state and Federal governments. 

And let us be clear from the start. We are committed to completing these settlements. It is unacceptable that there have been 

83 years’ worth of outstanding litigation between Aamodt, which 

addresses the Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque, Tesuque, and San 

Ildefonso, and the Abeyta case, which addresses the water needs of 

Taos Pueblo. 

We have the chance today, with H.R. 3254 and H.R. 3342, to 

settle 83 years of litigation. 

To quote one of our witnesses today, Mr. Cordova—thank you, 

sir—in regard to the Taos settlement, but I think it also applies to 

Aamodt, these settlements will build a relationship for all parties 

in the future; one that is based on mutual trust, respect, and cooperation. Something that has been missing historically. 

Welcome, Mr. Cordova and Chairman Dorame. We appreciate 

your continued perseverance. Welcome again, and thank you for 

being with us today. 

We are also pleased to welcome D. L. Sanders from the New 

Mexico State Engineers Office, TVAA President Martinez, and 

Santa Fe County Commissioner Montoya to our hearing today, to 

provide us the state and local perspective. 

While it is often perceived that water rights settlements benefit 

primarily the tribes, it is also important to recognize the importance water settlements have in providing water certainty to the 

entire region. Water in New Mexico, as in most places in the West, 

is a limited commodity. 

The wise and careful management of water requires us to work 

together to develop workable solutions, and to solidify it in 

legislation. 

We are here today to take a significant and important step in 

giving Pueblos and the people of New Mexico certainty on the 

management of this precious resource. 

I personally trust there will be additional focus on water reuse 

and water recycling for any water discharges. That is one of the 

things that we in this Subcommittee have taken a great interest 

in, and we hope that you will consider those in the future as you 

move forward with your projects. 

To round out our all-New Mexican panel, we welcome back 

Commissioner Connor. We are looking forward to reading your 

3 

testimony sooner. I just got it, so it was kind of late last night. But 

I am pleased that the delay allowed for a welcome change. 

I also expect that the Administration recognizes the hard work 

the five Pueblos have done to address concerns regarding the waiver language, application of the criteria and procedures, and the 

total cost. In fact, since our hearing last September, Taos waiver 

language in H.R. 3254 has become the model waiver language for 

the Department. This is no doubt a testament to their hard work, 

and an eagerness to bring finality to these important settlements. 

We thank the panel for being present to testify, and look forward 

to your testimony. 

And I turn it over to my Ranking Member, Mr. Tom McClintock. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Napolitano follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

Today’s legislative agenda focuses on two water rights settlements which affect 

five New Mexico Pueblos. These settlements reflect a large amount of work, time 

and patience by the people of the pueblos and the state and federal governments. 

Let us be clear from the start, we are committed to complete these settlements. It 

is unacceptable that there has been 83 years worth of outstanding litigation between the Aamodt Case, which addresses the Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque, Tesuque 

San Ildefonso; and the Abeyta Case, which addresses the water needs of the Taos 

Pueblo. We have the chance today with H.R. 3254 and H.R. 3342 to settle 83 years 

of litigation. 

To quote Mr. Cordova, in regard to the Taos settlement, but I think it also applies 

to Aamodt, these settlements will ‘‘build a relationship for all parties the future...one that is based on mutual trust, respect and cooperation, something that 

has been missing historically.’’ Welcome Mr. Cordova and Chairman Dorame. We 

appreciate the many miles that you have come today to represent your people. 

Thank you for being here today. 

We are also pleased to welcome DL Sanders from the New Mexico State Engineer’s office, TVAA President Martinez and Santa Fe County Commissioner Montoya to our hearing today to provide us the state and local perspective. While it’s 

often perceived that Water Rights Settlements benefit primarily the tribes, it is also 

important to recognize the importance water settlements have in providing water 

certainty to the entire region. Water in New Mexico, as in most places in the West, 

is a limited commodity. The wise and careful management of water requires us to 

work together, to develop workable solutions and then to solidify it in legislation. 

We are here today to take a significant and important step in giving the Pueblos 

and the people of New Mexico certainty on the management of this precious resource. 

To round out our all New Mexican Panel, we welcome back Commissioner Connor. 

We were looking forward to reading your testimony sooner, but I am pleased that 

the delay allowed for a welcome change. I also expect that the Administration recognizes the hard work the five pueblos have done to address concerns regarding the 

waiver language, application of the criteria and procedures, and the total cost. In 

fact, since our hearing last September, Taos waiver language in H.R. 3254 has become the boiler plate language for the Department. This is no doubt a testament 

to their hard work and eagerness to bring finality to these important settlements. 

Thank you all for traveling al the way to Washington, DC to be here with us 

today. I look forward to your testimonies. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM McCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. Today we 

are going to hear about two bills that authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to implement comprehensive settlement agreements affecting water rights claims for five Pueblos of New Mexico. 

4 

I am looking forward to the testimony on these bills. I hope that 

both sides can allay concerns that I have regarding several of the 

provisions. 

On the positive side, the bills end the longest-standing litigation 

in the Federal Court system, and establish something that the 

people of this region, both on and off reservation, have lacked, and 

that is a certainty about future water rights and apportionments. 

Also on the positive side, I agree with Mr. Martinez of the Taos 

Valley Acequia Association that quote: ‘‘The United States owes a 

Federal trust obligation to these Pueblos to protect the water rights 

of the Acequias and their members.’’ 

And finally, I agree with the Santa Fe County Commissioner 

that a comprehensive solution is advisable since quote: ‘‘There will 

be demand in the future from non-Pueblo residents to connect to 

the system, and that quote: ‘‘It would be a very unfortunate outcome if those people were told no, you cannot connect, this is a 

Pueblo-only system.’’ 

However, I also have some serious concerns about several details 

in the bills which I hope can be addressed. 

My first two concerns are specific to H.R. 3342. First, I am very 

concerned about the prospect of giving eminent domain authority 

to a joint powers agency that includes sovereign entities that are 

not accountable to local voters—specifically, the Pueblo 

governments. 

I have no problem with the Pueblos exercising eminent domain 

on their own land, and county agencies exercising eminent domain 

on non-reservation land. But I very seriously question allowing one 

agency to exercise this power outside of its jurisdiction when that 

agency is not directly accountable to voters. 

In this respect, I agree with the Pojoaque Basin Water Alliance, 

that, quote, ‘‘The citizens of our county have no control or oversight 

over tribal representatives, development, and countless other 

issues. A large joint water system and district would have administrative and operational issues evolving into jurisdictional issues.’’ 

Second, I am concerned that this resolution has not worked out 

legitimate concerns by affected water users; that the settlement 

imperils their existing water rights. In this respect, I wonder if the 

settlement doesn’t constitute an unconstitutional taking. 

With respect to both bills, I would raise a third concern. It seems 

to me that resolving water rights is quite a separate matter from 

asking taxpayers to pay for a specific project from which those taxpayers derive no benefit. 

I am strongly in favor of additional water development. I believe 

that the projects contemplated by this legislation will be a boon to 

the entire region. 

However, I have always believed that local water projects should 

be financed by local revenue bonds that are redeemed by local 

users of the water in proportion to their use, and not subsidized by 

general taxpayers. 

For example, a project that exclusively benefits water users in 

the Pojoaque Basin should not be exclusively financed by water 

users in Poughkeepsie or in Palomar. So I would ask for you to address these issues that are of principal concern to me as I did a 

first reading on these bills. 

5 

I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Tom McClintock, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California 

Thank you Madam Chairwoman. 

Today we will hear two bills that authorize the Secretary of the Interior to implement comprehensive settlement agreements affecting water rights claims for five 

Pueblos of New Mexico. 

I am looking forward to testimony on these bills and hope that both sides can 

allay concerns that I have regarding several provisions. 

On the positive side, the bills end the longest standing litigation in the federal 

court system and establish something that the people of this region—both on and 

off reservation—have lacked, and that is a certainty about future water rights and 

apportionments. 

Also on the positive side, I agree with Mr. Martinez of the Taos Valley Acequia 

Association that ‘‘The United States owes not only a federal trust obligation’’ to 

these pueblos ‘‘to protect the water rights of the Acequias and their members.’’ 

And finally, I agree with the Santa Fe County Commissioner that a comprehensive solution is advisable since ‘‘there will be demand in the future from non-Pueblo 

residents to connect to the system.’’ And that ‘‘It would be a very unfortunate outcome if those people were told ‘‘no, you cannot connect—this is a Pueblo-only system.’’ 

However, I also have serious concerns about many details in the bills which I 

hope can be addressed. 

My first two concerns are specific to H.R. 3342: 

First, I am very concerned about the prospect of giving eminent domain authority 

to a joint-powers agency that includes sovereign entities that are not accountable 

to local voters—specifically the Pueblo governments. I have no problem with the 

pueblos exercising eminent domain on their own land and county agencies exercising eminent domain on non-reservation land, but I very seriously question allowing one agency to exercise this power outside of its jurisdiction when that agency 

is not directly accountable to the voters. In this respect, I agree with the Pojoaque 

Basin Water Alliance that ‘‘The Citizens of our county have no control or oversight 

over tribal representatives, development, and countless other issues. A large joint 

water system and district would have administration and operational issues evolving into jurisdictional issues.’’ 

Second, I am concerned that this resolution has not worked out legitimate concerns by affected water users that the settlement imperils their existing water 

rights. In this respect, I wonder if the settlement doesn’t constitute an unconstitutional taking. 

With respect to both bills, I would raise a third concern, that resolving water 

rights is quite a separate matter from asking taxpayers to pay for a project from 

which those taxpayers derive no benefit. I am strongly in favor of additional water 

development and believe that the project contemplated by this legislation will be a 

boon to the entire region. However, I have always believed that local water projects 

should be financed by local revenue bonds redeemed by the users of the water in 

proportion to their use and not subsidized by general taxpayers. For example a 

project that exclusively benefits water users in the Pojoaque Basin should be exclusively financed by those water users and not by taxpayers in Poughkeepsie or Palomar. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. McClintock. And while I agree 

with you, sometimes we need to take into consideration that some 

of these tribes have been waiting for the Federal government to act 

upon some of their claims, so that has to be taken into consideration. 

In order as arrived, Mr. Luja ́n, for a short speech. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you very much, Madame Chair, and to all the 

members of the Water and Power Subcommittee, and the staff of 

6 

the Subcommittee, especially Camille, for working to set up this 

hearing, and for the invitation to sit in. 

This is an important step in protecting the valuable water resources of northern New Mexico. Our water resources are precious 

in New Mexico. Without a reliable water supply, we cannot improve human health, protect our cultures and traditions, or grow 

economies. These settlements will protect water resources, advance 

the implementation of effective water management, and ensure future access to water resources for all residents located in the areas 

of northern New Mexico encompassed by these settlements. 

I want to thank all the people from Taos and the greater 

Pojoaque Valley for traveling the long distance from New Mexico 

to Washington, D.C., for this very important hearing. 

I would like to acknowledge Governor Mitchell from Tesuque 

Pueblo, Governor Roybal from San Ildefonso, Governor Rivera from 

Pojoaque, and Governor Romero from Taos, and our ward chief in 

Taos, for making this long trip. This is something you have all 

worked on for a very long time, and I am glad to have you here 

today to talk about the importance of these water settlements. 

Earlier this year I introduced two pieces of legislation to approve 

two water settlements in my district. H.R. 3254, the Taos Pueblo 

Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 2009, to approve the Taos 

Pueblo Indian water rights settlement agreement and for other 

purposes, and H.R. 3342, the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act of 

2009, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting for the Commissioner of Reclamation, to develop water infrastructure in the 

Rio Grande Basin, and to approve the settlement of the water 

rights claims of the Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, 

and Tesuque. 

I would like to ask the Chairwoman if I may submit directive letters I received from the State of New Mexico, the County of Santa 

Fe, the Rio Pojoaque Acequia and Well Water Association, and others who have asked the Congress to take a serious look at the importance of approving these settlements, as these two pieces of legislation are vital to the prolonged existence of culture and agriculture in my district. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Without objection, so ordered. 

[NOTE: The letters submitted for the record can be found 

at the end of this hearing.] 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Similar legislation was introduced in the 110th Congress, and was subject to legislative hearings in both the House 

and the Senate. 

Early in the 111th Congress, both Senators Bingaman and Udall 

from New Mexico introduced Senate Bill 965, the Taos Pueblo 

Indian Rights Settlement Act, and Senate Bill 1105, the Aamodt 

Litigation Settlement Act, in the Senate with important revisions 

having improved both settlements. Their leadership surely has gotten us where we are today with these two settlements. 

I recognize the importance of these water settlements from a resource management and future use perspective, and I follow the 

leads of the Senators from New Mexico and introduce H.R. 3254 

and H.R. 3342 in the House. 

With that, Madame Chair, I yield back my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Luja ́n follows:] 

7 

Statement of The Honorable Ben R. Luja ́n, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of New Mexico, on H.R. 3254 and H.R. 3342 

First I’d like to thank Chairwoman Napolitano, all of the members of the Water 

and Power Subcommittee and the staff of the subcommittee for working to set up 

this hearing. This is an important step in protecting the valuable water resources 

of northern New Mexico. 

Our water resources are precious in New Mexico. Without a reliable water supply, 

we cannot improve human health, protect our cultures and traditions, or grow 

economies. These settlements will protect water resources, advance the implementation of effective water management, and ensure future access to water resources for 

all residents located in the areas of Northern New Mexico encompassed by these settlements. 

I want to thank all of the people from Taos and the Greater Pojaoque Valley for 

traveling the long distance from New Mexico to Washington D.C. for this very important hearing. 

• Gov. Romero, Taos Pueblo 

• Gov. Mitchell, Tesuque Pueblo 

• Gov. Roybal, San Ildefonso 

• Gov. Rivera, Pojoaque Pueblo 

This is something you all have worked on for a very long time and I am glad to 

have you here today to talk about the importance of these water settlements. Earlier this year I introduced two pieces of legislation to approve two water settlements 

in my district. 

• H.R. 3254, The ‘‘Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 2009;’’, To 

approve the Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Agreement, and for 

other purposes, and; 

• H.R. 3342, The ‘‘Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act of 2009.’’ To authorize the 

Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to 

develop water infrastructure in the Rio Grande Basin, and to approve the settlement of the water rights claims of the Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque, San 

Ildefonso, and Tesuque. 

I would like to ask the chairwoman if I may submit to the record the numerous 

letters of support I received from The state of New Mexico, The County of Santa 

Fe, The Rio Pojoaque Acequia & Well Water Association and others who have asked 

that Congress take a serious look at the importance of approving these settlements 

as these two pieces of legislation are vital to the prolonged existence of culture and 

agriculture in my district. 

Similar legislation was introduced in the 110th Congress and was subject to legislative hearings in both the house and the Senate. Early in the 111th Congress both 

Senators Bingaman and Udall introduced S.965 the Taos Pueblo Indian Water 

Rights Settlement Act and S.1105 the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act in the Senate with important revisions that have improved both settlements. Their leadership 

surely has gotten us where we are today with these two settlements. I recognize the 

importance of these water settlements from a resource management and future use 

perspective, and I followed the lead of the Senators from New Mexico and introduced H.R. 3254 and H.R. 3342 in the House. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Mr. Heinrich. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Mr. HEINRICH. Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano, for inviting 

me to sit in with the Subcommittee today. This is clearly an issue 

that is critical to our state’s future. And as anyone from the West 

knows, water is the lifeblood of our communities. Whether you live 

in downtown Albuquerque or on a ranch or in a pueblo, every New 

Mexican depends on their community’s right to clean, reliable 

water. 

The bills before the Subcommittee today are the result of years 

of hard work; respectively, 40 and 43 years. These legal actions 

were filed approximately three and six years before Congressman 

Luja ́n and I were born. 

8 

To ensure that communities have reliable rights to water for future generations, I want to commend the local, state, and Pueblo 

governments for all their dedication to finding a solution that 

meets each community’s needs. 

As this Subcommittee is all too well aware, cooperation and collaboration are far too rare when it comes to managing water resources in the West. These bills are an example of how we can 

manage this precious resource without pitting towns against farms, 

and farms against tribes. 

The Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act would settle a lawsuit 40 years old, and adjudicate water rights for Taos 

Pueblo, the State of New Mexico, and many non-Indian water users 

and Acequia associations. 

The Aamodt litigation settlement would settle an even older 

water rights lawsuit; in fact, the oldest active case in the Federal 

Court system. This settlement will secure the rights of the four 

northern Pueblos of Pojoaque, Nambe, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque, 

and would create the regional water system to deliver water to the 

Pueblos and to the Santa Fe County water utility. 

These agreements represent many years of negotiations that 

began when the parties to these lawsuits realized that litigation 

was too costly and too time-consuming to produce a satisfactory result. By talking neighbor to neighbor, these communities have 

found the solution that will work for them. 

I hope that Congress will support these agreements and pass 

H.R. 3254 and H.R. 3342. 

I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Heinrich follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Martin Heinrich, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of New Mexico, on H.R. 3254 and H.R. 3342 

Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano, for inviting me to sit in with the subcommittee today to discuss this issue critical to my state’s future. 

As anyone from a Western state knows, water is the lifeblood of our communities. 

Whether you live in downtown Albuquerque, on a ranch, or at a pueblo, every New 

Mexican depends on their community’s right to clean, reliable water. 

The bills before the subcommittee today are the result of years of hard work by 

the communities of Northern New Mexico to ensure they have reliable rights to 

water for future generations. I commend the local, state, and pueblo governments 

for their dedication to finding a solution that meets each community’s needs. 

As this subcommittee is all too well aware, cooperation and collaboration are far 

too rare when it comes to managing water resources in the West. These bills are 

an example of how we can manage this precious resource without pitting towns 

against farms, and farms against tribes. 

The Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act would settle a lawsuit nearly 40 years old and adjudicate water rights for Taos Pueblo, the State of New 

Mexico, and many non-Indian water users and acequia associations. 

The Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act would settle an even older water rights 

lawsuit—in fact, this is the oldest active case in the federal court system. This settlement will secure the rights of the Four Northern Pueblos—Pojoaque, Nambe, San 

Ildefonso, and Tesuque—and would create a Regional Water System to deliver water 

to the pueblos and to the Santa Fe County Water Utility. 

These agreements represent many years of negotiations that began when the parties to these lawsuits realized that litigation was too costly and too time consuming 

to produce a satisfactory result. 

By talking neighbor to neighbor, these communities have found a solution that 

will work for them. 

I hope Congress will support these agreements and pass H.R. 3254 and 

H.R. 3342. 

Thank you. 

9 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Mr. Inslee, do you have any statement, sir? 

Mr. INSLEE. No, thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Mr. Baca. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BACA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. BACA. Yes, Madame Chair. First of all, thank you, Madame 

Chair, for hosting this meeting, along with Ranking Member Tom 

McClintock. It is an important hearing. 

I especially want to thank my friend, Rep. Ben Luja ́n, who represents that area in bringing this piece of legislation. And I commend his dad, because his dad has also been a strong leader as the 

Speaker of the House, and the Assembly that believes that water 

is important for a lot of us in the state. And the son has taken on 

the same gavel and the same torch. Thank you for taking that 

torch. 

I believe that every individual should have access to water, and 

that we should all recognize that water is the fundamental necessity for all communities, it doesn’t matter whether in the reservation or off the reservation. But we all should have access to it. 

I agree that we should come to some kind of an agreement and 

support H.R. 3254. I commend them all coming together and working together on this long journey for everyone. 

Today, this bill will address the longstanding water claims in 

New Mexico, and will finally bring together government entities 

and interested entities. 

As a native of New Mexico, I am the third individual—you heard 

from two other individuals—who actually represents the area. I 

was born in Belen, New Mexico. So you have a third guardian 

angel that also speaks on behalf of New Mexico, and a voice in that 

area. And we finally have a native New Mexican other than myself. 

I used to claim I was the only one in Congress representing the 

State of New Mexico. Ben Luja ́n is also native from that area. 

But again, I look forward to hearing the testimony, and look to 

support H.R. 3254 and H.R. 3342, that are important to a lot of 

us in settling this litigation. 

Thank you, Madame Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baca follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Joe Baca, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California 

Thank you, Chairwoman Grace Napolitano and Ranking Member Tom McClintock 

for holding this important hearing, and thank you Rep. Luja ́n for working on these 

important pieces of water legislation. 

I firmly believe that every individual should have access to water; and that we 

should all recognize that water is a fundamental necessity for all communities. 

I am sensitive to other communities’ water needs because my District in the Inland Empire, California is going through its own set of problems with our water— 

drought and contamination. 

The bills presented today will address long standing water claims in New Mexico, 

and will finally bring together governing entities and interest. 

As a native New Mexican from Belen, I am very proud to be here today and try 

to enhance access to water for these New Mexican communities 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses. 

Thank you. 

10 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Baca. We are trying to hurry 

because we are going to have some votes, and then after that we 

have that procedure in the Rotunda. And we certainly have witnesses. 

So we thank you for your statements, and we will hear from the 

witnesses. We have only one panel, and you will be introduced before you testify. After your testimony we will have questions. 

Your prepared statements will be entered into the record, and all 

witnesses are asked to kindly, please summarize the high points of 

the testimony, and limit your remarks to the five minutes allocated. Again, the timer before you will be used. 

That applies to all questioning. Members have five minutes for 

questions. If there are additional, we may have a second round, 

time permitting. 

Our first panel, we have Mr. Mike Connor—welcome again, Commissioner—Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, D.C. You are on, 

sir. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE CONNOR, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF 

RECLAMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. CONNOR. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman, Ranking Member McClintock, and members of the Subcommittee. I am Mike 

Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased 

to be here to discuss the two Indian water rights settlements bills 

before the Subcommittee today. 

I am also honored to be here with my fellow New Mexicans on 

this panel. 

I have submitted written remarks for the record, and I will summarize that within the five-minute time period. 

I would like to recognize that for over 25 years, the Federal government, together with Indian tribes, states, and local parties, 

have acknowledged that negotiated Indian water rights settlements 

are preferable to the protracted litigation. 

The Aamodt and Taos settlements continue this approach and reflect a desire by the people of the State of New Mexico, both Indian 

and non-Indian alike, to control their own future by settling their 

differences through negotiation, rather than litigation. 

My testimony today is mindful of this history, and the good work 

that has been put into both settlement bills before the Subcommittee. 

This Administration’s general policy of support for negotiations is 

premised on four principles: that the United States participate in 

water settlements consistent with its responsibilities as trustee to 

Indians. 

Two, that Indian tribes receive equivalent benefits for rights 

which they, as the United States’s trustee, relinquished as part of 

a settlement. 

Three, that Indian tribes should realize the value from confirmed 

water rights resulting from a settlement. 

And four, that settlements contain appropriate cost-sharing proportionate to the benefits received by all parties benefitting from 

the settlements. 

11 

In both bills before the Subcommittee today, substantial work 

and modifications have been made by the parties and the New 

Mexico Congressional Delegation to improve the settlements. As a 

result, the bills reflect a positive and significant step toward addressing the principles just articulated. 

My statement today is intended to recognize these improvements, 

and establish a clear path toward some additional changes that 

will make these settlements ones which the Administration can 

fully support. 

I will now address the specifics of each bill. 

H.R. 3254, the Taos Bill. H.R. 3254 would settle Taos Pueblo’s 

water rights claims in the Rio Pueblo de Taos and the Rio Hondo 

systems in northern New Mexico. There is a long history of litigation concerning the Pueblo’s water rights claims that goes back to 

the late 1800s. Today the case is the latest round, initiated in 1969 

as the General Stream Adjudication. 

Recognizing that litigation and uncertainty over water rights 

would likely continue into the foreseeable future, the Pueblo, the 

United States, State of New Mexico, Taos Valley Acequia Association, the Town of Taos, El Prado Water and Sanitation District, 

and 12 mutual domestic water associations entered into negotiations in the 1990s. 

As with most negotiations, progress was incremental. Ultimately, 

the parties’ efforts resulted in a settlement agreement that was 

signed by the non-Federal parties in May 2006. 

Both my written and my oral presentation summarizes the number of the positive aspects of the settlements. I am going to skip 

over that for the sake of time, and identify those remaining concerns that I just identified in general. 

H.R. 3254 authorizes a Federal contribution of—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Excuse me, Mr. Connor. Please go ahead, we 

will allow you the extra time. We need to hear that. 

Mr. CONNOR. OK. Overall, the Taos settlement is a reasonable 

and positive resolution of historic water disputes, and is a settlement that contains many provisions that the Administration supports. 

The waivers contained in H.R. 3254, as you noted, Madame 

Chairman, are significant improvements over the prior version of 

this bill. In fact, these negotiated waivers have become a model for 

other settlements. 

In addition, the settlement will provide for the protection and 

restoration of the Pueblo’s Buffalo Pasture, a culturally sensitive 

and sacred wetland currently impacted by groundwater development. 

Finally, perhaps the most significant attribute of the negotiated 

settlement is that it solidifies and makes permanent many watersharing arrangements that the Pueblo and its non-Indian neighbors have struggled for years to establish. 

Notwithstanding the positive provisions of H.R. 3254, the Administration has some concerns about two items in particular that 

are related to the Federal contribution to the settlement. 

The bill authorizes a Federal contribution of $121 million to be 

paid over seven years. An additional $33 million is authorized to 

fund 75 percent of the construction costs of various projects that 

12 

have been identified as mutually beneficial to the Pueblo and local 

non-Indian parties. 

The Administration believes that the cost share as it presently 

stands is not proportional to the settlement benefits received by the 

state and local non-Indian parties. We believe that increasing the 

cost share for the mutual benefit projects is appropriate and consistent with the funding parameters of other Federal water resource programs, particularly in light of the benefit that exists by 

ending the litigation and securing a waiver of future water rights 

claims. 

The second concern goes to the amount of the funding that would 

be provided to the Pueblos before the settlement is final. H.R. 3254 

allows $25 million of early funding. In previous settlements, such 

funding was far more limited, less than $4 million. 

Although the Department understands the need for immediate 

access to funds, especially to halt deterioration of the condition of 

the Buffalo Pasture, we remain concerned about the precedent this 

would set for other Indian water rights settlements. 

We recommend the bill be amended to reduce the amount of 

early money that is authorized. We also recommend strengthening 

the provision which allows the United States to recoup and receive 

credit for any early funds made available, should the settlement 

fail to be implemented. 

Finally, with respect to non-financial issues, the Administration 

is concerned about the manner in which the bill addresses enforcement matters. Currently there is a provision to waive the sovereign 

immunity of the United States to enforce the settlement. This provision is both unnecessary, and should be eliminated. 

On a related note, the bill leaves unresolved the question of what 

court retains jurisdiction over an action brought to enforce the settlement agreement. This ambiguity may result in needless litigation, and the Administration believes that the decree court must 

have continuing and exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and enforce 

its own decree. 

I should end by noting that my written testimony also raises concerns about the timeframe for entering the San Juan-Chama 

project contracts and the Secretary’s role in approving San Juan’s 

subcontract entered into by the Pueblo. It appears that the parties 

have now agreed to language that would resolve both of these 

issues. That language should be finalized and incorporated into the 

bill. 

The other bill before the Subcommittee today, H.R. 3342, the 

Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act, would authorize the settlement 

of the water rights of four other New Mexico Pueblos: Tesuque, 

Nambe, Pojoaque, and San Ildefonso, all in the Rio Pojoaque Basin, 

which is immediately north of Santa Fe. This settlement would end 

a contentious water dispute, as well as a Federal Court proceeding 

that has been noted here is over 40 years old. 

In 1998 the Judge in New Mexico v. Aamodt directed the parties 

to negotiate, which intensified an effort that was initially begun in 

1992. Concluding the settlement has been difficult, in no small part 

because the basin is chronically water-short. In order to allow junior state-based water right holders to continue to use water while 

facilitating the Pueblos the right to use and develop their senior 

13 

water rights, the parties agreed to a settlement centered on a regional water system that will use an established quantity of imported water to serve the needs of the Pueblos and other water 

users in the basin. 

In May 2006, the Pueblos, the State of New Mexico, and other 

non-Federal parties executed a settlement agreement which requires the construction of the regional water system, defines the 

extent and priority of agricultural water rights, and establishes parameters for the use of groundwater in the basin. 

H.R. 3342 would approve and implement the settlement agreement by authorizing the design and construction of that regional 

water system, as well as other benefits identified in my written testimony. Overall, the total cost of the settlement is estimated to be $290 

million, with a Federal contribution of $174 million, and a state 

and local contribution of about $117 million. This represents a 40 

percent non-Federal cost share, which is a significant improvement 

over many past settlements. 

The Administration considers the willingness of the settling parties to provide such a significant cost share to be a good indication 

that they are invested in, and deeply supportive of, this settlement. 

A settlement to which many interests are contributing deserves 

more support than a settlement which comes at solely Federal expense. 

Nevertheless, the Administration is concerned about certain aspects of the cost of this settlement. As a threshold matter, there 

has been an ongoing concern that the cost share agreement among 

the parties remains unsigned, creating uncertainty about the viability of the system overall, and the costs expected to be borne by 

the United States. 

We understand that this is an issue that is likely to be resolved 

soon. If so, this fact should be reflected in the legislation. 

Second, the Administration is concerned about the validity of the 

cost estimate that the settlement parties are relying on for the regional water system. The parties rely on an engineering report 

dated June 2007, which has not been verified by the level of study 

that Reclamation would recommend in order to ensure its reliability. 

To better understand the risks associated with cost that could potentially exceed the cost estimate, Reclamation is now carrying out 

a design, engineering, and construction review of an engineering, 

of the engineering report, and we expect to finish it by the end of 

this calendar year. 

The Administration also believes that the parties should agree 

that the non-Federal parties will share proportionately in any increases in the cost of the project above and beyond the cost estimate. 

In addition to the cost-related matters, other provisions need to 

be resolved as identified in the written testimony. The waiver provisions include a provision section 204.[a][9] that could be interpreted as waiving important environmental protection. The Administration cannot accept waivers which have the potential to erode 

important environmental safeguards put in place to protect the 

health, safety, and well-being of the citizens and the environment. 

14 

Fortunately, it is my understanding that the parties are working 

with, having worked with both the Interior and Department of Justice staff, have agreed to remove this provision. 

In addition, the settlement contains a provision that allows the 

Pueblos to begin the process of nullifying the entire settlement if 

the regional water system is not substantially complete by mid2021. The Administration believes the legislation should be clarified in this area to establish a clear definition and process related 

to that definition of substantial completeness. 

Once again, it appears the parties have reached an agreement to 

include language to address this issue. This would represent a significant progress in this serious issue. 

Notwithstanding that progress, because there is still a possibility 

that the settlement could fail, the Administration, similar to the 

Taos bill, recommends strengthening a provision which allows the 

United States to recoup and receive credits for any earlier funds 

made available for the project. 

In summation, I want to again acknowledge that these settlements are products of a great deal of effort by many parties; and 

except for the issues raised, are generally consistent with the principles for Federal participation in Indian water rights settlements. 

This Administration wants to avoid continued and unproductive 

litigation which, even when finally concluded, will leave parties injured by and hostile to its results. We believe settlement can be accomplished in a manner that protects the rights of the Indian communities, and also ensures that the costs of settlements are borne 

proportionately. 

The Administration is committed to work with Congress and all 

parties concerned in developing settlements that the Administration can fully and wholeheartedly support. 

We would also welcome working with Congress to identify and 

implement clear criteria for going forward with future settlements. 

Madame Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I stand 

ready to answer questions at the appropriate time. 

[The prepared statements of Mr. Connor follow:] 

Statement of Michael L. Connor, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 3254 

Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Michael L. Connor, 

Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased to provide 

the views of the Department of the Interior (Department) on H.R. 3254, the Taos 

Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act. This Administration supports the resolution of Indian water rights claims through negotiated settlement. Our general policy of support for negotiations is premised on a set of general principles including 

that the United States participate in water settlements consistent with its responsibilities as trustee to Indians; that Indian tribes receive equivalent benefits for 

rights which they, and the United States as trustee, may release as part of a settlement; that Indian tribes should realize value from confirmed water rights resulting 

from a settlement; and that settlements are to contain appropriate cost-sharing proportionate to the benefits received by all parties benefiting from the settlement. We 

recognize that substantial work and refinements have been made to this settlement 

by the parties and the New Mexico delegation. As a result, the parties have taken 

positive and significant steps toward meeting the Federal goals just articulated. The 

settlement legislation has been greatly improved, contributing to long-term harmony 

and cooperation among the parties. We would like to continue to work with the parties and the sponsors to address certain concerns, including those discussed in this 

statement (such as appropriate non-Federal cost share), that could make this a settlement that the Administration could wholeheartedly support. 

15 

Negotiated Indian Water Rights Settlements 

Settlements improve water management by providing certainty not just as to the 

quantification of a tribe’s water rights but also as to the rights of all water users. 

That certainty provides opportunities for economic development for Indians and 

non-Indians alike. Whereas unquantified Indian water rights are often a source of 

tension and conflict between tribes and their neighbors, the best settlements replace 

this tension with mutual interdependence and trust. In addition, Indian water 

rights settlements are consistent with the Federal trust responsibility to Native 

Americans and with a policy of promoting Indian self-determination and economic 

self-sufficiency. For these reasons and more, for over 20 years, federally recognized 

Indian tribes, states, local parties, and the Federal government have acknowledged 

that, when possible, negotiated Indian water rights settlements are preferable to 

protracted litigation over Indian water rights claims. 

In analyzing settlements, the Administration must consider the immediate and 

long-term water needs of the Indian tribes, the merits of all legal claims, the value 

of water, federal trust responsibilities, economic efficiency measures, and the overall 

promotion of good public policy. An additional critical component of our analysis is 

cost-sharing. 

Historic Water Conflicts in the Taos Valley 

Before discussing the proposed settlement and the Administration’s concerns with 

it, it is important to provide background on the disputes that led to the settlement. 

Taos Pueblo is located in north-central New Mexico, approximately 70 miles north 

of Santa Fe. It is the northernmost of 19 New Mexico Pueblos and its village is recognized as being one of the longest continuously occupied locations in the United 

States. The Pueblo consists of approximately 95,341 acres of land and includes the 

headwaters of the Rio Pueblo de Taos and the Rio Lucero. The Taos Pueblo has irrigated lands for agriculture since prehistoric times. Before the Pueblo’s lands became 

part of the United States, they fell under the jurisdiction first of Spain, and later 

of Mexico, both of which recognized and protected the rights of the Pueblo to use 

water. When the United States asserted its sovereignty over Pueblo lands and what 

is now the State of New Mexico, it did so under the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. In the Treaty, the United States agreed to protect rights recognized 

by prior sovereigns including Pueblo rights. In 1858, Congress specifically confirmed 

many Pueblo land titles, including that of Taos Pueblo. 

Subsequently, patents were issued to the Pueblos of New Mexico which, in effect, 

quitclaimed any interest the United States had in the Pueblos’ land. The Pueblos 

were then considered to own their lands in fee simple, unlike most other Indian 

tribes. Despite this unusual title arrangement, the United States attempted to exercise jurisdiction over the Pueblos for their benefit, seeking to protect Pueblo lands 

and resources by extending the restrictions on alienation of Indian lands in the 

Indian Trade and Intercourse Acts to Pueblo lands. Unfortunately, initial efforts by 

the United States to protect Pueblo lands and waters were to no avail. New Mexico’s 

territorial courts did not accept the application of the Trade and Intercourse Act to 

Pueblo lands. In United States v. Joseph, 94 U.S. 614 (1876), the Supreme Court 

expressly held that the Pueblos were not Indian tribes within the meaning of the 

1834 and 1851 Non-intercourse Acts. This meant that non-Indians were able to buy 

Pueblo lands without regard to federal Indian law and as a result, there was significant loss of Pueblo lands to non-Indians. 

After almost forty years of loss of land and water rights, the Supreme Court reversed its decision in Joseph and decided that the Pueblos were, in fact, covered by 

laws extending federal guardianship and protection. United States v. Sandoval, 231 

U.S. 28, 48 (1913). The Supreme Court’s reversal of opinion threw the status of title 

to lands occupied by 12,000 non-Indians in New Mexico into serious doubt, along 

with the water rights exercised on those lands. Responding to the outcry concerning 

title, Congress sought to remedy the uncertainty by passing the Pueblo Lands Act 

of 1924, 43 Stat. 636, to ‘‘settle the complicated questions of title and to secure for 

the Indians all of the lands which they are equitably entitled.’’ 

Under the 1924 Act, if the non-Indians could persuade a special lands board that 

they had used and occupied Pueblo land for a period of time, the non-Indians were 

awarded title, and the Pueblo was supposed to be compensated for the value. In 

practice, this resulted in the non-Indians successfully claiming some of the most valuable, irrigable Pueblo farmland. Taos Pueblo lost 2,401.16 acres to claims by nonIndians under the 1924 Act. The Pueblo also lost title to 926 acres in the Town of 

Taos. The compensation awarded by the lands board to the Pueblos was lower than 

actual appraised values, and woefully inadequate. Congress followed up by enacting 

the 1933 Pueblo Lands Act, which provided additional compensation to the Pueblo 

16 

and also expressly preserved the Pueblo prior water rights, but the compensation 

still did not adequately remedy the losses to the Pueblo. 

In passing the 1924 and 1933 Acts, Congress recognized the necessity of resolving 

the uncertainty of title to land and water and also restoring the severely eroded economic footing of the Pueblos caused in large part by the loss of land and interference with water rights. Cash awards made to the Pueblos under the Acts were 

expressly intended to compensate the Pueblos for their losses and to help fund the 

replacement of their lost economic base through the purchase of lands, construction 

of irrigation projects, and by financing various other permanent improvements for 

the benefit of Pueblo lands. Sadly, the Acts did not fully accomplish their purposes. 

While land titles may have been more or less resolved, title to water rights clearly 

was not and uncertainty over title to water has continued to plague the Taos Valley. 

In a final attempt to resolve title to water in the Taos Valley, in 1969 the general 

stream adjudication of the Rio Pueblo de Taos and Rio Hondo stream systems and 

the interrelated groundwater and tributaries was filed. The United States filed a 

statement of claims in the case on behalf of the Taos Pueblo on August 1, 1989, 

which it revised in 1997. The revised claim was for essentially the entire flow and 

interrelated groundwater of the Rio Pueblo de Taos and the Rio Lucero with an aboriginal priority date. If the United States is successful in the litigation, the impact 

on non-Indian water users in the Taos Valley will be nothing short of devastating. 

They would be able to use water only if the Pueblo forbears exercising its rights. 

As with many general stream adjudications in New Mexico, the Taos adjudication 

has moved very slowly. Motions for partial summary judgment were filed in 1991on 

a number of key issues concerning the legal character of the Pueblo’s water rights 

and were fully briefed in 1995. To date, however, the Court has taken no action on 

the motions. Recognizing that the litigation and attendant uncertainty over water 

rights would continue decade after decade, the Pueblo, the United States, the State 

of New Mexico, the Taos Valley Acequia Association (representing 55 community 

ditch associations), the Town of Taos, the El Prado Water and Sanitation District, 

and 12 mutual domestic water consumers associations entered into negotiations. 

Negotiations were not productive until a technical understanding of the hydrology 

of Taos Valley, including preparation of surface and groundwater models, was completed in the late 1990s. Negotiations intensified in 2003 when a mediator was retained and an aggressive settlement meeting schedule was established. The United 

States participated actively in the negotiations, formed a constructive working relationship with the parties and was able to resolve most issues of concern to the Government. The willingness of the Pueblo, in particular, to agree to reasonable and 

necessary compromises has been impressive, and the leadership of the Pueblo negotiation team is to be commended for dedication and steadfastness over many years 

of very difficult negotiations. The dedicated efforts of all the parties resulted in a 

Settlement Agreement that was signed in May of 2006 by all of the major non-federal parties. 

Under the terms of the negotiated settlement, the Pueblo has a recognized right 

to a total of 11,927.71 acre-feet per year (AFY) of depletion, of which 7,249.05 AFY 

of depletion would be available for immediate use. The Pueblo has agreed to forebear from using 4,678.66 AFY in order to allow non-Indian water uses to continue 

without impairment. The negotiated settlement contemplates that the Pueblo would, 

over time, reacquire the forborne water rights through purchase from willing sellers 

with surface water rights. There is no guarantee that the Pueblo will be able to reacquire the forborne water rights, however. The quantity of water secured under the 

settlement is a tremendous compromise on the quantity of water claimed by the 

United States and the Pueblo. If the claims asserted in litigation by the United 

States and the Pueblo were successful, the court could award the Pueblo rights to 

approximately 78,000 AFY of diversion and 35,000 AFY of depletion of water in the 

basin. This is very valuable water. The cost of water rights in northern New Mexico 

is extraordinarily high and has been estimated to be as much as $10,500 to $12,000 

per acre-foot of consumptive use per year. 

H.R. 3254 also contains a waiver of potential breach of trust and water related 

claims that the Pueblo may have against the United States. The Pueblo has identified a number of potential claims related to failure to protect, manage and develop 

water for which it believes the United States would be liable. It should be noted 

that almost all potential claims that the Pueblo could bring against the United 

States would face a number of jurisdictional hurdles, including statute of limitations 

and res judicata defenses. An award of damages against the United States is by no 

means a certainty, but defending against such cases can cost a great deal of time 

and resources in addition to having serious public policy repercussions. The waiver 

provided in H.R. 3254 will avoid prolonged and bitter litigation over these claims. 

17 

Provisions that the Administration Supports 

Overall, the negotiated settlement represents a positive step towards the resolution of historic water disputes in an area that has limited water resources and is 

struggling to support the population it has attracted. It is a settlement that contains 

many provisions that the Administration can support. 

Concern about the inadequacy of the waivers contained in a predecessor bill, Title 

II of H.R. 6768, was previously a significant barrier to United States’ support for 

the settlement. After hearings on that bill in the 110th Congress, the Taos settlement parties promptly and diligently worked with the Departments of Interior and 

Justice to address waiver concerns. The waivers contained in H.R. 3254 are the result of many months of hard work and compromise and are supported by the Administration. 

A central and noteworthy feature of the settlement is funding for the protection 

and restoration of the Pueblo’s Buffalo Pasture, a culturally sensitive and sacred 

wetland that is being impacted by non-Indian groundwater production. Under the 

settlement, the non-Indian municipal water suppliers have agreed to limit their use 

of existing wells in the vicinity of the Buffalo Pasture in exchange for new wells 

located further away from the Buffalo Pasture. These agreements will allow the 

Pueblo to continue to utilize this valued wetland in the manner considered essential 

to Pueblo cultural and religious values. 

Perhaps the most significant positive attribute of the negotiated settlement is that 

it solidifies and makes permanent many water sharing arrangements that the Pueblo and its non-Indian neighbors have struggled for years to establish, including the 

Pueblo’s agreement to share its surface water with its non-Indian neighbors, consistent with local customs, until its water rights are reacquired from the non-Indian 

irrigators on a willing buyer-willing seller basis. 

Provisions the Administration Seeks to Negotiate Further 

Despite the positive provisions enumerated above, we believe a closer look can 

and should be given to the costs of the settlement and the share and timing of those 

costs to be borne by the United States. H.R. 3254 authorizes a Federal contribution of $121,000,000, to be paid over 7 years. Of this total, $88,000,000 is authorized to be deposited into two trust accounts for the Pueblo’s use. We are concerned about the large Federal contribution 

in the trust fund and believe there should be further discussion with the parties 

about the activities included in this part of the settlement. An additional $33,000,000 is authorized to fund 75% of the construction cost of 

various projects that have been identified as mutually beneficial to the Pueblo and 

local non-Indian parties. The State and local share of the settlement is a 25% costshare for construction of the mutual benefit projects ($11,000,000). The Settlement 

Agreement provides that the State will contribute additional funds for the acquisition of water rights for the non-Indians and payment of operation, maintenance and 

replacement costs associated with the mutual benefits projects. The Administration 

believes that this cost-share is disproportionate to the settlement benefits received 

by the State and local non-Indian parties. We believe that increasing the State and 

local cost-share for the mutual benefit projects is both necessary and appropriate, 

and consistent with the funding parameters of other Federal water resources programs. 

An unusual and problematic provision of H.R. 3254 would allow the Pueblo to receive and expend $25 million for the purposes of protecting and restoring the Buffalo Pasture, constructing water infrastructure, and acquiring water rights before 

the settlement is final and fully enforceable. The Department believes providing 

early settlement benefits is not good public policy and has consistently advocated 

that the settlement benefits that are provided in Indian water rights settlements 

should be made available to all parties only when the settlement is final and enforceable so that no entity can benefit if the settlement fails. Limited departure 

from this practice may sometimes be appropriate, but there should always be statutory provisions ensuring that the United States is able to recoup unexpended funds 

or receive credits or off-sets for the water and funding provided by the United States 

if the settlement fails and litigation resumes. The amount of funding that would be 

provided to Taos before the settlement is final is also of concern. In previous settlements allowing early benefits, the funding was far more limited ‘‘less than $4 million. Although the Department understands the Pueblo’s need for immediate access 

to funds, especially to halt deterioration of the condition of Buffalo Pasture, we remain concerned about the precedent that this would set for the many other pending 

Indian water settlements that are working their way toward Congress. We recommend that the bill be amended to reduce the amount of early money that is authorized. 

18 

H.R. 3254 also sets a deadline for the Department to enter into the contracts that 

will be impossible for the Department to meet taking into consideration the environmental compliance and other work that must be accomplished before the contracts 

can be executed. If the contracts are to be awarded before the settlement is final, 

we recommend that the deadline for entering into the contracts be extended to 9 

months after the date of enactment of this legislation. 

We also recommend that the settlement legislation be amended to require Secretarial approval for all water leases and subcontracts. As currently written, section 

7(e)(2) exempts leases or subcontracts of less than 7 years duration from the approval requirement. Secretarial approval is required for all existing San Juan 

Chama subcontracts and we believe there is no reason to depart from that practice 

here. With respect to leasing other types of water, the requirement of Secretarial 

approval has been the standard practice in Indian water rights settlements. 

Moreover, the United States recommends that Section 12(a)—which waives the 

sovereign immunity of the United States for ‘‘interpretation and enforcement of the 

Settlement Agreement’’ in ‘‘any court of competent jurisdiction’’—be eliminated. This 

waiver is unnecessary, as demonstrated by the absence of such a waiver in 

H.R. 3342, the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act. Further, this provision will engender additional litigation—and likely in competing state and federal forums— 

rather than resolving the underlying adjudication. 

Finally, the United States is concerned that H.R. 3254 as introduced fails to provide finality on the issue of how the settlement is to be enforced. The bill leaves 

unresolved the question of which court retains jurisdiction over an action brought 

to enforce the Settlement Agreement. This ambiguity may result in needless litigation. The Department of Justice and the Department believe that the decree court 

must have continuing and exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and enforce its own 

decree. 

Conclusion 

The Taos settlement is the product of a great deal of effort by many parties and 

reflects a desire by the people of the State of New Mexico, Indian and non-Indian, 

to settle their differences through negotiation rather than litigation. Settlement of 

the underlying litigation and related claims in this case would fulfill a long-standing 

federal goal of restoring to the Taos Pueblo the water rights and water resources 

necessary for its economic and cultural future, while at the same time accomplishing 

this goal without causing harm to local farmers, communities and other non-Indian 

water-users within the Taos basin. Overall, it provides some innovative mechanisms 

for managing water in Taos Valley to satisfy the Pueblo’s current and future water 

needs, while minimizing disruption to the non-Indian water users. 

The Administration wants to avoid continued and unproductive litigation which, 

even when finally concluded, may leave parties injured by and hostile to its results, 

ensuring continued friction in the basin to the detriment of both the Pueblo and its 

non-Indian neighbors. We believe that this settlement contains some important compromises and has the potential to produce positive results for all the parties concerned. While we have some remaining concerns with the bill, the Administration 

is committed to working with Congress and all parties concerned towards a settlement that the Administration can fully support. In addition, we would like to work 

with Congress to identify and implement clear criteria for going forward with any 

future settlements on issues including cost-sharing and eligible costs. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions the Subcommittee may have. 

Statement of Michael L. Connor, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 3342 

Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Mike Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to provide the Department 

of the Interior’s views on H.R. 3342, the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act, which 

would provide approval for, and authorizations to carry out, a settlement of the 

water rights of four pueblos in New Mexico—the Pueblos of Tesuque, Nambe, 

Pojoaque, and San Ildefonso. This Administration supports the resolution of Indian 

water rights claims through negotiated settlement. Our general policy of support for 

negotiations is premised on a set of general principles including that the United 

States participate in water settlements consistent with its responsibilities as trustee 

to Indians; that Indian tribes receive equivalent benefits for rights which they, and 

the United States as trustee, may release as part of a settlement; that Indian tribes 

should realize value from confirmed water rights resulting from a settlement; and 

19 

that settlements are to contain appropriate cost-sharing proportionate to the benefits received by all parties benefiting from the settlement. 

This settlement would resolve a contentious water dispute in northern New 

Mexico, as well as a federal court proceeding that has been ongoing for over 40 

years. We recognize that substantial work and refinements have been made to this 

settlement by the parties and the New Mexico delegation. As a result, the parties 

have taken positive and significant steps toward meeting the Federal goals just articulated, contributing to long-term harmony and cooperation among the parties. We 

would like to continue to work with the parties and the sponsors to address certain 

concerns, including those discussed in this statement (such as appropriate non-Federal cost share) that could make this a settlement that the Administration could 

wholeheartedly support. 

Negotiated Indian Water Rights Settlements 

Settlements improve water management by providing certainty not just as to the 

quantification of a tribe’s water rights but also as to the rights of all water users. 

That certainty provides opportunities for economic development for Indian and nonIndians alike. Whereas unquantified Indian water rights are often a source of tension and conflict between tribes and their neighbors, the best settlements replace 

this tension with mutual interdependence and trust. In addition, Indian water 

rights settlements are consistent with the Federal trust responsibility to Native 

Americans and with a policy of promoting Indian self-determination and economic 

self-sufficiency. For these reasons and more, for over 20 years, federally recognized 

Indian tribes, states, local parties, and the Federal government have acknowledged 

that, when possible, negotiated Indian water rights settlements are preferable to 

protracted litigation over Indian water rights claims. 

In analyzing settlements, the Administration must consider the immediate and 

long-term water needs of the Indian tribes, the merits of all legal claims, the value 

of water, federal trust responsibilities, economic efficiency measures, and the overall 

promotion of good public policy. An additional critical component of our analysis is 

cost sharing. 

Historic Water Conflicts in Rio Pojoaque Basin 

Before discussing the proposed settlement and the Administration’s concerns with 

it, it is important to provide background on the disputes that led to the settlement. 

The Rio Pojoaque basin, immediately north of Santa Fe, New Mexico, is home to 

the four Pueblos of Tesuque, Nambe, Pojoaque and San Ildefonso. In total the Pueblos hold approximately 51,000 acres of land in the basin. Like other pueblos in New 

Mexico, the four Pueblos were agricultural people living in established villages when 

the Spanish explorers first entered the area. Before the Pueblos’ lands became part 

of the United States, they fell under the jurisdiction first of Spain, and later of 

Mexico, both of which recognized and protected the rights of the Pueblos to use 

water. When the United States asserted its sovereignty over Pueblo lands and what 

is now the State of New Mexico, it did so under the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. In the Treaty, the United States agreed to protect rights recognized 

by prior sovereigns including Pueblo rights. In 1858, Congress specifically confirmed 

many Pueblo grant land titles, including those of the Pueblos of Tesuque, Nambe, 

Pojoaque and San Ildefonso. 

Subsequently, patents were issued to the Pueblos of New Mexico which, in effect, 

quitclaimed any interest the United States had in the Pueblos’ grant lands. The 

Pueblos were then considered to own their lands in fee simple, unlike most other 

Indian tribes. Despite this unusual title arrangement, the United States asserted 

jurisdiction over the Pueblos for their benefit, seeking to protect Pueblo lands and 

resources by extending the restrictions on alienation of Indian lands in the Indian 

Trade and Intercourse Acts to Pueblo lands. Unfortunately, initial efforts by the 

United States to protect Pueblo lands and waters were ineffective. New Mexico’s territorial courts did not accept the application of the Trade and Intercourse Act to 

Pueblo lands. In United States v. Joseph, 94 U.S. 614 (1876), the Supreme Court 

expressly held that the Pueblos were not Indian tribes within the meaning of the 

1834 and 1851 Non-intercourse Acts. This meant that non-Indians were able to buy 

Pueblo lands without regard to federal Indian law and as a result, there was significant loss of Pueblo lands to non-Indians. 

After almost forty years of loss of land and water rights, the Supreme Court reversed its decision in Joseph and decided that the Pueblos were, in fact, covered by 

laws extending federal guardianship and protection. United States v. Sandoval, 231 

U.S. 28, 48 (1913). The Supreme Court’s reversal of opinion threw the status of title 

to lands occupied by 12,000 non-Indians in New Mexico, along with the water rights 

exercised on those lands, into serious doubt. Responding to the outcry concerning 

20 

title, Congress sought to remedy the uncertainty by passing the Pueblo Lands Act 

of 1924, 43 Stat. 636, to ‘‘settle the complicated questions of title and to secure for 

the Indians all of the lands which they are equitably entitled.’’ 

Under the 1924 Act, if the non-Indians could persuade a special lands board that 

they had used and occupied Pueblo land for a period of time, the non-Indians were 

awarded title, and the Pueblo was supposed to be compensated for the value. In 

practice, this resulted in the non-Indians successfully claiming some of the most valuable, irrigable Pueblo farmland. The Pueblos of Tesuque, Nambe, Pojoaque and 

San Ildefonso collectively lost more than 4000 acres to claims by non-Indians under 

the 1924 Act. The compensation awarded by the lands board to the Pueblos was 

lower than actual appraised values, and woefully inadequate. Congress followed up 

by enacting the 1933 Pueblo Lands Act, which provided additional compensation to 

the Pueblos and also expressly preserved the Pueblos’ prior water rights, but the 

compensation still did not adequately remedy the losses to the Pueblo. 

In passing the 1924 and 1933 Acts, Congress recognized the necessity of resolving 

the uncertainty of title to land and water and also restoring the severely eroded economic footing of the Pueblos caused in large part by the loss of land and interference with water rights. Cash awards made to the Pueblos under the Acts were 

expressly intended to compensate the Pueblos for their losses and to help fund the 

replacement of their lost economic base through the purchase of lands, construction 

of irrigation projects, and by financing various other permanent improvements for 

the benefit of Pueblo lands. Sadly, the Acts did not fully accomplish their purposes. 

While land titles may have been more or less resolved, title to water rights clearly 

was not and uncertainty over title to water has continued to plague all the residents 

of the basin. 

In a final attempt to resolve title to these Pueblos’ water, a general stream adjudication was initiated in 1966. That case, now in its 43rd year, is New Mexico v 

Aamodt and is one of the longest running cases in the federal court system. Fortythree years of litigation has yielded surprisingly little in the way of results. The parties initially skirmished over whether state or federal law applied and what role, 

if any, Spanish colonial and Mexican law would play. A 1976 decision by the Tenth 

Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Pueblos’ water rights were not subject to New 

Mexico’s prior appropriation law. Subsequently, the United States District Court, 

nineteen years into the case, ruled the federal reserved water rights or Winters doctrine does not apply to the unique circumstances of the Pueblos’ grant lands. The 

Tenth Circuit court denied interlocutory appeal and litigation proceeded on a Historically Irrigated Acreage (HIA) quantification standard for the grant lands, but a 

Winters right quantification standard for other lands reserved for the Pueblos. 

Judge Mechem directed the parties to negotiate in 1998, and in 2000 the litigation 

was stayed. The parties, who had engaged in sporadic settlement talks since 1992, 

then intensified their efforts to settle the litigation. 

The settlement negotiations were difficult for many reasons, including that the 

basin is chronically water short. The average annual surface water yield of the watershed is approximately 12,000 acre-feet per year, but claimed irrigated acreage 

calls for the diversion of 16,200 acre-feet per year. Deficits have been addressed by 

using groundwater with the result that groundwater resources are now threatened. 

The negotiation goal of the parties was to control groundwater extraction in order 

to prevent impacts on surface water flows from excessive groundwater development. 

In order to allow junior state-based water right holders to continue to use water 

while still allowing the Pueblos the right to use and further develop their senior 

water rights, the non-federal parties agreed to a settlement centered on a regional 

water system that will utilize water imported from the San Juan basin to serve 

needs of the Pueblos and other water users in the Rio Pojoaque basin. In May 2006, 

the Pueblos, the State of New Mexico, and other non-federal settlement parties executed a Settlement Agreement which requires the construction of the regional water 

system to deliver treated water to Pueblos and non-Pueblo water users. It also requires the United States to provide, via the regional water system to be constructed, 

2,500 acre/feet per year of imported water for Pueblo use. 

Concerns Related to Cost 

H.R. 3342 approves this Settlement Agreement, authorizes the planning, design, 

and construction of the regional water system and authorizes the appropriation of 

$106.4 million for that system. In addition, the bill provides the Pueblos with a 

$37,500,000 trust fund to subsidize the operations, maintenance, and replacement 

costs of the system, and $15,000,000 to rehabilitate and maintain water-related infrastructure other than the regional system facilities. The bill also requires the 

United States to acquire water for Pueblo use in the regional water system by specific purchases and by allocating available Bureau of Reclamation San Juan-Chama 

21 

Project water to the Pueblos. The total cost of the settlement is estimated to be at 

least $286.2 million, with a federal contribution of $174.3 million, to be paid over 

13 years, and State and local contributions of about $116.9 million (subject to finalization and execution of the cost share agreement). 

This represents a 40% non-federal cost share which is a significant improvement 

over many past settlements and is moving in the right direction. The Administration considers the willingness of the settling parties to provide a significant cost 

share for this project to be a good indication that they are invested in and deeply 

supportive of this settlement. It is evident that serious consideration has been given 

by the settlement proponents to the design and intended function of the facilities 

to be constructed under this settlement. A settlement to which many interests are 

contributing deserves more favorable treatment by federal government than a settlement that comes at solely federal expense. 

Nevertheless, the Administration is concerned about the costs of this settlement 

for several reasons. First, the absence of a signed cost share agreement among the 

parties for the construction of the regional water system creates uncertainty about 

the viability of the system as planned and the costs to be borne by the United 

States. 

Second, the Administration is concerned about the validity of the cost estimates 

that the settlement parties are relying on for the regional water system. The parties 

rely on an engineering report dated June 2007 that has not been verified by the 

level of study that the Bureau of Reclamation would recommend in order to assure 

reliability. Much of the cost information contained in the engineering report was arrived at three years ago, none of the costs have been indexed to 2007, and the total 

project cost estimates cannot be relied upon. Any additional costs (both for the Pueblo related and non-Pueblo related components of the regional water system) may become the responsibility of the United States under H.R. 3342. To better understand 

the risks associated with costs that could potentially greatly exceed the current cost 

estimate, Reclamation has identified and is allocating the resources necessary to 

complete a design, engineering, and construction review of the engineering report 

by the end of this calendar year. On the basis of this review, Reclamation will be 

able to provide the bill proponents with a better sense of whether or not the project 

is likely to be able to be completed using the funds authorized in this bill. The Administration believes that the parties should agree in the cost share agreement that 

the non-federal parties will share proportionately any increases in cost estimates 

that result from Reclamation’s analysis. 

Third, multiple site-specific cost issues remain that cannot be resolved until final 

project design is completed, not the least of which is access limitations at the diversion point for the system on the Rio Grande. The costs associated with NEPA and 

EIS compliance, acquiring unspecified easements (including possible condemnation 

expenses), and agency implementation costs have not been studied and are not included in current cost estimates to develop the proposed regional water system. 

These uncertainties will likely serve to drive the overall settlement’s costs and the 

corresponding Federal commitment higher than anticipated. These costs should be 

reflected in the authorization levels provided for in this bill. 

Other Federal Concerns 

In addition to costs, there are other provisions and issues that need to be addressed and resolved. 

The waiver provisions of this bill were significantly improved as a result of negotiations over the last year between the Pueblos, non-federal parties, and the United 

States. Nonetheless, there is one ongoing concern. The waiver provisions of 

H.R. 3342 include a provision that could be interpreted as waiving important environmental protections that would otherwise be available to the Pueblos, the citizens 

of New Mexico, and the United States. This provision, section 204(a)(9) of the bill, 

is confusing and unnecessary, and could lead to injury to the environment. The Administration cannot accept waivers which have the potential to erode important environmental safeguards put in place to permit the United States to take actions to 

protect the health, safety, and well being of its citizens and the environment. Fortunately, I am pleased to report that the parties have worked with the Departments 

of Interior and Justice on this issue and it is my understanding that they have 

reached agreement on removal of this provision. 

In addition, the settlement poses an arrangement under which the United States 

will expend significant funds to plan, design and construct a regional water system. 

While the Pueblos would be waiving their water rights and related damages claims 

in exchange for the system, under H.R. 3342 the Pueblos retain the right to withdraw these waivers and trigger nullification of the entire settlement agreement, if 

the system is not substantially complete by 2021. To minimize the risk of building 

22 

a system only to have waivers withdrawn and the settlement fail, the Administration believes the legislation should include: (1) a definition of substantial completion, (2) a mechanism for determining when it has occurred, and (3) a clearly specified process to challenge that determination. 

The Administration has long worked with local parties on these issues and has 

strongly advocated for a process under which substantial completion is determined 

by the Secretary of the Interior and, subsequently, subject to review under the Administrative Procedures Act. Our concern stems from the fact that, as introduced, 

the legislation provides neither certainty of process nor any clear substantive standards for how a determination that substantial completion has not been achieved 

would be made, or how a court would be expected to handle any subsequent review 

and litigation over the settlement voiding provisions contained in H.R. 3342 if these 

provisions are triggered. Under the provisions of H.R. 3342 as introduced, the only 

certainty is that any litigation ensuing from a claim to void the settlement would 

be protracted, expensive, and have few bounds. The United States believes that one 

lesson to be learned from the forty-three years of Aamodt litigation is not to set up 

a legal regime that has the potential to lead to expensive, long-lived, and futile litigation. The Administration believes that the bill must adopt such a substantial completion provision. 

Finally, while language in section 203(f) provides generally in the event the settlement is voided that the United States is entitled to return of any unexpended federal funds and property, the Administration suggests that Congress add additional 

language to clarify that the United States is entitled to recoup or obtain credit for 

its contributions to settlement in the case that the settlement fails. 

Conclusion 

The Aamodt settlement is the product of a great deal of effort by many parties 

and reflects a desire by the people of the State of New Mexico, Indian and nonIndian, to settle their differences through negotiation rather than litigation. Settlement of the underlying litigation and related claims in this case would fulfill a longstanding federal goal of restoring to the Pueblos the water rights and water resources necessary for their economic and cultural future. This settlement would accomplish this goal by stabilizing chronic groundwater deficits in the basin without 

causing harm to local water users. Overall, the proposed settlement would provide 

some innovative mechanisms for managing water in Pojoaque River basin to satisfy 

the Pueblos’ current and future water needs while minimizing disruption to the nonIndian water users. 

The Administration wants to avoid continued and unproductive litigation which, 

even when finally concluded, may leave parties injured by and hostile to its results. 

Neither the Pueblos nor their non-Indian neighbors benefit from continued friction 

in the Rio Pojoaque basin. We believe settlement can be accomplished in a manner 

that protects the rights of the Pueblos and also ensures that the appropriate costs 

of the settlement are borne proportionately. While we have some remaining concerns with the bill, the Administration is committed to working with Congress and 

all parties concerned in developing a settlement that the Administration can fully 

support. In addition, we would like to work with Congress to identify and implement 

clear criteria for going forward with future settlements on issues including costsharing and eligible costs. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions the Subcommittee may have. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Commissioner. And we will start 

off with Mr. Nelson Cordova, Councilman and Water Rights Coordinator, Pueblo Taos, Taos, New Mexico, on H.R. 3254. 

I am not quite sure, but I think we have a vote just starting, so 

we will have enough time for at least one witness. 

Please. 

STATEMENT OF NELSON J. CORDOVA, COUNCILMAN AND 

WATER RIGHTS COORDINATOR, PUEBLO OF TAOS, TAOS, 

NEW MEXICO 

Mr. CORDOVA. Chairman Napolitano, Ranking Member McClintock, and members of the Subcommittee, Congressman Luja ́n and 

23 

Congressman Heinrich, and my fellow panelists, my name is Nelson J. Cordova. I am a Taos Pueblo Tribal Council member. 

For the past 20 years, Councilman Gilbert Suazo, Sr., and I have 

served as Taos Pueblo’s representatives in the Taos Valley water 

rights settlement negotiations. 

Here with me is our tribal leadership, Governor Rubin Romero, 

War Chief Bernard Luja ́n, War Chief Secretary Floyd Gomez, Tribal Council Secretary Ernesto Luhan, and Councilman Suazo. Also 

with me is our attorney, Susan Jordan, with the Nordhaus Law 

Firm. 

We have lost many of the elders who started the settlement process with us in 1989, and I dedicate this testimony in their memory. 

It has been six years since we signed principles of agreement 

among the Taos Valley settlement parties. At that time we reported to our Tribal Council that we were almost there. Then it 

took another two years of negotiations to complete the draft settlement agreement among the local parties. Again we reported to the 

council that we were almost there. 

Another two years of Federal negotiations were required to get 

our legislation introduced last July. We again told council we are 

almost there. 

Our bill was favorably reported out of the Senate Indian Affairs 

Committee last year, and last September I testified before this Subcommittee. 

After years of engagement with our Federal negotiation team 

and many compromises to meet Federal requirements for Indian 

water rights settlement, we were disappointed to hear the prior Administration testify they could not support our bill because they 

were concerned about finality and cost. 

We stayed here in D.C. after that hearing, and we successfully 

negotiated our waivers of claims with the Administration to resolve 

their finality concern. We then jointly submitted revised waiver 

provisions to our Congressional delegation in time for possible inclusion in the 2008 Omnibus Public Lands Bill, and again we were 

almost there. But the bill could not be passed, as Congress’s attention shifted exclusively to the national economic crisis. 

Our bill as introduced this year contains the compromised waiver 

provisions, and the Administration has continued to hold our language as the model for Indian water rights settlements. 

The previous Administration said our settlement costs were too 

high. But they only considered the direct litigation costs to the 

United States of adjudicating the Pueblo’s water rights. They did 

not consider the avoided liability for breach of trust claims, nor the 

avoided indirect costs of continued litigation that must be weighed 

under the Federal criteria and procedures for Indian water rights 

settlements. 

Our total Federal funding is modest. There are no huge expensive projects. Rather, there are small projects designed to mitigate 

the impacts of competing water uses. 

From our experience, the Administration grossly undervalues the 

benefits of Indian water rights settlements. The Administration’s 

concern about making a portion of our funding available upon appropriation is misplaced. This early money is essential to ensure 

24 

the successful implementation of the settlement to meet the 

Federal criteria of finality. 

There is precedent for early money. And if the settlement were 

to fail, the United States may offset these funds against its liability 

for breach of trust for failure to protect our water rights. 

We have engaged the current Administration since February. We 

have submitted finer minor changes to the bill to address their concerns about providing the Secretary sufficient time to approve the 

three San Juan-Chama project contracts in allowing Secretarial approval for short-term San Juan-Chama project subcontracts. 

Our tribal council is concerned. Why, after we have done everything that has been asked of us, our settlement still waits for 

Federal support and approval. 

This process has been a tremendous burden on the Pueblo’s 

scarce financial resources. Federal funding has never been sufficient, leaving us no choice but to borrow money from a bank to 

carry on the settlement process. If it were up to us and Deputy Secretary Hayes, who worked on our settlement in the Clinton Administration, and Commissioner Connor, who was our Federal Team 

Chair, I think we would be done. 

When we read the Administration’s testimony this morning, we 

immediately requested a meeting with them while we are here in 

D.C. to get this done. They are not available. But I have asked 

Pam Williams to meet with us, and we will meet with her, as we 

have many times. 

We remain concerned, however, whether OMB will persist in 

under-valuing the benefits of Indian water rights settlements. Our 

settlement is an opportunity for this Administration to show it can 

support a modest cost-effective settlement. 

Thank you, Madame Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cordova follows:] 

Statement of Councilman Nelson J. Cordova, Taos Pueblo, on H.R. 3254 

Honorable Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member McClintock, and Members 

of the Subcommittee: 

My name is Nelson J. Cordova. I am a Taos Pueblo Tribal Councilman, having 

served as Governor in 2001 and War Chief in 1999. Thank you for the opportunity 

to provide Taos Pueblo’s testimony in support of H.R. 3254, the Taos Pueblo Indian 

Water Rights Settlement Act. With me today are Governor Ruben A. Romero, War 

Chief Bernard Luja ́n, Tribal Council Secretary Ernesto Luhan, War Chief Secretary 

Floyd Gomez, and Tribal Councilman and former Governor Gilbert Suazo, Sr. For 

the past 20 years, Councilman Suazo and I have served as Taos Pueblo’s representatives in the Taos Valley water rights settlement negotiations. 

Also with me is our water rights attorney, Susan Jordan of the Nordhaus Law 

Firm. Allow me to recognize Palemon Martinez, President of the Taos Valley 

Acequia Association (TVAA) representing the 55 community ditch associations, 

TVAA Board Member Bennie Mondragon, TVAA attorney Fred Waltz, and DL Sanders, Chief Counsel for the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer. The other local 

parties to the settlement are the Town of Taos, El Prado Water and Sanitation District (EPWSD) and the 12 Taos-area Mutual Domestic Water Consumers’ Associations. 

The decades we have spent litigating and negotiating our water rights have put 

a tremendous burden on the Pueblo’s scarce financial resources. Federal funding 

and technical assistance have never been sufficient. To continue the process we have 

had to borrow money from a bank. This adjudication commenced before our grandfathers successfully completed the 64-year struggle for the return to Taos Pueblo of 

the lands now known as the Blue Lake Wilderness Area (Public Law 91-550). Their 

testimony to Congress during that struggle was about land necessary to sustain 

Taos Pueblo’s cultural traditions. My testimony today is about water, the lifeblood 

25 

of my people’s spiritual, physical and cultural sustenance. The majority of our elders 

who were appointed to the Pueblo’s Water Right Task Force have passed on without 

seeing completion of this settlement. I dedicate this testimony to their memory. 

PART I: SETTLEMENT BACKGROUND AND BENEFITS 

In this Part I, I will provide the context for the settlement by explaining its major 

terms and benefits. In Part II, starting on page 10, I will discuss how the settlement 

is consistent with the federal Criteria and Procedures for Indian Water Rights Settlements. I will also discuss the compromises by the Pueblo to resolve the Administration’s concerns. 

The Waters Involved in this Adjudication: 

This legislation will authorize the Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement 

negotiated among parties to the adjudication of the waters of the Taos Valley, entitled State of New Mexico ex rel. State Engineer v. Abeyta and State of New Mexico 

ex rel State Engineer v. Arrellano. This adjudication has been pending in the United 

States District Court for the District of New Mexico since 1969. The adjudication 

includes three tributaries of the Rio Grande in northern New Mexico, namely the 

Rio Pueblo, Rio Lucero and Rio Hondo, or in our Tiwa language, the Tuatah Bahah-nah, Bah bah til Bah ah nah, and Too-hoo Bah ah nah. These stream systems 

produce average annual flows before diversions in the range of 90,000 acre-feet per 

year (afy). Competition for use of this scarce resource has led to severe conflicts 

among the residents of the Taos Valley. 

Taos Pueblo’s Use of These Waters from Time Immemorial: 

Taos Pueblo, Tau-Tah, the place of the Red Willows, is located in North-Central 

New Mexico. We have over 2,450 enrolled members. Taos Pueblo’s land base is 

roughly 100,000 acres, including semi-arid lands bordering the Rio Grande, irrigated 

farmlands, and mountain lands with peaks reaching up to nearly 13,000 feet. Our 

Blue Lake Wilderness Area is a major part of the watershed for the streams in the 

adjudication. Taos Pueblo is a National Historic Landmark and was designated a 

World Heritage Site in recognition of our enduring living culture. Our people, Tauh 

tah Dainah, have lived in the Taos Valley since time immemorial. As the first users 

of the valley’s water resources, we constructed irrigation systems that are still in 

use today. 

Centuries of Conflict: 

When the first Spanish explorers arrived in the Taos Valley in the 1500’s, they 

found a thriving agricultural community with an abundance of food crops. They 

called it the breadbasket of the region. Spanish settlers began their own agricultural 

tradition in the valley. As the non-Indian population grew, the demand for water 

increased, resulting in centuries of conflict. One of the oldest disputes over water 

in the valley heard in a formal legal proceeding resulted in the Mexican-era 

ayuntamiento of 1823 recognizing Taos Pueblo’s time immemorial rights to waters 

of the Rio Lucero. The ruling did not end conflicts over the right to use the Rio 

Lucero, and non-Pueblo settlers obtained a decree in 1893 that ordered a new division of the stream flow. In the Abeyta adjudication, the Pueblo and the United 

States have disputed this territorial era decision. Thus, the Abeyta settlement will 

resolve a dispute under litigation in three centuries. 

Nearly Two Decades of Negotiation: 

These longstanding, bitter water conflicts have bred generations of distrust and 

affected the ability of Taos Pueblo and our neighbors to live together and prosper. 

A breakthrough occurred in 1989 when the Pueblo and the TVAA agreed to resolve 

their water disputes by negotiation. The negotiations grew to include all of the 

major water rights owning parties in the Taos Valley, as well as the State of New 

Mexico and the United States. Each of the local parties came to recognize and respect the mutual need for water resources for the survival of the valley’s agricultural traditions and for our communities’ future. After 18 years of difficult negotiation, the parties reached a settlement agreement in 2006 that allocates water resources, protects existing supplies, preserves the Pueblo’s cultural resources, and 

provides the basis for management of Taos Valley water resources in the future. The 

parties then went to Washington seeking legislation in unity. The Taos News, in an 

editorial on April 6, 2006, heralded the settlement as a ‘‘gift of understanding’’ by 

all involved in its negotiation. 

Water Rights Secured by this Settlement: 

The settlement authorized by this legislation will secure to Taos Pueblo the right 

to deplete 11,927.51 afy of water. This quantity includes 7,883,44 afy for 5,712.78 

26 

acres of Historically Irrigated Acreage, 114.35 afy for stock ponds, 14.72 afy for 

stock wells, 300 afy for municipal, industrial and domestic use (current diversions), 

1,300 afy of additional groundwater, 100 afy in Rio Grande depletion credit, and 

2,215 afy of San Juan-Chama Project (SJCP) water under a contract. In addition 

to the SJCP contract to the Pueblo, the Town of Taos and EPWSD will receive contracts for 366 afy and 40 afy, respectively, bringing the total SJCP water to be contracted to 2,621 afy. These contracts are essential to ensure that the Pueblo will 

have water to serve our present and future needs and to allow for more sustainable 

and less disruptive growth in the Taos Valley. 

Funding Necessary for this Settlement: 

The bill includes authorization of $58 million in appropriations to the Taos Pueblo 

Water Development Fund, $30 million in appropriations to the Taos Pueblo Infrastructure and Watershed Fund through the Secretary of Interior, and $33 million 

in appropriations for projects that will mutually benefit the Pueblo and non-Indian 

parties, for a total of $121 million in federal funding. The State of New Mexico will 

contribute $20.2 million in additional settlement funding toward the Mutual-Benefit 

Projects and for specific water rights acquisitions by non-Indian parties to bring 

them into permit compliance. 

It was extremely difficult for Taos Pueblo to put a monetary value on the claims 

we are conceding. So instead of evaluating the funding purely in terms of compensation that would never be enough, we focused on the amount of funding that will enable us, with careful management, to correct years of neglect of our water-related 

infrastructure by the United States and to implement each of the other settlement 

mechanisms designed to protect our water rights while enabling our neighbors to 

enjoy theirs. 

(1) Avoid further conflict through modest funding for vast Pueblo claims compromised: Importantly, the Pueblo is accepting the $88 million in funding in exchange for (1) waiving our right to bring certain enormous damage claims against 

the United States, (2) waiving vast portions of senior water rights claims and related damage claims against other parties, and (3) forbearing on the exercise of 

about half of our senior water rights for historically irrigated acreage recognized in 

the settlement. By comparison with other Indian water settlements, the total funding is modest. There are no huge, expensive projects in this settlement. Rather, 

there are small projects designed to mitigate the impacts of competing water uses; 

funding for Pueblo infrastructure improvements; funding for a mechanism to accommodate junior irrigation uses and decrease the Pueblo’s forbearance of our senior 

irrigation rights over time; and funding for the Pueblo’s settlement administration 

responsibilities. All of these elements are necessary to make this unique, cooperation-based settlement work. They are tied together as a result of compromise. Removing any single component would unravel the settlement. 

(2) Redress federal failure to protect Taos Pueblo water rights and federal neglect 

of Pueblo irrigation infrastructure: 

Our potential damages claim against the United States for breach of its trust duty 

to protect Taos Pueblo’s senior water rights involved in this adjudication greatly exceeds the funding amount called for in the settlement. From the beginning of the 

American period, the United States failed to pursue legal action to protect the Pueblo’s lands and our enjoyment of our water rights. This federal inaction injured the 

Pueblo and prolonged conflict in the Taos Valley. 

Likewise, the federal government has failed to take the necessary steps as our 

trustee to manage the Pueblo’s water rights and facilitate our water use. The federal government did, finally, expend some funds to construct new head gates and 

to rehabilitate certain ditch works at the Pueblo. However, that limited assistance 

came late in the period of American sovereignty and guardianship, in the midst of 

the pre-World War II economic depression, and the funding remained insufficient. 

Worse yet, the non-traditional construction materials and practices introduced by 

the federal government made it difficult for the Pueblo to maintain and repair the 

infrastructure with traditional techniques. In 2000, a joint investigation report by 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Reclamation identified a serious 

need for the rehabilitation and repair of Pueblo irrigation infrastructure, based 

heavily on investigation of infrastructure on Taos Pueblo. 

Although these problems have long been documented, the repairs and rehabilitation—which are the responsibility of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Northern Pueblos 

Agency—were not accomplished due to funding cutbacks. Funding in small amounts 

has been secured from the Bureau of Reclamation in recent years for drought relief 

projects, such as a well for stock water, and head gate fabrication. However, these 

funds have been grossly insufficient. 

27 

The foregoing is a small slice of the history of federal neglect and mismanagement, and the inequitable federal treatment of Taos Pueblo, but it is illustrative of 

our relevant damage claims against the federal government that greatly exceed the 

settlement funding. Likewise, Taos Pueblo’s claims for aboriginal irrigation water 

rights in the litigation are substantially greater than the water quantities we will 

receive in settlement. We also agree to forbear exercising substantial amounts of our 

senior historically irrigated acreage rights, and I will discuss that more in a moment. 

(3) Address irrigation system disrepair: Currently, 2,322.45 acres of Pueblo lands 

in the Taos Valley are irrigated with infrastructure in deplorable condition. Much 

more farmland cannot be irrigated because there is no way to convey water to these 

fields without extensive repair and rehabilitation to our infrastructure, and many 

fields need laser leveling for efficient distribution of water. BIA has not done any 

repairs of significance in decades. Settlement funding will allow the Pueblo to rehabilitate and replace diversion structures and ditch linings and construct improvements. This will enable the Pueblo to recover from the long history of federal neglect 

of our irrigation systems and to revitalize our agricultural heritage for self-sustainability. 

(4) Remedy lack of running water and wastewater system access: Many of our 

people lack running water in their homes or a connection to a wastewater system 

because the existing system does not extend to their homes. Some of our people still 

get their water for domestic use directly from the streams, irrigation ditches, and 

springs. This may sound quaint and appealing, but in freezing winter weather it 

creates a hardship that should not be acceptable in this day and age. Settlement 

funding will help us to improve and expand our community water and wastewater 

system to better serve our people in existing homes and in a backlog of homes pending construction. 

(5) Protect the watershed and support agriculture and water-related Pueblo community welfare and economic development: A large portion of water that serves Taos 

Pueblo and non-Indian parties is produced within the watersheds on Pueblo land. 

Establishing a Pueblo watershed program will protect this precious resource. A recent fire in the watershed caused flood damage and contaminated the surface water 

supply. Our people who rely on it had to haul water from an alternative source. This 

contamination remains a continuing threat following every snowmelt and rainfall 

runoff. 

While our need for irrigation infrastructure repair is critical, support of agriculture requires more than ditch rehabilitation. We need to improve our ability to 

support the efforts of farmers and engage in tribal agriculture efforts to maintain 

our traditional way of life. At the same time, water infrastructure to support economic development will enable the Pueblo to become more self-sufficient. 

(6) Acquire and retire junior water rights to decrease the Pueblo’s forbearance: 

Under the settlement, the non-Indian parties agreed to recognize Taos Pueblo’s 

right to deplete 7,883.44 afy for our Historically Irrigated Acreage totaling 5,712.78 

acres. In turn, the Pueblo agreed to initially forbear exercising our right to irrigate 

3,390.33 acres of this amount as of the 2006 Draft Settlement Agreement signing 

date. This forbearance will decrease over time as junior irrigation rights are acquired on a willing seller basis and retired by the Pueblo, or are abandoned or forfeited under state law, or (with certain exceptions) are transferred to a non-irrigation use or out of the Taos Valley and curtailed through the exercise and enforcement of the Pueblo’s aboriginal priority date. This mechanism is necessary because 

the Pueblo’s full exercise of our Historically Irrigated Acreage would otherwise seriously disrupt non-Indian irrigation. It is a major concession by Taos Pueblo to make 

the settlement work. A linchpin of the settlement is funding sufficient to acquire 

and retire a threshold quantity of junior rights prior to the Enforcement Date (see 

page 9) and an additional quantity over time to allow full exercise of the Pueblo’s 

senior Historically Irrigated Acreage rights. 

(7) Provide water management and administration and support negotiation and 

implementation of the settlement: This settlement is necessarily complex and places 

substantial policy and administrative responsibilities on Taos Pueblo. The Pueblo 

will need to manage and administer our water rights to carry out the provisions of 

the settlement in a manner that utilizes traditional and contemporary professional 

water management practices. We will need to administer the purchases and retirement of junior water rights and the leasing of Pueblo water rights. Years of inadequate federal funding necessitate that a portion of the settlement fund cover the 

Pueblo’s negotiation, authorization and implementation costs. 

(8) Protect the Pueblo’s sacred natural wetland from groundwater pumping: The 

Pueblo’s culturally important natural wetland known as the Buffalo Pasture supports herbs, plants, clays, wildlife and waterfowl essential to our ceremonies. This 

28 

unique wetland provides irrigation water for the Pueblo and non-Indians, and it is 

the start of a greenbelt extending through the valley. As municipal pumping around 

the wetland increased over the last 60 years, it significantly diminished in size. The 

settlement will restore and maintain this natural wetland through groundwater recharge (the Buffalo Pasture Recharge Project) and movement of municipal wells 

away from the wetland. 

(9) Fund implementation early to ensure success: The Pueblo accepted the forbearance obligation only with a mechanism to allow us to start at a reasonable baseline 

amount of historically irrigated acreage in use. The recently irrigated amount of 

2,322.45 acres is less than half of our 5,712.78-acre right due to the federal failure 

to protect our water rights from non-Indian encroachment and federal neglect of irrigation infrastructure (see pages 5 to 7). To reach the agreed upon target of 3,000 

acres prior to the settlement Enforcement Date, we need to acquire and retire water 

rights from 700 acres of non-Indian land. For this reason, the bill provides for the 

Pueblo to receive $15 million of the Taos Pueblo Water Development Fund upon appropriation, in part for the acquisition and retirement of this threshold amount. 

Another portion of this early money will allow us to begin design work on the 

most desperately needed infrastructure projects, including drinking water infrastructure and irrigation improvements to enable irrigation of the additional 700 

acres (see pages 5-7). The additional $10 million of the Pueblo Water Infrastructure 

and Watershed Enhancement Fund to be made available early is needed to allow 

the Pueblo to construct the most urgently needed water infrastructure improvements and conduct watershed restoration to address continuing threats to the surface water supply (see pages 6-7). 

A major strength of our settlement is its reliance on innovative water management to make conflicting demands compatible. Wells will be monitored for compliance with pumping limits, various streams and diversions will be gauged, detailed 

surface water sharing agreements between the Pueblo and numerous acequia associations will be administered, the Pueblo will administer our water transfers 

through specified procedures and standards and must develop and implement a 

more detailed Pueblo Water Code. In order for these measures to be in place upon 

the Enforcement Date so that the settlement can succeed, we need to immediately 

develop our water management and administration regulations and procedures and 

hire the necessary staff. The early acquisition and retirement of water rights will 

likewise require significant administrative resources prior to the Enforcement Date 

to accomplish the hundreds of transactions with individual farmers necessitated by 

the typically small farm size in the Taos Valley. Similarly, we will incur significant 

negotiation and implementation costs in meeting the conditions precedent to the enforceability of the settlement, including the process to obtain the Partial Final Decree and the amendment of the Draft Settlement Agreement to conform to the legislation. The bill allows us to use the $15 million for these purposes to ensure the 

settlement is implemented and meets the criteria of finality. 

This early money will also fund the Buffalo Pasture Recharge Project because it 

needs to be operational early in the settlement implementation to restore this endangered natural and cultural resource and to protect it from municipal pumping 

(see page 9). A portion of the Water Development Fund is available early for this 

purpose. 

(10) Jointly support Mutual-Benefit Projects: The settlement parties devised a series of small Mutual-Benefit Projects tailored to resolve complicated disputes over 

specific water use issues. A Mitigation Well System will pump groundwater from 

deep aquifers to offset surface water depletion effects resulting from the parties’ future groundwater development, thereby alleviating competition among the parties 

for the acquisition of acequia water rights. The Arroyo Seco Arriba storage project 

will enable an acequia community to store non-irrigation season flows for retrieval 

when needed as part of the resolution of the centuries-old Pueblo-Acequia dispute 

over allocation of the Rio Lucero. Funding of the Acequia Madre del Prado stream 

gage will facilitate implementation and enforcement of surface water sharing provisions. The settlement limits the Town’s and EPWSD’s pumping from its existing 

well field and prohibits use of those wells closest to the Buffalo Pasture by providing 

replacement wells located farther away and deeper to protect the Pueblo’s sacred 

cultural resources in this natural wetland. 

PART II: FEDERAL CRITERIA MET AND COMPROMISES MADE TO 

ADDRESS THE ADMINISTRATION’S CONCERNS 

Criteria and Procedures for Indian Water Rights Settlements: 

The Taos Pueblo settlement meets the United States policy for settlement of 

Indian water rights cases as embodied in the Criteria and Procedures for Indian 

Water Rights Settlements published by the Department of the Interior (DOI) on 

29 

March 12, 1990 (55 Fed. Reg. 9223). The prior Administration failed to apply these 

criteria correctly. 

This Settlement Meets the Criteria and Procedures: 

These criteria are often stated in terms of the four policy goals set out below. 

Under each, I summarize how this settlement meets the goal. 

(1) Avoid the direct and indirect costs of continued litigation: This settlement resolves claims of Taos Pueblo, and the United States in its trustee capacity, as set 

forth more specifically in the waivers and releases of claims. As a result, the direct 

costs of continued litigation will be avoided. Indirect costs to the United States, the 

Pueblo, and other parties associated with conflicts over surface water use and 

groundwater withdrawals will also be avoided through the settlement’s interconnected mechanisms for enabling the major water owning parties in the Taos Valley to move forward with water diversions in a manner that respects one another’s 

water uses and other precious resources, such as the Pueblo’s sacred wetland known 

as the Buffalo Pasture that has similar cultural significance to the Blue Lake mentioned earlier. 

(2) Resolve potential damage claims the tribes may bring against the United States 

for failure to protect trust resources, or against private parties for interference with 

the use of those resources: This settlement resolves claims of Taos Pueblo against 

the United States and other Abeyta parties as set forth more specifically in the 

waivers and releases of claims. The settlement also minimizes the potential for future water conflicts between the Pueblo and our neighbors. The parties carefully tailored the set of modest Mutual-Benefit Projects and other necessary settlement components, such as the Pueblo’s forbearance combined with acquisition of junior rights, 

to accomplish this purpose cost effectively. The State’s contributions to these mutual 

benefit projects are proportionate to the benefits received by the local parties. 

(3) Act consistently with the federal trust responsibility to tribes: The settlement 

addresses the trust responsibility not only by protecting the Pueblo’s exercise of our 

water rights, but also by providing funding for the Pueblo to accomplish water-related infrastructure improvements necessitated by years of federal neglect. Consistent with the trust duty, the Pueblo can use the funding to implement our responsibilities under the settlement, including the management and administration 

of our water resources program. These items are not being funded through the normal federal budget process. The settlement structure, by providing the mechanisms 

for the Pueblo to develop and manage our water in harmony with our neighbors, 

ensures that the federal funding will meet the federal criteria to promote economic 

efficiency on reservations and tribal self-sufficiency. 

(4) Avoid the costs associated with senior Indian water rights displacing nonIndian water users: At the core of the settlement is Taos Pueblo’s forbearance on 

the exercise of approximately half of our senior water rights for historically irrigated 

acreage and the mechanism for the Pueblo to increase our exercise of these rights 

over time. This creative approach avoids disrupting non-Indian irrigators, and does 

so on a willing seller basis that respects current uses. Thus, the settlement meets 

the federal criteria to be conducive to long-term harmony and cooperation among 

all interested parties through respect for the sovereignty of the states and tribes in 

their respective jurisdictions. 

The Prior Administration’s Application of the Criteria was Flawed: 

In contending that the settlement does not meet the federal Criteria and Procedures, the prior Administration asserted in testimony that (1) the State cost share 

is disproportionate to State and local benefits, (2) a federal contribution of the order 

of magnitude provided in H.R. 3254 is not appropriate because ‘‘calculable legal exposure plus costs related to Federal trust or programmatic responsibilities do not 

justify’’ the federal contribution amount, (3) the projects authorized would not ‘‘promote economic efficiency,’’ and (4) early money would be inappropriate. These arguments reflect a failure to apply the criteria correctly. 

(1) The state cost share is appropriate: The prior Administration apparently treated the Mutual-Benefit Projects as a 100% local non-Pueblo benefit, when in fact 

those projects were designed to mutually benefit both the Pueblo and other local 

parties. It bears emphasis that the Abeyta Mutual-Benefit Projects are very modest 

in scale and cost. 

(2) The federal contribution is justified: The prior Administration reached the conclusion that the total settlement costs were too high by omitting or miscalculating 

several of the avoided costs to the federal government that the Criteria and Procedures require the Administration to weigh against settlement costs. Although the 

prior Administration cited the requirement to consider ‘‘calculable legal exposure,’’ 

it is apparent that they considered only the direct litigation costs to the United 

30 

States of adjudicating the Pueblo’s water rights in Abeyta. They did not consider 

the avoided liability for breach of trust for the claims against the United States to 

be waived by the Pueblo nor the avoided indirect costs of continued litigation. 

Although the prior Administration cited the requirement to weigh programmatic 

responsibilities, they apparently overlooked the fact that appropriations for programmatic responsibilities associated with Pueblo water rights and water infrastructure have been woefully inadequate to meet the United States’ responsibility. 

Consequently, those past appropriation levels are not commensurate with the actual 

federal programmatic responsibilities, and thus are not a proper basis for comparison to the federal contribution. In short, the prior Administration undervalued the 

benefits of Indian water rights settlements by focusing only on one of the four factors—the direct costs to the United States of not continuing to litigate the water 

rights claims—and ignoring the other three factors under longstanding United 

States policy for Indian Water Rights Settlements. For these reasons, the prior Administration’s withholding of support on the basis of cost was not valid. Furthermore, the $88 million in funding for the Pueblo is a substantial compromise from 

the $100 million Pueblo fund in the Draft Settlement Agreement that we signed in 

2006. 

(3) The settlement will promote economic efficiency: In addition, the prior Administration misconstrued the criterion requiring that ‘‘settlements should be structured 

to promote economic efficiency on reservations and tribal self-sufficiency.’’ See 55 

Fed. Reg. 9223 (emphasis added). It cited only the words ‘‘economic efficiency,’’ missing the fact this criterion goes to the benefits to the tribe from settlement funding 

that promotes on-reservation economic efficiency and makes the tribe more self-sufficient. The projects funded by the Abeyta settlement will largely be designed, managed and constructed by the Pueblo and will provide improved water infrastructure 

to support the Pueblo’s agricultural, community and economic development, thereby 

promoting and enhancing the Pueblo’s self-sufficiency and on-reservation economic 

efficiency. 

(4) Early money is justified and has precedent: 

The prior Administration’s testimony questioned the appropriateness of making 

funding available for initial water rights acquisition, for instance, to facilitate the 

settlement before all of the conditions precedent for the enforcement of the settlement have been met. This concern arose from the mistaken belief that making funding available upon appropriation is unprecedented. In fact, there are precedents for 

early funding. For example, the 2003 Zuni Indian Tribe water rights settlement legislation made funds available for acquisition of water rights and other activities carried out by the Zuni Tribe to facilitate the enforceability of its settlement agreement, including the acquisition of at least 2,350 acre-feet per year of water rights 

before the deadline for the settlement to become enforceable. See Zuni Indian Tribe 

Water Rights Settlement Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-34, §§ 4(b)(1) and 6(f)(1), 117 

Stat. 782, 786, 789 (2003). Similarly, the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy’s 

Reservation water rights settlement legislation made funds available upon appropriation for certain administration responsibilities assumed by the Tribe. See Chippewa Cree Tribe of The Rocky Boy’s Reservation Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement and Water Supply Enhancement Act of 1999, Pub. L. No. 106-163, § 105(a), 

(d)(3), 113 Stat. 1778, 1786, 1788 (1999). 

As explained in more detail on pages 9-10, this early funding will allow the Pueblo to acquire and retire an increment of water rights to partially decrease our forbearance, support Pueblo water administration and settlement negotiation costs, 

and enable us to commence the most urgently needed restoration and small water 

infrastructure improvements necessitated by federal neglect. In fact, the prior Administration’s testimony acknowledged Taos Pueblo’s need for immediate access to 

funds. In the unlikely event that the settlement does not become enforceable, the 

legislation provides the United States the right to set off any of these early funds 

expended or withdrawn against claims asserted by the Pueblo against the United 

States relating to water rights in the Taos Valley. 

Compromises by Taos Pueblo to Resolve the Administration’s Concerns: 

The prior Administration did not take an ‘‘opposed’’ position or ‘‘object’’ to the passage of the Abeyta legislation. Rather, it testified that it merely ‘‘could not support 

the legislation at this time’’ and commended the Pueblo and other local parties on 

their efforts to address the Administration’s issues. The prior Administration’s main 

concern was the total cost of the settlement to the federal government, which as explained above, results from their misapplication of the Criteria and Procedures. 

Their nonmonetary concerns consisted only of two: (1) the waivers and releases of 

claims and (2) court jurisdiction. We successfully negotiated a resolution of those 

Administration concerns; indeed, the waivers and releases of claims provisions we 

31 

negotiated have been touted by DOI and the Justice Department as the ‘‘model’’ for 

Indian water rights settlements ever since. 

(1) Finality and adequate protection of the United States from future liability: The 

prior Administration proposed revisions to our waiver language following the hearing on the bill before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and just days prior 

to the hearing before the House Subcommittee on Water and Power in the 110th 

Congress. Taos Pueblo and other settlement parties immediately convened with DOI 

to discuss this language and the Pueblo remained in Washington, D.C. following the 

House hearing in September 2008 to continue the negotiations. The Abeyta parties 

reached agreement with the Administration on replacement waiver provisions and 

submitted these to the Congressional delegation on November 7, 2008, meeting the 

target date for possible inclusion in the 2008 Omnibus Public Lands bill. As Congress’ focus in the lame duck session shifted exclusively to the national financial 

and economic crisis, it was not possible to pass the legislation as part of an omnibus 

package in the 110th Congress. H.R. 3254 contains this agreed upon waivers language. 

(2) Court jurisdiction: The other nonmonetary concern identified in the prior Administration’s testimony was whether unnecessary litigation over the jurisdiction of 

a court other than the decree court might occur. Their concern was that Section 

12(a) of the bill provides for a limited waiver of sovereign immunity in the event 

that any party to the Settlement Agreement brings an action in ‘‘any court of competent jurisdiction’’ for interpretation or enforcement of the Settlement Agreement 

or the Act. This concern is unfounded given that similar language appears in recent 

Indian water rights settlement legislation. See, e.g., Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the 

Duck Valley Reservation Water Rights Settlement, Pub. L. 111-11, § 10809(e)(3), 123 

Stat. 991, 1413 (2009) (‘‘United States consents to jurisdiction in a proper forum for 

purposes of enforcing the provisions of the Agreement’’); Snake River Water Rights 

Act of 2004, Title X, Pub. L. No. 108-447, § 11(f), 118 Stat. 2809, 3441 (2004) 

(‘‘United States consents to jurisdiction in a proper forum’’). The prior Administration ultimately agreed to the submittal last November to our Congressional delegation of revised legislation language retaining Section 12(a). 

Engagement with the Current Administration: 

Early this year, we were heartened to hear Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar 

attest to the Obama Administration’s commitment to supporting Indian water rights 

settlements in his confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. We flew to Washington to meet with the new Administration in February, and 

we traveled again in July to meet with Deputy Secretary David Hayes and Bureau 

of Reclamation Commissioner Mike Connor. We worked productively with Mr. 

Hayes during his tenure with the Clinton Administration in securing the funding 

for the hydrologic tests and modeling that laid the foundation for the settlement. 

Mr. Connor was similarly instrumental to the success of the settlement negotiations 

in his service as the Federal Negotiations Team Chair and to the advancement of 

our settlement legislation in the 110th Congress. We are therefore confident in the 

DOI leadership’s personal understanding of the benefits of this settlement. We remain concerned, however, whether the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

under the current Administration will persist in the prior OMB’s undervaluation of 

the benefits of Indian water rights settlements by misapplying the Criteria and Procedures. We place our hope in the new Administration and this Congress to recognize our settlement as a model approach deserving prompt enactment and funding. 

Peace in the Valley: 

Taos Pueblo and the other parties took great care in crafting innovative solutions 

to bring ‘‘peace in the valley’’ with this settlement. In view of the long years of hard 

work and expense by Taos Pueblo and our neighbors to negotiate this settlement, 

and in recognition of its benefits to the residents of Taos Pueblo, the Taos Valley, 

the State of New Mexico and the United States Government, I strongly urge the 

Subcommittee to take favorable action on the Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act. Passage of this legislation and appropriation of the necessary funds 

will pay off manyfold in cooperative use of water resources by the parties and future 

generations. 

I thank Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member McClintock, members of the 

Subcommittee on Water and Power, our local Congressman Ben Ray Luja ́n, our New 

Mexico member of this Subcommittee Congressman Martin Heinrich, and other 

members of the New Mexico Congressional delegation for their support, and for the 

honor and privilege to provide this testimony. I also give thanks for the spiritual 

guidance I have received, and the support and advice of our tribal delegation 

present here today and those at home who await action by the Subcommittee and 

32 

the Committee on Natural Resources. We ask that you be spiritually guided to make 

the right decisions on this bill and others that affect the lives and future of our 

people and our neighbors. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. We do have a vote. Do you want 

to go for another one? 

Would you be able to keep within five minutes? We may be able 

to do another presentation. That would be Hon. Charlie Dorame. 

Mr. DORAME. Yes, Chairwoman Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. If you will proceed, then. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES J. DORAME, CHAIRMAN OF 

NORTHERN PUEBLOS TRIBUTARY WATER RIGHTS 

ASSOCIATION, ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 

Mr. DORAME. Good afternoon, members of the Committee. There 

are a couple people I would like to acknowledge in the audience 

right now. The Honorable Judge Michael Nelson, who has been on 

the negotiating team in New Mexico, and also The Honorable 

Frank Demolli from Pueblo Pojoaque. 

Having said that, I would like to go ahead and read a portion of 

my testimony. Again, my name is Charlie Dorame. I am a former 

Governor from the Pueblo Tesuque. I am the Chairman of the 

Northern Pueblo Tributary Water Rights Association, and I was 

here last year to testify on behalf of my tribes and the other three 

tribes in the area. 

Good afternoon, Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Member 

McClintock. Thank you for agreeing again this year to focus this 

Subcommittee’s attention on the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act, 

H.R. 3342, a comprehensive settlement of the Indian water rights 

claims of the Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and 

Tesuque. 

I also want to thank the Majority and Minority Subcommittee 

staff, who continue to demonstrate excellence and professionalism 

in all of our dealings. 

The House version of the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act was 

introduced on July 24, 2009, by our Congressmen, The Honorable 

Ben Ray Luja ́n and The Honorable Martin Heinrich. As you know, 

on May 2009, Senators Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall introduced 

the Senate version of the Settlement Bill 1105. 

As you also know, similar legislation was introduced and subject 

to legislative hearings in both the House and the Senate in the 

109th Congress. 

I want to thank Congressman Luja ́n for his leadership in working with the four Pueblos, and indeed, with all of the settlement 

parties, to address unresolved issues and produce consensus legislation that is supported by the four Pueblos, the State of New 

Mexico, Santa Fe County, the City of Santa Fe, and the individual 

water users. 

Thank you for allowing me to read a portion of my testimony. 

I did provide you some pictures of the Pueblo Tesuque that are 

in your packet. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Without objection, they will be entered into 

the record. 

Mr. DORAME. Thank you. 

33 

[NOTE: The pictures submitted for the record have been retained 

in the Committee’s official files.] 

Mr. DORAME. To the left of me, last year we came with this particular picture that showed the water. Well, actually that picture 

there is known as the Rio Tesuque, the River of Tesuque. 

We also have another picture that I took on Friday afternoon 

that shows the same place. Again, you are looking at the River of 

Tesuque, Rio Tesuque. And this runs from Bishop Lodge all the 

way down into the Rio Grande. 

The next picture you will see will be a field of corn that does not 

get any water because of the dryness in the area, and trying to get 

that much-needed water to that area. What she is holding up right 

now is a picture of my grandfather’s property, who, for your information, was here in 1966 testifying on the same issue. That is his 

field that was left to the family. And it is three-plus acres of land 

there that cannot be farmed completely because of the lack of 

water. So the family chose to plant just a small portion of that 

area. 

The other photo that you have shows the one small cornfield 

without the use of water. The second picture that shows corn that 

is approximately six feet in height, shows the upper river, where 

there is water. And again, just referring back to the family plot 

there. 

The last picture shows what used to be farmland, and right now 

all we have are weeds. And there is a cement-lined ditch in that 

area, but there is not enough water to plant this area. So we are 

very limited in what we can and can’t use the water for. 

In the picture that I took Friday, we need—in the same area, the 

tribe uses the water to cleanse themselves before our traditional 

ceremony, and after. So in this case, we will probably have to go 

back up to the upstream users, and to try to get them, get permission from them to allow water to come through the area so that we 

can continue to do so. 

My time is up, and I would like to thank you and the Committee 

for allowing me to give you five minutes of my presentation. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dorame follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Charles J. Dorame, Chairman, Northern 

Pueblos Tributary Water Rights Association, and Former Governor, 

Pueblo of Tesuque 

INTRODUCTION 

Good morning Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Member McClintock. Thank 

you for agreeing again this year to focus this Subcommittee’s attention on the 

Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act (H.R. 3342), a comprehensive settlement of the 

Indian water rights claims of the Pueblos of Nambe ́, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and 

Tesuque (‘‘the Four Pueblos’’). I also want to thank the majority and minority Subcommittee staff who continue to demonstrate unparalleled excellence and professionalism in all of our dealings. 

The House version of the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act was introduced on 

July 24, 2009, by our Congressman, The Honorable Ben Ray Luja ́n, and The Honorable Martin Heinrich. As you know, in May 2009 Senators Jeff Bingaman and Tom 

Udall introduced the Senate version of this settlement bill (S.1105). As you also 

know, similar legislation was introduced and subject to legislative hearings in both 

the House and Senate in the 109th Congress. 

I want to thank Congressman Luja ́n for his leadership in working with the Four 

Pueblos and, indeed, with all of the settlement parties to address unresolved issues 

34 

and produce consensus legislation that is supported by the Four Pueblos, the State 

of New Mexico, Santa Fe County, the City of Sante Fe, and individual water users. 

INDIAN WATER SETTLEMENTS IN GENERAL 

Complex Indian water settlements do not happen in a vacuum, Madam Chairwoman, and the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act is no exception. At the outset, 

I want to commend our Federal partners, the State of New Mexico, Santa Fe County, the City of Sante Fe, individual water users, and others for years of hard work 

and good faith negotiation that produced the settlement legislation that is before 

this Subcommittee. 

My name is Charlie Dorame and I am glad to be back before you to present testimony on this important legislation. I am the former Governor of the Pueblo of 

Tesuque and am now the Chairman of the Northern Pueblos Tributary Water 

Rights Association (‘‘NPTWRA’’). The NPTWRA is an association comprised of the 

Four Pueblos and dedicated to the pursuit of their comprehensive and equitable settlement of the Indian water and land claims. 

At stake in this proposed settlement bill are the water rights of these four distinct 

Pueblos—each with its own land base, economy, community, history, and vision of 

the future. 

Filed in 1966 by the State of New Mexico, the Aamodt litigation is one of the longest-running Indian water rights cases in the history of the United States. To give 

you some perspective on how long this case has drawn out, I was 17 years old when 

the case was filed and in the years since then I have watched as the case has gone 

from year to year, seemingly without end. 

Nevertheless, we are more optimistic than ever that, with the introduction of 

H.R. 3342, the Aamodt litigation is reaching its conclusion. 

THE ROLE OF WATER IN PUEBLO LIFE 

Water is essential to our people for basic needs and our survival, but also for its 

sacred role in Pueblo culture. For example, at the Pueblo of Tesuque, we require 

that water from the Rio Tesuque be used during traditional ceremonies. Our ability 

to maintain and practice our traditional ways is dependent on a quantity of water 

flowing through our lands. The sensitivity and nature of our traditions prevents me 

from openly discussing how we use these water resources in ceremonial settings. 

About eight years ago, we were faced with a crisis when the creek went dry and 

we were forced to ask the upstream non-Indian users to refrain from using the 

water for at least a week so that we could have enough water flowing through our 

land during our ceremonies. Fortunately, they were kind enough to agree to our request. In some cases, we do not have the luxury of giving advance notice because 

the need for water may happen in an instant. 

I have lived on my reservation all my life and I have seen the Rio Tesuque go 

dry many times either before it reaches our village or immediately after it passes 

through our village. 

Water is also essential to our livelihood and our traditional methods of farming, 

which we have practiced for thousands of years. As we have done for generations, 

we have annual ditch cleanings performed by the men of our village so that water 

can be channeled from the creek to irrigate farm lands close to the village. This requires that enough water is flowing and gravity feed forces the water to our farm 

lands. We also have artesian wells that supplement water flow for traditional activities and farming. I have seen these wells go dry with obvious consequences for farmers and their families. 

As children growing up on our lands we knew where wells were located and in 

those days the wells had enough water to nourish us when we went exploring. Now 

we have to tell our children to carry water and not venture too far from home without water to drink. 

As you can well imagine, the lands of the Four Pueblos lose much of their cultural 

vitality as well as their economic benefit without enough water to make them viable. 

BACKGROUND ON THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND ITS TERMS 

In the Pojoaque River Basin (‘‘the Basin’’), a tributary of the Rio Grande in northern New Mexico, conflicts over scarce water have resulted in protracted Federal litigation which is approaching its 44th year. The Aamodt case was filed by the State 

of New Mexico against all water right claimants in the Basin to determine the nature and extent of their water rights. In January 2006, a comprehensive Settlement 

Agreement (‘‘Settlement Agreement’’) was reached between the following parties: 

• The Pueblos of Nambe ́, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque; and 

• The State of New Mexico, Santa Fe County, and the City of Santa Fe. 

Upon enactment, H.R. 3342 will: 

(1) Secure water to meet the current and future needs of the four Pueblos; 

35 

(2) Protect the long-standing water uses and resources that make the Basin 

unique; 

(3) Preserve the centuries-old non-Pueblo irrigation in the Basin; and 

(4) Provide water for current and future uses by all of the Basin’s residents. 

REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM IS THE CENTERPIECE OF THE AAMODT 

SETTLEMENT 

The centerpiece of the Settlement Agreement is a proposed Regional Water System (‘‘RWS’’) to supply Pueblo and non-Pueblo citizens in the Basin. 

The RWS will have the capacity to deliver up to 2,500 acre feet per year of water 

from the Rio Grande to the Four Pueblos. 

The RWS will also have the capacity to deliver 1,500 acre feet per year to the 

Santa Fe County Water Utility to serve future water users in the Basin, as well 

as to present domestic well owners who connect to the system. The source of the 

water has been identified with the assistance of the State of New Mexico, the County, the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the settling parties. 

The RWS’s provision of water to non-Pueblo water users is important to the Pueblos because it will reduce stress on the groundwater resources of the Basin. Without 

the construction of the RWS and related systems, the litigation cannot be settled 

and water resources will continue to dwindle for all of the Basin users. 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TERMS AND PROJECT COSTS 

Unlike other settlements, the Settlement Agreement that would be ratified by 

H.R. 3342 fits squarely within the Criteria and Procedures for the Participation of 

the Federal Government in Negotiations for the Settlement of Indian Water Rights 

Claims, 55 F.R. 9223 (Mar. 12, 1990, ‘‘Criteria and Procedures’’) used since 1990 by 

the United States to gauge the respective benefits and costs of any proposed settlement. 

While no proposed settlement is perfect in terms of meeting every aspect of the 

Criteria and Procedures, the Settlement Agreement before you is as close to a neat 

fit as is likely to come before the Congress. 

The settlement of the water rights claims of the Four Pueblos as reflected in 

H.R. 3342 satisfies the primary requirements and intent of the Criteria and Procedures as a necessary and worthy Federal investment. It will halt escalating Federal 

costs that result from inadequate, economically inefficient and outdated water infrastructure in the Basin. The settlement also will address long-term water planning 

and water administration needs in a desert environment where continued, uncontrolled groundwater mining by the non-Pueblo population would run counter to 

Federal interests. 

Resolving these problems, as proposed in H.R. 3342, while finally and fully quantifying the water rights of the Four Pueblos in this tributary of the Rio Grande and 

resolving one of the oldest pending Federal court cases in the country, is a sound 

and defensible use of Federal resources. H.R. 3342 will promote economic efficiency 

and tribal self-sufficiency going forward by establishing the RWS to supply muchneeded water into a water-short basin. The RWS will honor the individual governmental authority of the five participating entities, the Four Pueblos and Santa Fe 

County, while providing for a unified and economically efficient approach to water 

supply. 

In addition, the Settlement Agreement satisfies the material conditions of the Criteria and Procedures because: 

1. It will resolve the Pueblo claims with finality after 43 years, and will prevent 

another 40 years of litigation; 

2. It ensures efficient conservation of scarce water resources; 

3. It promotes long-term cooperation between the Pueblo and non-Pueblo governments and communities; 

4. The total cost of the settlement to all parties does not exceed the value of the 

existing claims; 

5. The non-Federal cost share—at 42%—is significant; and 

6. It promotes economic efficiency and tribal self-sufficiency. 

The Settlement Agreement resolves all outstanding water rights claims and 

achieves finality with regard to the claims of the Four Pueblos in the Basin. It also 

provides certainty in terms of water supply to the Four Pueblos and non-Pueblo 

communities. 

The Settlement Agreement establishes a process whereby Pueblo and non-Pueblo 

water rights will be administered post-settlement in a way that is conducive to longterm, regional harmony and cooperation. 

The RWS will allow for (1) an additional water supply for the Pueblos from outside the water-short basin, and (2) for the non-Pueblo water users to be served by 

36 

a renewable surface supply in lieu of individual wells whose proliferation has impaired, and would continue to impair, the exercise of Pueblo water rights. The RWS 

will also promote cooperative conservation between all parties. 

The total project cost of the settlement is $286.2 million, which would be used to 

construct both the Pueblo and County combined water system and the county connections, to finance the Pueblo Water Acquisition Fund and the Pueblo Conservation Fund, and to create the Pueblo O.M.&R. Fund. 

The Federal investment in the Settlement Agreement is $169.3 million, which will 

end continued Federal involvement in this litigation, ensure finality, provide certainty with regard to all claims, and promote tribal economic development and selfsufficiency. 

The State of New Mexico, Santa Fe County and the City of Santa Fe are prepared 

to contribute $117 million to the proposed settlement—which represents a non-Federal cost share of 42%, a significant commitment by the settlement parties other 

than the U.S. 

In last year’s hearing, the United States challenged the validity of the cost estimates contained in the settlement legislation. In 2002, the Bureau of Reclamation 

(‘‘BoR’’) provided funding to the NPTWRA through a Pub.L. 93-638 contract in order 

to have significant amounts of engineering work done in connection with the settlement study regarding the RWS for this settlement that the BoR published in 2004. 

After the New Mexico congressional delegation asked for more detailed cost estimates, the BoR provided additional funding through the 638 contract to the 

NPTWRA which resulted in the Final Engineering Report dated September 2008 

prepared by HKM Engineering, Inc. (‘‘HKM Engineering’’). The costs in that report 

are best estimates as of October 2006, and naturally, the settlement legislation calls 

for those costs to be indexed by providing that annual adjustments to the construction costs for the regional water system be made ‘‘to account for increases in construction costs since October 1, 2006, as determined using applicable engineering 

cost indices.’’ The BoR maintains such indices. 

HKM Engineering has substantial experience in planning, designing, cost estimating, and constructing regional water systems planned or under construction at 

Federal expense in several states. While the HKM Engineering cost summary for 

the RWS includes line items for ‘‘unlisted items (variable), contract add-ons at 

17.5%, contingency at 20%, and non-contract costs at 29.5%-31%,’’ these contingencies are reasonable at this stage of planning. We are not at the final design stage 

yet and, as the U.S. knows, this legislation needs to become law in order for that 

final design to occur. 

The Aamodt settlement parties, and especially the Four Pueblos in the NPTWRA, 

think we have done the best we can at this point by having a reputable engineering 

firm give its best estimate for constructing the RWS, including significant contingencies in the budget. 

The reality is that the cost for the Aamodt settlement contained in H.R. 3342 can 

only be expected to increase in the future. 

U.S. CONCERNS OVER LIABILITY ARE RESOLVED 

Since the time this Subcommittee held its hearing in September 2008, the Four 

Pueblos and the Departments of Interior and Justice have worked to resolve concerns regarding waiver of legal claims and liability contained in H.R. 3342. 

The Four Pueblos and these Federal departments have been engaged in substantive discussions on these issues for many years and I am happy to report to the 

Subcommittee that we have negotiated our differences and agreed to revised waiver 

and liability language as part of the settlement legislation. 

H.R. 3342 provides for comprehensive waivers and releases with regards to 

claims against the Federal government as to any future liability relating to water 

rights claims by the Four Pueblos in the Basin. The waivers and releases contained 

in the settlement legislation stem from waivers negotiated in the context of courtordered mediations over the course of six years. 

CONCLUSION 

Madam Chairwoman, the United States’ historic failure to protect the Pueblos’ 

lands and water rights adequately for more than 150 years has led directly to 

today’s conflict over scarce water resources. Once enacted, H.R. 3342 will conserve 

the shared resource responsibly, bring tangible water to Pueblo and non-Pueblo citizens alike, and will ensure a level of certainty for decades in the Pojoaque Basin. 

Most important to the Four Pueblos, enactment of this settlement legislation will 

fulfill the United States trust responsibility and ensure that our children, and their 

children, can continue our traditions for generations to come. 

37 

Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Member McClintock, this concludes my testimony and I am happy to answer any questions you might have at this time. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much, Chief. And right now, 

if you don’t mind, we will recess so we can go vote. We have less 

than four minutes to get to the Capitol to vote. 

We will recess and reconvene as soon as we finish our votes. 

[Recess.] 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. This hearing is reconvened. We will begin 

where we left off. We will begin with Mr. DL Sanders, the Chief 

General Counsel, Office of the State Engineer in Santa Fe, New 

Mexico, on both H.R. 3254 and H.R. 3342. 

Welcome, and you are on, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DL SANDERS, CHIEF COUNSEL, OFFICE OF 

THE STATE ENGINEER, SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO 

Mr. SANDERS. Good afternoon, Madame Chairman. Thank you for 

inviting me. Rep. Luja ́n, thank you for extending the invitation. 

I am DL Sanders, Chief Counsel, New Mexico State Engineer. In 

that capacity I also serve as Director of Litigation and Adjudication 

concerning all water right matters for the State of New Mexico. I 

have done that for 20 years. 

The state’s written testimony has been submitted by the State 

Engineer D’Antonio for the State of New Mexico. It strongly supports both of these settlements, as does Gov. Richardson, Governor 

of the State of New Mexico. 

I offer a summary of our testimony to support both the Taos and 

Aamodt Settlement Acts of 2009. 

The goal and purpose of these two acts, of these two settlements, 

is to provide sufficient water to support permanent homelands for 

these Pueblos, and to not do so at the expense of other existing 

water rights. Both of these settlements have achieved this. And 

they have achieved this by changing points of diversion, diversion 

practices, and by developing additional and alternative water supplies. Those do cost money, and they are necessary in the environment of the arid Southwest. 

They provide an equitable outcome for all interested parties by 

promoting long-term regional harmony, cooperation among the interested parties, preservation of the existing uses of water, and respect for the sovereignty of the Pueblos, the state, and the United 

States. 

New Mexico is committed to its Indian water right settlements. 

In fact, we have an Indian water rights settlement fund to pay for 

the non-Indian portions of these funds, of these settlements. 

We have appropriated $10 million to the fund. And I would like 

to thank Speaker Luja ́n and Governor Richardson for following 

through on that funding, in order to demonstrate our commitment 

to seeing these settlements through. 

Again, these comments relate to both settlements, because to me 

they achieve the very same purposes. 

Both of these settlements will moot out the legal challenges that 

still confront the parties after 40 years of litigation, because of the 

following factual situation. 

38 

The litigation involves water rights that I think are safe to say 

both Pueblo and non-Pueblo, that are the oldest recognized in the 

United States. The priority dates for the Pueblos are what we call 

time immemorial, and the priority dates for the Acequias that are 

involved are from the late 1600s and early 1700s. 

The Pueblo water rights are virtually unique to New Mexico. The 

nature of these rights, therefore, involve many issues that are 

questions of first impression. 

Significant among them is their right to use groundwater. These 

settlements avoid the necessity of having to address that issue by 

our compromises. 

New Mexico is a high-elevation desert, and has very limited reliable, renewable, available water supplies. The finally adjudicated 

water rights in each of these adjudications are certain to exceed the 

seasonal yield of these highly variable stream systems. 

Without these settlements, priority calls will be the rule, but only 

after additional years of litigation, which has been the practice and 

the history in the State of New Mexico. These continued years of 

uncertainty and litigation is avoided through these settlements, 

and a priority call will be the exception rather than the rule. 

In closing, the parties reached these settlements without meaningful input from the United States. The main reason we believe 

these settlements meet the criteria and procedures for Indian 

water right settlements is due to the efforts of Mike Connor to help 

us understand what this Congress would find acceptable. 

We feel that although the Administration might not yet be fully 

satisfied with these settlements, we firmly believe that these settlements, like the laws in Congress, represent our best and exhaustive effort to reach compromises that the parties, Congress, the Administration all could be proud of. 

I want to thank you for your time, especially my Congressman, 

Rep. Luja ́n. And I express great thanks to his family for having 

supported us through the last 20 years of litigation, and through 

these settlements. And I want to again thank the members of this 

Committee for bringing us both to the Committee, and having the 

hearing today. 

And with that, I will stand for any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statements of John R. D’Antonio, Jr., follow:] 

Statement of John R. D’Antonio, Jr., P.E., New Mexico State Engineer, 

Interstate Stream Commission Secretary, on H.R. 3254 

Chairwoman Napolitano and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of my office on H.R. 3254, 

the ‘‘Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act,’’ which would implement the 

settlement of Taos Pueblo’s water rights claims presented in the Abeyta lawsuit. I 

share with Governor Richardson the conclusion that passage of this bill would 

produce a fair and long-overdue resolution of the water rights claims of this New 

Mexico Pueblo and it is highly deserving of Congressional support. I wish here to 

set forth for you some of the main reasons for that conclusion and then describe 

some of the substantial changes the Settlement Parties have agreed to make to their 

settlement, and this implementing legislation, in order to address concerns expressed by the Department of Justice and Department of the Interior. I hope that 

these comments will provide the Committee with a fuller understanding of the substance and significance of this settlement and why it merits your support. 

Why the State of New Mexico Strongly Supports this Legislation 

First, all New Mexicans, not just these litigants, have suffered the costs of the 

protracted litigation over the water rights claims of these four Pueblos. The Abeyta 

39 

suit was filed over 43 years ago, and it has taken many years of ultimately successful negotiation to reach a settlement agreement. Litigation and negotiation costs, direct and indirect, particularly for the State and the United States, have been substantial. The communities have borne the heavy costs of continued strife and conflict over water between the Pueblo & non-Pueblos, senior and junior users, in the 

highly polarizing environment of litigation. The region has incurred the economic 

costs of lost opportunities for economic development, the inability to grow businesses 

or communities when the supply of the most fundamental resource—waters—is uncertain. The settlement reached by the parties, as implemented by H.R. 3254, will 

directly address all of these issues, by ending the unending stream of litigation costs 

and instead investing in this settlement, which will finally achieve judicial determinations of Pueblo water rights and lay foundations for Pueblo economic development and self-sufficiency. 

Second, the proposed settlement is fair. It recognizes large first-priority water 

rights in the Pueblos commensurate with the acreage historically irrigated by them: 

depletions of more than 8,000 acre-feet annually for Taos Pueblo. But this settlement also contains its own unique locally-suited mechanisms whereby centuries-old 

non-Indian uses will be allowed to continue as well as the Pueblo uses. In addition, 

water for Pueblo economic development will be imported or purchased—about 2,300 

acre-feet per year—with the last remaining uncontracted water from New Mexico’s 

San Juan Chama Project (SJCP), developed by the United States, going to its Indian 

beneficiaries. Finally, infrastructure locally appropriate to this settlement, with substantial state and local cost share, will be provided to meet specific Pueblo health, 

safety and economic development needs. 

The Settlement Parties’ Actions to Address the United States’ Expressed 

Concerns 

H.R. 3254 is identical, in many of its substantive settlement terms, to legislation 

introduced in the second session of the 110th Congress, H.R. 6768 in the House and 

its companion bill in the Senate, S. 3381. H.R. 6768 and S. 3381 combined both the 

Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement and the Aamodt Litigation Settlement 

in two Titles in each bill and they were the subject of hearings before this Committee and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee—on September 25, 2008 before this 

Committee and on September 11,2008 before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. 

The legislation before you, H.R. 3254, does differ from the previous legislation in 

some ways, primarily as a result of extensive discussions between the Settlement 

Parties and representatives of the Departments of Interior and Justice in order to 

accommodate those Departments’ requests for changes to better clarify the obligations of the United States and to better protect its financial, trusteeship and sovereign interests. I would like to show you, with just a few examples, the extent to 

which the state and the other Settlement Parties have done that. 

On September 11, 2008, before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Mr. Michael 

Bogert, then Chairman of the Working Group on Indian Water Rights Settlements, 

provided the Bush Administration’s views on S.3381 from the Department of the Interior, and by letter of September 26, 2008 to this Committee and the Senate Indian 

Affairs Committee, Mr. Keith B. Nelson, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, provided the same on behalf of the Department of Justice. 

Mr. Bogert and Mr. Nelson repeatedly emphasized that the waivers contained in 

S. 3381 and H.R. 6768 did not adequately protect the United States from future liability, ‘‘including breach of trust claims.’’ In Aamodt, Mr. Nelson noted that there 

was ‘‘no clear waiver of claims relating to damages to land and other resources 

caused by past loss of water and off-reservation water rights.’’ He recommended 

that, in light of the previous waiver-related litigation problems the United States 

had experienced, the parties in their legislative drafting ‘‘should bring to bear here 

the lessons learned.’’ 

I responded at that time that the Settlement Parties had sought the active participation of the United States on this and other questions literally for years before 

these settlements were finalized, but had received no substantive participation or 

guidance, and that, in fairness, the time for consideration of the proposed United 

States’ proposals regarding waivers was during settlement negotiations, not years 

after the settlement agreement was finalized. Nevertheless, the Settlement Parties 

recognize the substantial interest of the United States in these provisions, and we 

have all made great efforts to accommodate them. Specifically, the revised waiver 

provisions in both H.R. 3254 and H.R. 3342, the ‘‘Aamodt Litigation Settlement 

Act,’’ presently also pending before this Committee, now very largely track the Department of Justice’s ‘‘model waivers,’’ which we understand is exactly implementing Mr. Nelson’s belief that the legislation ‘‘should bring to bear here the lessons learned.’’ That is not to say the waiver provisions are identical in the two bills, 

40 

because the specifics of each settlement are to some extent reflected there. However, 

both bills’ waiver provisions certainly contain the ‘‘clear waiver of claims relating 

to damages to land and other resources caused by past loss of water and off-reservation water rights’’ that the Department of Justice’s letter said was prominently 

missing in H.R. 6768. It is my belief that the Settlement Parties have gone to extraordinary lengths, substantially modifying the terms of their agreement, to accommodate the United States’ demands regarding these waiver provisions, but I am also 

confident that the result we have recently arrived at will fully achieve the expressed 

goals of clarifying and limiting the obligations of the United States, protecting it 

from future liability, and making clear that its interests and powers are properly 

recognized and preserved. 

Mr. Bogert also argued that with respect to the Taos Pueblo settlement, the nonPueblos would disproportionately benefit from the planned Mutual Benefit Projects, 

for which construction cost are to be paid 75% by the United States and 25% by 

the state. Actually, the Bush Administration fundamentally misapprehended the nature of the Mutual Benefit Projects. In the case of the replacement wells project, 

for example, the United States appears to believe that the primary beneficiaries of 

the replacement wells to be provided for the Town of Taos and the El Prado Water 

and Sanitation District are the Town and District, but in fact the true beneficiary 

is Taos Pueblo, whose Buffalo Pasture wetlands will be protected by moving this 

municipal pumping miles away. The United States may also think that the Town 

and District are getting the primary benefits because it imagines that a judicially 

recognized water right for the Pueblo would automatically force shutdown of these 

municipal suppliers to protect these wetlands. More likely is that years, and perhaps decades of litigation are being avoided by moving these wells. As noted, the 

State has agreed to pay 25% of the costs of this project designed to benefit the Pueblo’s Buffalo Pasture. The United States also seems to miss the fact that another significant project, the mitigation well system, is for all groundwater users, including 

the Pueblo. The mitigation well system provides a technological solution whereby all 

groundwater developers, one of which is the Pueblo, can make stream offsets, required by the Settlement Agreement. on the Rio Grande. This system will allow the 

Pueblo to make real and flexible use of its water rights. 

Another Bush Administration claim was that the Taos Pueblo settlement lacks finality regarding decree enforcement. The short answer to this objection is that the 

settlement and legislation explicitly preserve the status quo in this respect and that 

the settlement relies on a highly detailed set of provisions, supported by an agreed 

hydrological model, to reduce water administration disputes to an absolute minimum. Those provisions cover in detail such subjects as Pueblo water court procedures, Pueblo water rights transfers, Pueblo depletion offset procedures, and loss of 

forbearance by non-Pueblo rights so that Pueblo rights can be exercised in their 

place. This is the practical Taos settlement approach to administration, designed to 

work even if the all the parties cannot reach agreement on the arcane subject of 

judicial post-decree enforcement. The United States appeared to be demanding that 

all others must accept its position regarding this fundamentally important and contentious issue of water rights administration, and that no settlement should go forward that does not do so. The State disagrees with that premise and that conclusion, which actually shows the wisdom of approach of the present bill which explicitly does not adopt any position or modify the status quo in any way. A meritorious 

Indian water rights settlement should not be rejected simply because the parties 

could not agree with the United States’ position on a difficult aspect of post-decree 

water rights administration. Each settlement is inevitably unique: the Taos settlement parties, including the state, have judged that the benefits of their settlement 

far outweigh the costs and compromises that all have undertaken. The Taos settlement does, as noted above, contain perhaps the most important practical element 

for administration—an agreed basin hydrological model—which is likely to make a 

far larger contribution to solving real-life disputes than pursuing an agreement delineating which court or courts might have jurisdiction to hear what sorts of claims 

between disputants who are parties to the Taos settlement agreement. With that 

agreed model, we judge that the Taos settlement approach is likely, through its use 

as provided in the settlement agreement, to substantially reduce the risk of litigation over administration of basin water rights. 

The Bush Administration also recommended that Congress more precisely clarify 

the United States’ responsibility regarding delivery of the SJCP water contemplated 

for use in the two settlements, noting that the concern arose from the fact that this 

water supply is to be held in trust by the United States. The Settlement Parties 

agreed that this matter should be clarified and have directly addressed this issue 

by providing, in Sect. 103(d) of H.R. 3342 (and in Sec. 9(b)(3) of H.R. 3254) that 

these water supplies shall be subject to the San Juan-Chama Project Act (Public 

41 

Law 87-483, 764 Stat. 97), and that ‘‘no preference shall be provided to the 

Pueblo(s)...with regard to the delivery or distribution of San Juan-Chama Project 

water or the management or operation of the San Juan-Chama Project.’’ We believe 

that this provision definitively answers any question of possible Indian preference 

and provides the certainty that the United States was seeking. 

CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, the parties understand that this settlement commits the United 

States and the State of New Mexico to significant financial obligations. The Bush 

Administration claimed that it cost ‘‘too much,’’ with arguments based on Interior’s 

Criteria and Procedures (‘‘C&Ps’’). While recognizing that more factors than the calculated legal exposure to the United States are to be considered under the C&Ps, 

the testimony from the Bush Administration’s failed to acknowledge that it had repeatedly refused to consider the value of or assign any value to fulfilling the prominent C&Ps ‘‘goal of long-term harmony and cooperation among all parties.’’ That is 

a significant omission, because exactly that ‘‘long-term harmony and cooperation 

among all parties’’ is what these settlement parties have gone to extraordinary 

lengths to achieve, and it is from all perspectives—personal, local, and regional— 

one of the biggest goals and benefits of this settlement. As I noted, this settlement 

creates complex and tightly interwoven water use, sharing and administration 

agreements among the parties. These parties have truly committed themselves to 

a water future based on harmony and cooperation and any fair evaluation of the 

cost of this settlement should not neglect this factor. 

At this point, we have successfully accommodated the vast majority of the United 

States’ demands and those results are reflected in the language of the bill before 

you. Believing that we have in good faith fairly addressed all the non-monetary concerns raised by the United States insofar as possible given the structure of the settlement and that it fulfills the C&Ps ‘‘goal of long-term harmony and cooperation 

among all parties,’’ I therefore strongly support and recommend passage of 

H.R. 3254 in its present form, without delay. 

Closing Comment 

In the vein of the ‘‘lessons learned’’ argument favored by the Bush Administration 

to defend its efforts renegotiate the terms of certain settlements before Congress, 

I offer, with all due respect, a lesson that I have learned. 

The state of New Mexico has learned that negotiations to settle the water rights 

claims of an Indian Tribe or Pueblo are limited to the participation of the United 

States through the Department of Justice with respect to any term implicating its 

sovereignty or responsibility to protect the interests of the United States or Pueblo. 

During the years of negotiations there was frustratingly little participation or 

guidance from the Bush Administration with respect to the interests of the United 

States, despite oft-repeated requests. The parties, therefore, were left to reach 

agreement without the participation of the United States. 

Because the United States did not identify the terms to which it objected with 

any specificity to the parties until they presented New Mexico’s congressional delegation with the final settlements and asked that legislation be introduced, it has 

been very difficult for the parties to entertain United States’ demands for legislative 

changes that revise the fundamental bargain of the settlement and fairly should 

have been raised years ago. 

Even as the Bush Administration was testifying its objections to the Aamodt and 

Taos settlements in the fall of 2008, it emphasized the desire of the United States 

to work with the parties and Congress to develop settlements the Bush Administration could support. 

While Department of Interior representation at negotiation meetings and communication with the parties somewhat improved at the end of the Bush Administration, that improvement did not occur until the Aamodt and Taos Pueblo settlements 

agreements were fully negotiated and signed by all the parties, including all the 

governmental parties except the United States. 

In just these few short months of the Obama Administration there seems to be 

a genuine effort on the part of the United States to heighten the level of its participation over that of the previous administration. It is my early impression that the 

United States’ being an active negotiating party and elucidating its positions, even 

if they cannot be accepted by another party, promotes informed decision-making, allows the parties to develop trust in the United States, and in the end requires all 

parties to recognize and consider the interests of the United States. This is merely 

my observation and having served as State Engineer for the Administration of Bill 

Richardson, a Democrat, and as Secretary of the Environment Department for the 

42 

Administration of Gary Johnson, a Republican, I understand that reasonable people 

can adopt reasoned policies 180 degrees apart. 

That said, there are six general stream adjudications pending in the Federal District Court for New Mexico and two more in state courts, involving the water rights 

claims of eight Pueblos and the Navajo Nation. Excluding the Aamodt and Taos 

Pueblo settlements, for which implementing legislation is pending before this Committee, and the Navajo Nation settlement, for which implementing legislation was 

recently passed by Congress, there are still pending five adjudications with Pueblo 

claims to first-priority water rights exceeding 100,000 acre-feet of depletion per 

year. Further, there is at present no adjudication action pending in the Middle Rio 

Grande, which will involve the claims of six more Pueblos. Litigation of Pueblo 

claims has proven to be resource- and cost-intensive for all parties, with a very high 

level of professional and technical expertise required. It is likely that the parties 

will agree to pursue settlement negotiations for those claims for which they agree 

that there is sufficient historical basis to support a claim. Therefore, I encourage 

the Obama Administration to maintain, if not increase, its current level of participation in negotiations, rather than sit and watch the parties reach a settlement and 

only then voice its positions and objections as was the United States’ practice under 

the Bush Administration. 

Again, thank you for this opportunity to present my views and please enact this 

Act authorizing the Taos Pueblo water rights settlement with all due speed. 

Statement of John R. D’Antonio, Jr., P.E., New Mexico State Engineer, 

Interstate Stream Commission Secretary, on H.R. 3342 

Chairwoman Napolitano and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of my office on H.R. 3342, 

the ‘‘Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act.’’ I share with Governor Richardson the conclusion that passage of this bill would produce a fair and long-overdue resolution 

of the water rights claims of four New Mexico Pueblos and it is highly deserving 

of Congressional support. I wish here to set forth for you some of the main reasons 

for that conclusion and then describe some of the substantial changes the Settlement Parties have agreed to make to their settlement, and this implementing legislation, in order to address concerns expressed by the Department of Justice and Department of the Interior. I hope that these comments will provide the Committee 

with a fuller understanding of the substance and significance of this settlement and 

why it merits your support. 

Why the State of New Mexico Strongly Supports this Legislation 

First, all New Mexicans, not just these litigants, have suffered the costs of the 

protracted litigation over the water rights claims of these four Pueblos. The Aamodt 

suit was filed over 43 years ago, with active litigation for the first thirty-three years, 

followed six years of ultimately successful negotiation to reach a settlement agreement. Litigation costs, direct and indirect, particularly for the State and the United 

States, have been enormous. The communities have borne the heavy costs of continued strife and conflict over water between Pueblos & non-Pueblos, senior and junior 

users, in the highly polarizing environment of litigation. The region has incurred the 

economic costs of lost opportunities for economic development, the inability to grow 

businesses or communities when the supply of the most fundamental resource— 

waters—is uncertain. The settlement reached by the parties, as implemented by 

H.R. 3342, will directly address all of these issues, by ending the unending stream 

of litigation costs and instead investing in this settlement, which will finally achieve 

judicial determinations of Pueblo water rights and lay foundations for Pueblo economic development and self-sufficiency. 

Second, the proposed settlement is fair. It recognizes large first-priority water 

rights in the Pueblos commensurate with the acreage historically irrigated by them: 

depletions of more than 3,600 acre-feet annually for the Aamodt Pueblos. But this 

settlement also contains its own unique locally-suited mechanisms whereby 

centuries-old non-Indian uses will be allowed to continue as well as the Pueblo uses. 

In addition, water for Pueblo economic development will be imported or purchased— 

about 2,300 acre-feet per year—with the last remaining uncontracted water from 

New Mexico’s San Juan Chama Project (SJCP), developed by the United States, 

going to its Indian beneficiaries. Finally, infrastructure locally appropriate to this 

settlement, with substantial state and local cost share, will be provided to meet specific Pueblo health, safety and economic development needs. 

43 

The Settlement Parties’ Actions to Address the United States’ Expressed 

Concerns 

H.R. 3342 is identical, in many of its substantive settlement terms, to legislation 

introduced in the second session of the 110th Congress, H.R. 6768 in the House and 

its companion bill in the Senate, S. 3381. H.R. 6768 and S. 3381 combined both the 

Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement and the Aamodt Litigation Settlement 

in two Titles in each bill and they were the subject of hearings before this Committee and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee—on September 25, 2008 before this 

Committee and on September 11, 2008 before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. 

The legislation before you, H.R. 3342, does differ from the previous legislation in 

some ways, primarily as a result of extensive discussions between the Settlement 

Parties and representatives of the Departments of Interior and Justice in order to 

accommodate those Departments’ requests for changes to better clarify the obligations of the United States and to better protect its financial, trusteeship and sovereign interests. I would like to show you, with just a few examples, the extent to 

which the state and the other Settlement Parties have done that. 

On September 11, 2008, before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Mr. Michael 

Bogert, then Chairman of the Working Group on Indian Water Rights Settlements, 

provided the Bush Administration’s views on S.3381 from the Department of the Interior, and by letter of September 26, 2008 to this Committee and the Senate Indian 

Affairs Committee, Mr. Keith B. Nelson, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, provided the same on behalf of the Department of Justice. 

Mr. Bogert and Mr. Nelson repeatedly emphasized that the waivers contained in 

S. 3381 and H.R. 6768 did not adequately protect the United States from future liability, ‘‘including breach of trust claims.’’ In Aamodt, Mr. Nelson noted that there 

was ‘‘no clear waiver of claims relating to damages to land and other resources 

caused by past loss of water and off-reservation water rights.’’ He recommended 

that, in light of the previous waiver-related litigation problems the United States 

had experienced, the parties in their legislative drafting ‘‘should bring to bear here 

the lessons learned.’’ 

I responded at that time that the Settlement Parties had sought the active participation of the United States on this and other questions literally for years before 

these settlements were finalized, but had received no substantive participation or 

guidance, and that, in fairness, the time for consideration of the proposed United 

States’ proposals regarding waivers was during settlement negotiations, not years 

after the settlement agreement was finalized. Nevertheless, the Settlement Parties 

recognize the substantial interest of the United States in these provisions, and we 

have all made great efforts to accommodate them. Specifically, the revised waiver 

provisions in both H.R. 3342 and H.R. 3254, the ‘‘Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights 

Settlement Act,’’ presently also pending before this Committee, now very largely 

track the Department of Justice’s ‘‘model waivers,’’ which we understand is exactly 

implementing Mr. Nelson’s belief that the legislation ‘‘should bring to bear here the 

lessons learned.’’ That is not to say the waiver provisions are identical in the two 

bills, because the specifics of each settlement are to some extent reflected there. 

However, both bills’ waiver provisions certainly contain the ‘‘clear waiver of claims 

relating to damages to land and other resources caused by past loss of water and 

off-reservation water rights’’ that the Department of Justice’s letter said was prominently missing in H.R. 6768. It is my belief that the Settlement Parties have gone 

to extraordinary lengths, substantially modifying the terms of their agreement, to 

accommodate the United States’ demands regarding these waiver provisions, but I 

am also confident that the result we have recently arrived at will fully achieve the 

expressed goals of clarifying and limiting the obligations of the United States, protecting it from future liability, and making clear that its interests and powers are 

properly recognized and preserved. 

In addition to objecting to the terms of the waivers in H.R. 6768, both Interior 

and Justice Department representatives expressed concern over language in the 

Aamodt title of the bill which they believed would require the United States to ‘‘acquire’’ a specified quantity of water rights for the Pueblos irrespective of cost or difficulty and to ‘‘obtain’’ a New Mexico State Engineer permit to move the water 

rights to the Rio Grande point of diversion for the Regional Water System. The Settlement Parties have responded to that concern by agreeing that the obligations of 

the United States shall be limited to acquiring the identified water rights and no 

more, that the cost will be as specified and no more, and that the Secretary need 

only ‘‘seek’’ to obtain the necessary permits. 

The Bush Administration also recommended that Congress more precisely clarify 

the United States’ responsibility regarding delivery of the SJCP water contemplated 

for use in the two settlements, noting that the concern arose from the fact that this 

water supply is to be held in trust by the United States. The Settlement Parties 

44 

agreed that this matter should be clarified and have directly addressed this issue 

by providing, in Sect. 103(d) of H.R. 3342 (and in Sec. 9(b)(3) of H.R. 3254) that 

these water supplies shall be subject to the San Juan-Chama Project Act (Public 

Law 87-483, 764 Stat. 97), and that ‘‘no preference shall be provided to the 

Pueblo(s)...with regard to the delivery or distribution of San Juan-Chama Project 

water or the management or operation of the San Juan-Chama Project.’’ We believe 

that this provision definitively answers any question of possible Indian preference 

and provides the certainty that the United States was seeking. 

Remaining Issues 

As of today, the settlement parties have agreed to every one of the United States’ 

requested changes to H.R. 3354 except one—a modification of Sects. 203(e) and (f) 

to substitute a written Secretarial determination of ‘‘substantial completion’’ of the 

Regional Water System, with limited review under the Administrative Procedures 

Act, for the Decree Court process contemplated by the Settlement Agreement and 

current legislative draft. The state is willing to continue discussions with the United 

States on this issue, but points out that it, and the other settlement parties, are 

still waiting to see some indication of support from the United States for this settlement. Compromise is a two-way street. 

CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, the parties understand that this settlement commits the United 

States and the State of New Mexico to significant financial obligations. The Bush 

Administration claimed that it cost ‘‘too much,’’ with arguments based on Interior’s 

Criteria and Procedures (‘‘C&Ps’’). While recognizing that more factors than the calculated legal exposure to the United States are to be considered under the C&Ps, 

the testimony from the Bush Administration’s failed to acknowledge that it had repeatedly refused to consider the value of or assign any value to fulfilling the prominent C&Ps ‘‘goal of long-term harmony and cooperation among all parties.’’ That is 

a significant omission, because exactly that ‘‘long-term harmony and cooperation 

among all parties’’ is what these settlement parties have gone to extraordinary 

lengths to achieve, and it is from all perspectives—personal, local, and regional— 

one of the biggest goals and benefits of this settlement. This settlement creates complex and tightly interwoven water use, sharing and administration agreements 

among the parties. These parties have truly committed themselves to a water future 

based on harmony and cooperation and any fair evaluation of the cost of this settlement should not neglect this factor. 

At this point, we have successfully accommodated the vast majority of the United 

States’ demands and those results are reflected in the language of the bill before 

you, as well as the very recent agreements to modify that language to accommodate, 

even at this late time, absolutely as many as possible of the United States’ requests. 

Believing that we have in good faith fairly addressed all the non-monetary concerns 

raised by the United States insofar as possible given the structure of the settlement 

and that it fulfills the C&Ps ‘‘goal of long-term harmony and cooperation among all 

parties,’’ I therefore strongly support and recommend passage of H.R. 3342 in its 

present form, without delay. 

Closing Comment 

In the vein of the ‘‘lessons learned’’ argument favored by the Bush Administration 

to defend its efforts renegotiate the terms of certain settlements before Congress, 

I offer, with all due respect, a lesson that I have learned. 

The state of New Mexico has learned that negotiations to settle the water rights 

claims of an Indian Tribe or Pueblo are limited to the participation of the United 

States through the Department of Justice with respect to any term implicating its 

sovereignty or responsibility to protect the interests of the United States or Pueblo. 

During the years of negotiations there was frustratingly little participation or 

guidance from the Bush Administration with respect to the interests of the United 

States, despite oft-repeated requests. The parties, therefore, were left to reach 

agreement without the participation of the United States. 

Upon the successful negotiation of their settlement agreement, the parties drafted 

legislation that would implement the terms of that agreement. However, because 

the United States did not identify the legislative provisions to which it objected with 

any specificity to the parties until after they presented New Mexico’s congressional 

delegation with the final settlements and asked that legislation be introduced, it has 

been very difficult for the parties to entertain United States’ demands for legislative 

changes that revise the fundamental bargain of the settlement and fairly should 

have been raised years ago. 

Even as the Bush Administration was testifying its objections to the Aamodt and 

Taos settlements in the fall of 2008, it emphasized the desire of the United States 

45 

to work with the parties and Congress to develop settlements the Bush Administration could support. 

While Department of Interior representation at negotiation meetings and communication with the parties somewhat improved at the end of the Bush Administration, that improvement did not occur until the Aamodt and Taos Pueblo settlements 

agreements were fully negotiated and signed by all the parties, including all the 

governmental parties except the United States. 

In just these few short months of the Obama Administration there seems to be 

a genuine effort on the part of the United States to heighten the level of its participation over that of the previous administration. It is my early impression that the 

United States’ being an active negotiating party and elucidating its positions, even 

if they cannot be accepted by another party, promotes informed decision-making, allows the parties to develop trust in the United States, and in the end requires all 

parties to recognize and consider the interests of the United States. This is merely 

my observation and having served as State Engineer for the Administration of Bill 

Richardson, a Democrat, and as Secretary of the Environment Department for the 

Administration of Gary Johnson, a Republican, I understand that reasonable people 

can adopt reasoned policies 180 degrees apart. 

That said, there are six general stream adjudications pending in the Federal District Court for New Mexico and two more in state court, involving the water rights 

claims of eight Pueblos and the Navajo Nation. Excluding the Aamodt and Taos 

Pueblo settlements, for which implementing legislation is pending before this Committee, and the Navajo Nation settlement, for which implementing legislation was 

recently passed by Congress, there are still pending five adjudications with Pueblo 

claims to first-priority water rights exceeding 100,000 acre-feet of depletion per 

year. Further, there is at present no adjudication action pending in the Middle Rio 

Grande, which will involve the claims of six more Pueblos. Litigation of Pueblo 

claims has proven to be resource- and cost-intensive for all parties, with a very high 

level of professional and technical expertise required. It is likely that the parties 

will agree to pursue settlement negotiations for those claims for which they agree 

that there is sufficient historical basis to support a claim. Therefore, I encourage 

the Obama Administration to maintain, if not increase, its current level of participation in negotiations, rather than sit and watch the parties reach a settlement and 

only then voice its positions and objections as was the United States’ practice under 

the Bush Administration. 

Again, thank you for this opportunity to present my views and please enact this 

Act authorizing the Aamodt settlement with all due speed. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you for your testimony. I much appreciate it. 

And we will now turn to Mr. Palemon Martinez, President of the 

Taos Valley Acequia Association, TVAA, Taos, New Mexico. 

STATEMENT OF PALEMON A. MARTINEZ, PRESIDENT OF THE 

TAOS VALLEY ACEQUIA ASSOCIATION, TAOS, NEW MEXICO 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Chairwoman Napolitano, members of the Committee, Congressman Luja ́n, we appreciate this opportunity. 

I speak to you on behalf of the Taos Valley Acequia Association 

and its 55-member Acequias. We urge your favorable action on 

H.R. 3254, the Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act. 

We also have Bennie Mondragon, Vice Chairman of TVAA, and 

our legal counsel, Fred Walsh, with me. 

The TVAA and Acequias are parties to the settlement agreement 

of Taos Pueblo. Acequias are also known as community ditch associations. They have existed in the Taos Valley North Central New 

Mexico since the area was settled by Spanish settlers over 400 

years ago. 

Acequias have diverted the surface of springwater from seven 

tributaries to the Rio Grande, which are the Rio Hondo, Rio 

Lucero, Rio Arroyo Seco, Rio Pueblo, Rio Fernando, Rio Chiquito, 

and Rio Grande del Rancho. These acequias continue to provide 

46 

water for domestic uses by the watering and the irrigation over 

12,000 acres. 

Today our acequias have over 7,000 individual members, many 

of them who irrigate small fields to raise a few head of livestock 

and gardens in order to feed their families. 

In the Taos Valley, the acequias are truly the lifeblood of the 

community. Our traditional rural lifestyle and culture are sustained by the acequias. Many of the acequias flow through Taos 

Pueblo land. 

Non-Indian Acequia members and Taos Pueblo members interact 

on a daily basis. They are our neighbors who have been sharing the 

resources of the Taos Valley for centuries. 

Of course, during the long history there have been disputes over 

water, especially during drought and periodic water shortages. 

This settlement addresses not only the water rights of Taos 

Pueblo but the resolution of competing claims of the acequia water 

rights, which were established and are the laws and customs of 

Spain and Mexico and are protected by the United States under 

the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. 

The United States owes not only a Federal trust obligation to 

Taos Pueblo but an obligation under the treaty and established 

constitutional and international legal principles to protect the 

water rights of the Acequia and their members. 

The Taos Indian Water Settlement Act, H.R. 3254, is an opportunity to finally resolve all water sharing disputes between the 

Acequias and Taos Pueblo. Because the water is so vital to the survival and prosperity of all parties in the Taos Valley, we have been 

involved in negotiations since October 1989. This settlement Act 

represents a compromise and a guarantee of future allocations that 

costly litigation could never achieve. 

Most importantly, the settlement secures future centuries of mutual accesses and sharing of water for the Acequias and Taos Pueblo. The settlement, of course, defines and secures the nature and 

extent of Taos Pueblo’s water rights. It also secures the rights of 

Acequia members, and protects them from challenges to their 

water rights by other parties. 

The settlement provides for the continuous specific water sharing 

customs and traditions, rather than the imposition of priority administration of water. It will last for the sustenance of the traditional and rural lifestyle of Acequia members. 

The settlement balances the needs of all parties in the Taos Valley, now and in the future. This includes municipal water providers 

and thousands of domestic well owners. The financial applications 

of the United States are not only to Taos Pueblo, which certainly 

has substantial claims against the United States. This settlement 

will also resolve the Acequias’ longstanding claims against the 

United States with the construction of the Arroyo Acequia Arriba 

storage project and the Acequia Madre del Prado stream gauge. 

The benefits of the settlement Act far outweigh any financial 

analysis. You cannot put a price tag on the social benefits of peace 

and harmony between neighbors. Longstanding disputes over water 

will finally be put to rest. This settlement will avoid contentious 

litigation that could only cost future mistrust and conflict throughout the Taos area. 

47 

The TVAA urges Congress to take this rare opportunity to support a local solution to past, present, and future water allocation 

challenges. We urge passage of the Taos Pueblo Indian Water 

Rights Settlement Act, H.R. 3254. 

The TVAA thanks Chair Napolitano and members of the House 

Subcommittee on Water and Power for the time and consideration 

of this vitally important matter of water for our future. We also 

thank New Mexico Congressman Ben Ray Luja ́n and other members of the New Mexico Congressional delegation for their unwavering support of our settlement. 

Respectfully submitted by Palemon Martinez, President of the 

Taos Valley Acequia Association, and we stand for any questions 

that you may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Martinez follows:] 

Statement of Palemon A. Martinez, President, 

Taos Valley Acequia Association, Taos, New Mexico, on H.R. 3254 

Dear Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Member McClintock: 

I speak to you on behalf of the Taos Valley Acequia Association (TVAA) and its 

55 member Acequias. We urge your favorable action on H.R. 3254, the Taos Pueblo 

Indian Water Rights Settlement Act. 

The TVAA and Acequias are parties to the settlement agreement with Taos Pueblo. Acequias are also known as community ditch associations. They have existed in 

the Taos Valley of north-central New Mexico since the area was settled by Spanish 

settlers over 400 years ago. Acequias have diverted surface and spring water from 

seven tributaries of the Rio Grande, which are the Rio Hondo, Rio Lucero, Rio Arroyo Seco, Rio Pueblo, Rio Fernando, Rio Chiquito, and Rio Grande del Rancho. 

These Acequias continue to provide water for domestic uses, livestock watering, and 

the irrigation of over 12,000 acres. Today our acequias have over 7,600 individual 

members, many of whom irrigate small fields, to raise a few head of livestock, and 

gardens, in order to feed their families. In the Taos Valley the Acequias are truly 

the lifeblood of the community. Our traditional rural lifestyle and culture are sustained by the acequias. 

Many of the acequias flow through Taos Pueblo land. Non-Indian Acequia members and Taos Pueblo members interact on a daily basis. They are neighbors who 

have been sharing the water resources of the Taos Valley for centuries. Of course 

during that long history, there have been disputes over the water, especially during 

droughts and periodic water shortages. 

This settlement addresses not only the water rights of Taos Pueblo but the resolution of competing claims of the Acequias’ water rights which were established under 

the laws and customs of Spain and Mexico and are protected by the United States 

under the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The United States owes not only a 

federal trust obligation to Taos Pueblo, but an obligation under the Treaty and established constitutional and international legal principles to protect the water rights 

of the Acequias and their members. 

The Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, H.R. 3254, is an opportunity to finally resolve all water sharing disputes between the Acequias and Taos 

Pueblo. Because water is so vital to the survival and prosperity of all parties in the 

Taos Valley, we have been involved in negotiations since 1989. This Settlement Act 

represents a compromise and a guarantee of future allocations that costly litigation 

could never achieve. 

Most importantly the settlement secures future centuries of mutual existence and 

sharing of water for the Acequias and Taos Pueblo. The settlement of course defines 

and secures the nature and extent of Taos Pueblo’s water rights. It also secures the 

rights of Acequia members and protects them from challenges to their water rights 

by other parties. The settlement provides for the continuance of specific water sharing customs and traditions rather than the imposition of priority administration of 

water. It allows for the sustenance of the traditional and rural lifestyle and culture 

of Acequia members. The settlement balances the needs of all parties in the Taos 

Valley, now and in the future. This includes municipal water providers and thousands of domestic well owners. 

The financial obligations of the United States are not only to Taos Pueblo, which 

certainly has substantial claims against the United States. This settlement will also 

resolve Acequias’ longstanding claims against the United States with the construcVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:23 Mar 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\52312.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
48 

tion of the Arroyo Seco Arriba storage project and Acequia Madre del Prado stream 

gage. 

The benefits of the Settlement Act far outweigh any financial analysis. You cannot 

put a price on the social benefits of peace and harmony between neighbors. Longsimmering disputes over water will finally be put to rest. This settlement will avoid 

contentious litigation that could only cause future mistrust and conflict throughout 

the Taos area. 

The TVAA urges Congress to take this rare opportunity to support a local solution 

to past, present, and future water allocation challenges. We urge passage of the 

Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, H.R. 3254. The TVAA thanks 

Chair Napolitano and members of the House Subcommittee on Water and Power, 

for your time and consideration of this vitally important matter of water for our future. We also thank New Mexico Congressman Ben Ray Luja ́n and other members 

of the New Mexico Congressional Delegation for their unwavering support of our 

settlement. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK [presiding]. Thank you, and right on time, too. 

Thank you for that. 

The next witness is Harry B. Montoya, who is Commissioner of 

District 1, Santa Fe County Commission, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

Commissioner Montoya. 

STATEMENT OF HARRY B. MONTOYA, COMMISSIONER OF 

DISTRICT 1, SANTA FE COUNTY COMMISSION, SANTA FE, 

NEW MEXICO 

Mr. MONTOYA. Buenos tardes, good afternoon, Madame Chair 

Napolitano, Ranking Member McClintock, Congressman Ben Ray 

Luja ́n. I want to thank you for the opportunity to provide some testimony on behalf of Santa Fe County this afternoon. 

I am in my second term as Santa Fe County Commissioner. I live 

where this is taking place, and need to know that when, unlike 

Congressman Luja ́n, I was six years old when this litigation started. 

So I would like to provide the testimony in support of H.R. 3342, 

and especially want to thank the New Mexico Congressional delegation, Sen. Bingaman, Sen. Udall, and Congressman Udall and 

Heinrich, who have provided the leadership and guidance that will 

allow the fighting to end, and will pave the way to a better future 

for our community. 

The county believes that the settlement is highly desirable, and 

has committed to make a substantial local contribution to help implement it. 

I would like to briefly outline two of the major benefits of the 

settlement. 

First, the centerpiece of the settlement is a regional water system that will greatly alleviate water shortages and water quality 

problems in the basin. The system would benefit basin residents, 

Indian and non-Indian alike, and would provide a clean and reliable water supply, and reduce the demand on limited local water 

resources. 

The settlement has a substantial stake in local cost share. Santa 

Fe County will be contributing up to $60 million toward construction and operation of the water system. Combined with financial 

contributions from the State of New Mexico and the City of Santa 

Fe, the non-Federal contribution is projected to exceed $100 million; or, as was stated earlier by Commissioner Connor, about 40 

percent of the total settlement cost. 

49 

This is noteworthy, especially when the percentage of water allocated from the regional water system to non-Pueblo customers is 

proportionately less. 

The second benefit of the settlement I want to underscore is that 

it achieves a fair and equitable resolution of the difficult water disputes that have plagued the Pojoaque Valley for many years. The 

settling parties reached the settlement after years of good faith and 

painstaking negotiations conducted in numerous court-ordered 

meetings, open to every water rights owner in the Basin. 

Under the settlement, existing non-Pueblo uses will be protected 

far better, I believe, than the most optimistic litigation outcome. 

Nonetheless, some non-Pueblo residents oppose the settlement, 

apparently believing they can pick and choose elements of the settlement, and discard others. For example, some opponents argue 

the non-Pueblo portion of the water system should be eliminated, 

making it a Pueblo-only system. Such a misconception of how the 

settlement was reached jeopardizes the entire settlement, unwittingly reflecting a preference for litigation. 

I believe it would be a big mistake to exclude non-Pueblo residents. And I firmly believe that there will be a demand from nonPueblo residents to connect to the system. Our community needs 

closure of this longstanding conflict, not further division. 

Rather than defining winners and losers, the settlement protects 

existing uses, and allows for future growth by careful management 

of available water resources. The settlement safeguards time immemorial and senior uses of Pueblos and early Spanish Acequias, and 

at the same time creates a reliable supply to more recent domestic 

and commercial uses. 

It should be noted that Santa Fe County has been very proactive 

in terms of the work that we have done with community members. 

We have had community meetings, town halls. The process of involving individuals in this whole information education of the settlement has been exhaustive, and we continue to do that work, and 

will continue to do it until we are able to finally get the complete 

settlement of which we are asking today that the Federal government become a partner of the local tribal governments and the 

state government. 

And in conclusion, I want to thank you, Madame Chairwoman, 

Ranking Member, and Congressman Luja ́n for sponsoring this important bill. With your help, I am hopeful that we can fully restore 

some of the peace in our valley, and provide water for our constituents for years to come. 

And I would stand for any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Montoya follows:] 

Statement of Harry B. Montoya, Santa Fe County Commissioner, 

New Mexico, on H.R. 3342 

Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member McClintock, committee members, and 

Congressman Luja ́n, I am Harry B. Montoya. I am in my second term on the Board 

of County Commissioners of Santa Fe County and I am pleased to offer this testimony on behalf of Santa Fe County. The Pojoaque stream system is located within 

my district and it is also where I grew up and have spent most of my life. When 

the Aamodt litigation was filed I was six years old. Forty-three years later, I am 

very gratified the parties have reached a settlement of this divisive litigation, which 

is the oldest running lawsuit in the federal court system. With your help, the settleVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:23 Mar 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\52312.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
50 

ment will provide a reliable water supply to the Pueblos of Nambe ́, Pojoaque, San 

Ildefonso and Tesuque, as well as to other county residents in the Pojoaque basin. 

I appreciate very much the opportunity to provide testimony in support of the 

Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act, H.R. 3342. I especially want to thank the New 

Mexico congressional delegation for enabling us to achieve this settlement. After 

years of what appeared to be intractable and interminable litigation involving thousands of water users, Senators Bingaman and Udall and Congressmen Luja ́n and 

Heinrich have provided the leadership and the guidance that will allow the fighting 

to end and will pave the way to a better future for the Pojoaque basin. 

OVERVIEW OF SETTLEMENT 

The parties reached this settlement after six years of intensive settlement talks 

ordered by the federal court. In 2006, along with other settling parties, the County, 

the four Pueblos, the City of Santa Fe and the State of New Mexico signed the 

Aamodt settlement agreement. The settlement will resolve long-standing water 

issues between the Pueblos, the State of New Mexico and numerous water rights 

claimants to the limited supplies of the Pojoaque basin. Now the settling parties, 

including the seven governmental entities, urge the United States to join us as signatories to the settlement agreement. 

This legislation will authorize the Secretary of the Interior to execute the settlement agreement. And it will authorize construction of an important regional water 

system for the benefit of Pueblo members and other County residents. 

Although Santa Fe County does not have water rights at issue in the main 

Aamodt case, the County agreed to become a party to the settlement and is willing 

to make a substantial local contribution to help implement it. 

The County believes the settlement is highly desirable for two reasons. First, the 

centerpiece of the settlement is a regional water system that will greatly alleviate 

water shortages and water quality problems in the basin. Second, the settlement 

achieves a fair and equitable resolution of the competing claims to water in one of 

the most water-short areas of the west. 

I would like to briefly discuss both of these settlement benefits. 

REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM 

A vital component of the settlement is a regional water system serving the 

Pojoaque basin. Because the basin is chronically short of water, the foundation of 

our agreement is construction and operation of a joint water utility that will divert 

up to 4,000 acre-feet of water per year from the Rio Grande. Of that amount, the 

regional water system will treat and deliver 2,500 acre-feet to the four Pueblos and 

up to 1,500 acre-feet to non-Pueblo customers of the County water utility. 

The regional water system bestows many benefits. Most obvious is its importance 

in delivering a substantial amount of water to meet the future needs of the Pueblos. 

Less obvious, but perhaps as important to the Pueblos, the water system provides 

water to non-Pueblo water users who otherwise would continue to divert basin 

groundwater and deplete surface flows needed for traditional irrigation and other 

uses. The settlement contains incentives and provisions for settling non-Pueblo parties to connect to the system and requires new users in the future to connect. Finally, the system directly benefits connecting non-Pueblo customers by providing a 

clean and reliable water supply. 

The regional water system will be governed by a board made up of the Pueblos 

and the County. By cooperating basin-wide, these five governmental partners will 

reduce tensions over water distribution and will gain greater efficiencies in system 

operation and maintenance. Our agreement for regional cooperation should be a 

model for other communities that find themselves needing to band together to secure water beyond their individual jurisdictions. 

The County believes that the regional water system is not only a good deal for 

the federal government and the Pueblos but is also a good deal for state and local 

parties. That is why the County will invest substantial local funds in the system. 

Including its share of construction costs and its responsibility for operational costs, 

the County is contributing as much as $60 million. When combined with financial 

contributions from the State and City, the non-federal contribution is projected to 

exceed $100 million, or about 40% of the total settlement costs. This is noteworthy, 

especially when the percentage of water allocated from the regional water system 

to non-Pueblo customers is proportionately less. 

FAIR AND EQUITABLE RESOLUTION 

The settlement will achieve a fair and equitable resolution of the difficult and entrenched water disputes that have plagued the Pojoaque basin for so many years. 

For the last 150 years the Pojoaque basin has suffered from land and water conflicts, pitting neighbor against neighbor and Pueblo member versus non-Pueblo 

51 

people. Two U.S. Supreme Court cases and an Act of Congress failed to settle the 

issues, and the Aamodt water rights adjudication has done no better. The settlement is the only hope for ending the divisions and allowing for harmony in the 

basin. 

The settling parties reached a settlement after years of good faith and painstaking 

negotiations conducted in numerous court-ordered meetings open to every water 

rights owner in the basin. The settlement is a carefully constructed compromise— 

a product of serious give and take by parties desiring a better path than continual 

litigation. Under the settlement, existing non-Pueblo uses will be protected, far better, I believe, than the most optimistic litigation outcome. 

Nonetheless, some non-Pueblo residents oppose the settlement, apparently believing they can pick and choose elements of the settlement and discard others. For example, some opponents argue the non-Pueblo portion of the water system should be 

eliminated, making it a ‘‘Pueblo only’’ system. Such a misconception of how the settlement was reached jeopardizes the entire settlement, unwittingly reflecting a preference for litigation. 

I believe it would be a big mistake to size and design the system to exclude nonPueblo residents. If we do not authorize non-Pueblo access to the system and do not 

build in enough capacity, we will not have another chance in the future to make 

this service available. I firmly believe that there will be demand in the future from 

non-Pueblo residents to connect to the system. It would be a very unfortunate 

outcome if those people were told ‘‘no, you cannot connect—this is a Pueblo-only 

system.’’ Our community needs closure of this long-standing conflict, not further 

division. 

Under the settlement, the water system would be available to all residents within 

the service area, regardless of Pueblo membership. If non-Pueblo residents in an 

area with poor water quality want to hook up, they can. If residents with an old 

domestic well want to hook up, rather than investing in a new well, they can. However, no existing user will be required to hook up. 

Rather than defining winners and losers, the settlement protects existing uses 

and allows for future growth by careful management of available water resources. 

At the same time, it recognizes and safeguards time immemorial and senior use priorities of Pueblos and early Spanish acequias. The settlement also creates a reliable 

supply to more recent domestic and commercial uses, and is flexible enough to account for changing uses in the future. 

The agreement contains provisions that protect the basin from groundwater 

pumping in the adjoining and much more populous Santa Fe basin. Both the County 

and the City of Santa Fe have agreed in the proposed settlement to mechanisms 

to offset effects on basin surface waters from County and City groundwater withdrawals in the neighboring basin. In order to preserve groundwater supplies, the 

County and the City have also agreed to meet their demands from surface water 

sources to the maximum extent feasible in order to minimize the effects on ground 

and surface supplies of the Pojoaque basin. 

In conclusion, I want to thank the Chairwoman, Ranking Member and the committee members for hearing this matter, and Congressman Luja ́n for sponsoring 

this important bill. H.R. 3342 has been carefully crafted to address the difficult 

water supply needs within the Pojoaque basin. We have waited a long time to get 

to this point. We are hopeful, with your help, our time is now. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO [presiding]. Thank you for that testimony, Mr. 

Montoya. And now we will begin the questioning. 

And I would like to start off with Commissioner Connor. I have 

read through most of the testimony, including both bills. I agree on 

a lot of the instances, and I am glad that you have had such a longstanding working relationship in this. In fact, I think you were the 

one who started the ball rolling on the bills themselves. 

And I know that the budget is tight. I know that everybody else 

is looking for the ability to do a lot with the little budgetthat you 

have. 

But the last Administration testified against almost every settlement, against every bill that we had that was beneficial to develop 

more water, to assist in Indian water rights claims, applying a general rule that does not support applying the rule that would not 

52 

support the position, and did not distinguish the varying levels of 

the readiness of each proposed settlement. And you have turned 

that around. So I am very grateful. I am very happy to see that 

you are now considering, even though you are saying there are 

things that still need to be done, you are acknowledging that the 

different projects, readiness of each settlement, and you are asking 

for more. 

Would that be the end of those requests? Or will you think you 

will find more to ask of the settling parties in the future, so that 

they can prepare for that? 

I am just searching in my mind because from the last Administration to this is quite a change. We want to ensure that we are 

considering those areas that we know we have to look at. 

Mr. CONNOR. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. When we testify 

on these settlement bills, we are trying to go exhaustively through 

the provisions of the bills to identify all the issues that we see and 

to chart a path—specifically given the bills as introduced—and see 

how to get to settlements that we would support. 

In particular, in these two bills, these bills are in pretty good 

shape with respect to the issues identified, as articulated in the 

written testimony. We are applying the principles that identify the 

four principles, and trying to use those as the framework for establishing the parameters on which we will support or not support settlements, or raise issues with the settlements. 

And these settlements come to us in a range of different conditions, I guess. And specifically with respect to these two settlement 

bills, because you mentioned limited resources, et cetera, one of the 

issues that we raised related to cost has to do with the regional 

water system in the settlement. We want to ensure that, as rigorously as possible, we can get as accurate a cost estimate—given the 

information that we have. That is one of the suggestions here, so 

that we all understand the risk of cost overruns, and can appropriately allocate that risk. 

With respect to another issue of cost—the cost shared by nonFederal parties—that is an area that we are also looking closely at. 

The principles that we have established set out the basis that we 

should have appropriate cost sharing for proportionate benefits to 

non-Indian parties. And we have tried to establish some parameters here in this settlement testimony as looking at existing water 

resource programs within the Federal government as a guide as to 

what is an appropriate cost share. 

So with that, I guess I am not sure I am answering specifically 

the question you suggest, but we are trying to get down to a level 

of specificity so that we can identify issues, people have a clear understanding of what it would take to get Federal support. We are 

trying to lay that as a foundation for other settlements that follow 

in the wake of these two settlement bills, so that there is clarity 

and understanding of where we are coming from. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, apparently you have already reached 

some consensus on some of the issues that you had brought up before. Am I correct? 

Mr. CONNOR. That is correct. We understand that there have 

been some language changes already negotiating and agreed to by 

the parties. 

53 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And the concerns that remain still vary with 

the Administration? The remaining ones? 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, they are. We would like to have discussions 

with the parties about cost share, particularly in the Taos situation. And we would definitely like to do our cost estimate analysis 

as set forth in the Aamodt testimony. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Then the question to Mr. Cordova. You agreed 

to some of the changes mentioned in the Commissioner’s testimony. 

I am sure you would like to continue to work with them to resolve 

these concerns? And how soon do you think this could take place? 

Mr. CORDOVA. Madame Chair, as I stated in our testimony, we 

are ready to engage the Administration at any time. We are ready 

to stay and get the job done. 

As I said, this adjudication has been going on too long, and we 

want to get it done this year. So I am hoping that the Administration will take up and meet with us, so we can go over the issues. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. 

Mr. DORAME. Madame Chairwoman, I also pledge our support 

and cooperation that is ahead of us. We have worked with Mr. Connor before. We have a good working relationship with him, and we 

will continue to do so. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Great. Mr. Sanders, there is the question 

about the Federal share versus the non-Indian and, or non-Pueblo 

or the state share. Is there willingness of any of those parties to 

increase their share? 

Mr. SANDERS. Madame Chairman, with respect to the Taos settlement, we believe that our cost share is adequate. We believe 

that we are not given adequate credit for, we are paying 100 percent of the OMNR for the mitigation well system. We are paying 

100 percent of the OMNR for the storage project wells. We are paying 100 percent of water right acquisition for roughly $4 million. 

So we believe we are not getting adequate notice by our contributions for the non-Pueblo portions. We feel like our contribution approaches somewhere approximately 42 percent of the overall cost of 

the settlement. 

So, we are not likely to, and I would guess that given the current 

situation in the State of New Mexico, not likely to increase our 

funding. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Is there any thought of the possibility, if this 

were to be a necessity, to go to bonding? 

Mr. SANDERS. Madame Chair, in fact, the State Legislature is 

currently setting aside money by using its existing bonding capacity from our severance tax revenues. That would be the source of 

funding. 

So we have set aside a capacity. And the plan is to roll that over 

year after year, or every five years, to ensure that we develop an 

adequate supply of severance tax bonding capacity provided by the 

state’s share of funding. 

We have thought this through. We have worked hard with our 

State Legislature and our Governor to come up with the funding 

mechanism. And while I would like to sit here and say sure, we 

would like to raise that, I would say it is highly unlikely. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. The cost estimate that I have viewed in some 

of the testimony were 2007 estimates. Everything has gone up. 

54 

Is there the ability for somebody to take an even split in addressing those increases? 

Mr. SANDERS. Madame Chair, we are referring probably more 

likely to the Aamodt settlement in that case. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right. 

Mr. SANDERS. And I think the way the current revision of the 

settlement is to operate. And I will defer to Commissioner Montoya, should I misspeak. 

But my understanding is what we have done on the sizing is that 

we will pay our cost of the pipeline, depending upon the size. And 

rather than have a debate about how to share additional cost, we 

have agreed to design the pipeline for the size that we are going 

to pay for in the future, and pay for that cost. 

So I think that might be kind of an adequate representation of 

how we intend to take care of the increased cost. That was 2007, 

so with this change, I think we will be accommodating this in an 

indirect way. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And you assured that with Commissioner 

Connor. He knows, the Administration knows this. Yes? No? 

Mr. SANDERS. I would like to think that he does, but he now 

knows it. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Commissioner Montoya. 

Mr. MONTOYA. Yes. DL is correct, Madame Chair, in terms of 

looking at—we are going to build the system so the people will be 

allowed to hook up in the future. 

So it is not going to be a matter of we are going to have smaller 

pipes in the ground now, and then need to go back and put from 

6- to 12-inch. We are going to size it to the size that it needs to 

be, that will allow for maximum capacity immediately. And people 

will hook up as they so desire. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I read that in the testimony, so I am very 

pleased that that is there. And one of the reasons I am asking is 

so it goes on the record, too. 

Mr. MONTOYA. Yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And to all of you, to any of you, what are the 

likely consequences to your water users if these settlements are not 

authorized by Congress? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Madame Chair, members of the Committee, I 

would say that for the Aamodt settlement, if this goes to litigation, 

which is a circumstance which would be detrimental to all water 

users in the Pojoaque Basin, we would likely not get the water 

rights that are being allocated currently under the settlement. It 

would be far less in terms of what non-Pueblo users would get, and 

also in terms of what the Pueblos are currently going to be allocated. 

Being in the non-Pueblo portion of the population would be subject to water calls there, because of the junior water rights use. So 

the potential of them losing their water rights completely exists 

much more significantly if we do not have this settlement and if 

it goes to litigation. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Martinez, any comment? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madame Chair, we and the Pueblo initiated the 

negotiation, trying to get away from the litigation. I think litigation 

would lead to protracted experiences like other parties have been 

55 

going through. There would be animosity between parties. I think 

the potential loss of the San Juantamo water is tentatively allocated for Taos based on the settlements, and a good plan that we 

have devised probably would disappear. Yet the valley still needs 

a good plan for everybody to survive. Thank you. 

Mr. SANDERS. Madame Chair, if I might. I would like to point out 

that that is an excellent question that goes right to the heart of the 

settlements, is that what the effect would be on local users. And 

it gives me an opportunity to reiterate what maybe I didn’t make 

as clear as I should have, is that the water rights in each of these 

settlements, once adjudicated, will likely be greater than the annual, the seasonal available water supply. 

What that means is while there might be an annual supply of 

water, there is not an adequate amount of storage, or there is no 

storage to have water sufficient for the entire irrigation season. 

So, during those periods of the summer after the spring runoff 

has occurred, and you move into the months of late May and June, 

and through most of July, you will have an inadequate supply to 

meet existing irrigation demand. 

Irrigation demand of the Pueblos would be entitled to call, make 

a priority call for water sufficient to meet their needs. And I think 

in two of the three tributaries that we are talking about, that 

would be sufficient to curtail all other uses. And that would include 

some domestic use. 

This is the sole source of supply of water for some of these 

homes, for many of the homes there. And it seems an improbable 

and illogical conclusion to have that kind of situation as evolved. 

Again, please remember that these are water rights that were established long before they were part of the United States, including 

the Acequias. These rights and the water, the allocation of the 

water, was largely fully appropriated by the time we became part 

of the United States. 

So, this is a situation that we have been dealing with on an ad 

hoc basis. And I would like to just add one other point. 

We have had two opportunities where the United States has 

come in to seek priority administration. I believe in 1998 they filed, 

and Pam Williams is here today. She can refresh my memory on 

that. But in 1998 we had two priority calls, one on the Rio Jemez, 

and I think one on [Rios] Nambe, Pojoaque, and Tesuque. And as 

we were gearing up for that, and maybe it was a blessing, it 

rained, so we didn’t have a priority call. 

Again in 2000, though, we had a serious drought. In the beginning the six middle Rio Grande Pueblos were seeking to have a priority call. 

The problem with making a call in these areas was unquantified 

rights, because there will be a significant amount of litigation that 

would be developing litigation on parallel tracks. One trying to 

qualify the rights, while at the same time trying to shut down the 

end quantified rights, which is an untenable situation for any court 

in any state that they put themselves into. 

So without these settlements I offer to you, you will only increase 

the opportunity for litigation and disharmony in the State of New 

Mexico. 

Thank you. 

56 

Mr. CORDOVA. Madame Chair, I would like to add to what DL 

said. I think what is going to result is going to be mass confusion. 

While we are waiting for litigation to determine what the tribes’ 

rights are versus what Palemon and his folks are entitled to, who 

knows how long it is going to take. And we are going to be stuck 

in the same situation that we have been for the last hundreds of 

years, not knowing what is really ours and what is really theirs. 

And we are going to be fighting over scarce water resources. 

I don’t think that we want to get on the road to litigation, because we are not going to resolve anything through that. So I hate 

to even think about what is going to happen without a settlement. 

Mr. DORAME. Madame Chairwoman, you mentioned earlier the 

importance of the settlement, and the trust and respect and cooperation that it takes to come to this point. 

I believe that if this settlement is not approved by Congress, you 

will diminish those three. But I will say this; that I will continue 

to come as long as it takes. 

Mr. CONNOR. Madame Chairwoman, I would like to give a perspective. I guess it is a perspective that is mine, not in my current 

role as Commissioner of Reclamation. 

I can tell you with respect to these settlements, having been, as 

I think Mr. Cordova references in his testimony, I was once the 

Federal negotiating team chair for the Taos water settlement matter. And I think that was in the mid-nineties and late nineties. 

We would convene these meetings very formally, and very stiffly, 

I might add, because they were very tense discussions we were 

having between the Federal team, the Pueblo, the Town of Taos, 

the Acequia Association. 

I guess the best evidence of how these settlements can bring 

communities together is they were much more pleasant experiences 

when I was working on these matters in the U.S. Senate, when 

these parties all came together to advocate for a common purpose, 

which was to implement these settlements. That is referenced in 

our testimony now, and that is an important element to this Administration, is bringing that kind of harmony and ending the litigation. 

I have seen it firsthand. It is one of our goals. It is fundamental 

to these settlements, and it is the best way to resolve these issues. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. McClintock. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Yes. Commissioner Connor, just to be clear, 

this bill in its current form, are you for it or against it? 

Mr. CONNOR. This bill, these bills in its current form have a lot 

of positive aspects that the Administration does support. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. That is not what I asked. Are you for it or 

against it? 

Mr. CONNOR. We, the Administration, I can only state what is in 

my testimony. The Administration would like to see certain provisions in these bills amended. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. All right. So if it was before you in its current 

form, you would be against it? 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, that goes to the ultimate question of what 

would it do if it came across the President’s desk. That is a discussion that I can’t have with you here today. 

57 

We are pretty clear on the provisions that we would like to see 

amended. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. We cannot cast votes conditionally. The President can’t veto bills or sign bills conditionally. You either do or you 

don’t. 

So are you for it or against it? 

Mr. CONNOR. That is a decision that the President would make. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. You mentioned the rather unusual arrangement where the water infrastructure would be constructed, and 

water rights would be acquired before the settlement is final and 

fully enforceable. That sounds to me a little bit like the cart before 

the horse. Is there any precedent for this? 

Mr. CONNOR. There is precedent. One that comes immediately to 

mind is the Rocky Boy Settlement that I think was enacted back 

in 1998. There was some early money that was made available. I 

think there are a couple of other provisions where there have been 

early benefits. 

And in those contexts, as in here I think the provision could be 

strengthened, is that the United States would be able to recoup or 

have an offset against any future claims if the money is indeed provided, but the settlement fails to be fully implemented and the 

waivers don’t vest. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I think the current jargon is a clawback provision. 

I raise three concerns. I heard one of them addressed, which was 

many of the Pojoaque Basin property owners are concerned that 

this settlement will abridge their existing water rights by drawing 

down water. I think I heard an answer from Mr. Sanders to that, 

which is that if it goes to litigation, it is quite conceivable that it 

would require an even greater diversion away from the Pojoaque 

property owners. 

Am I correct in that interpretation? 

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I think the answer 

is yes. Without the settlement, you will have the Pueblos that are 

downstream senior users during periods, like I mentioned the drier 

months, particularly May, June, and July, they will have the senior 

right to call for water. And that call would be sufficient to eliminate the more junior rights, which are the domestic groundwater 

rights, that people need for their, you know, for their domestic 

needs, you know, for the health and welfare of their homes. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Has this been brought up in the local discussions? Again, one thing that causes me concern is the fact that not 

everybody in the area is on board. There seems to be a fairly significant organized opposition to this among local property owners. 

Mr. SANDERS. Madame Chairwoman and Congressman, yes, it is 

hard to articulate exactly who is exactly opposed to it. You don’t 

really get an opportunity to understand. I have not had the opportunity to understand how the questions and how the opposition is 

characterized. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I have a paper here from the Pojoaque Basin 

Water Alliance in Santa Fe. 

Mr. SANDERS. Right. Madame Chair, Congressman, I am familiar 

with that. And I live there, and I am familiar with the folks. 

58 

The question is how they have asked people if they oppose the 

settlement. I would oppose it in the way they characterize the issue 

to me, and I negotiated a large part of the settlement. 

They are simply wrong, and they are, they misconstrue many 

areas of the settlement. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, they say they have 1,500 signatures on 

a petition opposing the RWS; 99 percent of respondents in an 800 

call survey indicated they would not connect to the system. That 

sounds pretty significant to me. 

Mr. SANDERS. Madame Chair, Congressman, again, I agree with 

you. It is how the question, how they posed the question, not seeing 

the way the question was posed. 

The question, the way I understood them to articulate their position and presented it is that not knowing and not having participated in the negotiations and being familiar with these bills, with 

this bill, I would oppose the bill also. I would not hook up. 

But I know that the fundamental basis for their opposition to the 

bill, and the way they present that opposition to the community, 

is flawed. 

So, you know, you can’t force people to understand something. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. That may or may not be. But I am sure if they 

were here, they would say that your presentation is flawed, they 

don’t agree with that. The whole idea of a settlement is to bring 

everybody together and find some common ground. 

It doesn’t sound like that has come to fruition. As long as there 

is this kind of local opposition, this is not, does not seem to be an 

amicable arrangement among friends; it seems to be terms imposed 

upon a conquered enemy, to quote Burke. 

Mr. CONNOR. Can I address that question, Rep. McClintock? 

The petition that I have seen, and I don’t know if there are new 

petitions, stated support for the settlement, opposition to non-Pueblo participation in the regional water system. 

Accordingly, given that position, the bill was amended from the 

way it was last year to allow for the county to have some flexibility 

in sizing the county portion of the system, to make up for the fact 

that there may be a sizable amount of folks who may not want to 

sign up to join the regional water system. But also to let the dialogue continue where it is appropriate we should be, at the county, 

state, and local level. 

So, that was an improvement made specifically to address the position set out in that petition. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Right. But given the fact that we are advancing funds, and we are assigning rights before the settlement is in 

place, and knowing that there is significant opposition, makes me 

a little hesitant. 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, their only money provision and the concerns 

that the Administration have are with the Taos settlement, not 

with the Aamodt settlement. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. All right. The other two issues that I raised 

I didn’t hear addressed. One of them is the use of eminent domain 

by agencies that are not directly elected by the citizens over which 

eminent domain is being imposed, and the question of financing. 

Why is it that Poughkeepsie is being called upon to pay for 

Pojoaque’s water project? 

59 

Mr. SANDERS. Madame Chair, Congressman, let us see, let me 

answer the first question, the second question first, I guess, because I remember that one. 

With respect to these settlements, the state is bearing the same 

share that it bears, is bearing the cost of the non-Indian portion 

for its non-Indian benefits. 

We have tried to stay consistent, particularly in the Taos settlement. We have stayed consistent with the Rural Water Act—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Let me interrupt. That applies to the non-reservation of property owners in the Pojoaque Basin. I am talking 

about Poughkeepsie, New York, or Palomar, California. Why 

should these communities end up paying for what amounts to a 

local system in the Pojoaque Basin in New Mexico? 

Again, in the past, water projects were financed by revenue 

bonds that were redeemed by the users of the water in proportion 

to the use. You buy more water, you pay more for that water. That 

redeems the bonds. That assures that the people who are exclusively benefitting by the project are exclusively financing that 

project. 

What is wrong with that? And why are we asking the people 

from Palomar, California and Poughkeepsie, New York to pay for 

a substantial part of these projects? 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, I think overall I would say, in general, I 

think the history has been the opposite. I think the history has 

been that there has been a Federal program, given whether it be 

the reclamation program or other water resources programs, where 

there has been substantial Federal investment in water supply 

projects for what was perceived to be an overall national benefit. 

In this particular matter, I would say it is enhanced by the fact 

that there is a Federal trust responsibility that exists for Indian 

tribes. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, the Federal trust responsibility is to assign water rights to the reservation; it is not to pay for the project 

for the reservation. 

Mr. CONNOR. Is there a Federal obligation? I don’t know that 

that is a question that has ever been fully answered. Is it within 

the realm of the Federal trust responsibility to provide? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. There is to assign rights, I don’t think there 

is any question about that. But as far as ingoing and building the 

project, I am not sure that obligation exists. 

Mr. CONNOR. That obligation exists, I don’t know the answer to 

that legal question. I do know that there is a history well over a 

century old about building infrastructure on Indian reservations. 

Historically that has been irrigation facilities. In the present tense, 

it is more related to MNI projects. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. OK. And then the final question is on the eminent domain. Can anybody help me out there? 

Mr. CONNOR. There is no new eminent domain authority in this 

bill for the Bureau of Reclamation or the Secretary of the Interior. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. No, but a joint power agency is being established that includes the county and the Pueblo governments, am I 

correct? 

60 

Mr. CONNOR. There is a regional water authority that is contemplated. If it is formed, it will be formed under state law, and 

any authority to condemn land will be under state law. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. But the decisions are going to be made in part 

by sovereign entities, over which the voters don’t have any control. 

And that works both ways. I am not sure that the county should 

have eminent domain authority over Pueblo land, or the Pueblo 

governments have eminent domain authority over county land. 

Land in the county, I should say. 

Mr. CONNOR. The Pueblos are obligated, as are the county, to 

provide any rights-of-way needed for the project that they, that 

they will provide at no cost. That is part and parcel of the settlement itself as to whether there are other lands that might have to 

be condemned. If not, I think the goal would be to negotiate and 

secure right-of-way if the right-of-way has to be achieved through 

other means. 

Once again, I think for the primary project, the trunkline of the 

regional water system, that will be the responsibility of the Federal 

government under existing authorities, no new authorities. If there 

are any additional lines for distribution, et cetera, once again this 

regional water authority will be formed under state law, and the 

State of New Mexico will define the parameters of any such authority. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Madame Chairwoman, would it be possible to 

get in the record whatever statement that local opposition might 

want to submit to the Committee, since we haven’t heard from any 

of them today? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes. In fact, it is being introduced. There is 

a Senate Bill 1105 and H.R. 3342, for the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Luja ́n. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you very much, Madame Chair and Ranking 

Member McClintock. 

Commissioner Montoya, could you touch upon the last series of 

questions there? What the county has done to address many of the 

questions that were put forth by the group that was referenced in 

the letter to opposition? And how you worked with the state engineer, to be able to shed some light on some of the comments or 

questions that were being put out? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Sure. Madame Chair, Congressman Luja ́n, the 

county has worked, as I mentioned as part of my testimony, really 

in conjunction and hand-in-hand with this group that has been opposed to this settlement from day one. 

Let me say that from 2004 to 2006, the settlements changed significantly, to where people were not going to have to cap their 

wells. It is going to be an option now. There have to be different 

options, one of which will be to cap their well eventually if they so 

desire. 

The settlement agreement which everybody came to agree back 

in, I believe it was May of 2006, that allowed for the three different 

options for those people to choose essentially which ones they 

wanted. 

61 

They were part of the negotiation process during that whole 

time. They were represented, in fact, by an attorney who is in the 

audience here this afternoon, who no longer represents them for, 

you might want to ask him why he is not representing them anymore. 

But you know, certainly we have worked as hard as we could in 

terms of addressing the needs. Bottom line is that this group, no 

matter what we do, no matter how we do it, will be opposed to it. 

And that is a reality. That is a reality. Whenever you have these 

kinds of settlements, you are never going to please everybody. 

And this is a group, and they may have, the Congressman noted, 

1,500 signatures. I have yet to get a phone call from any of my constituents saying this is a bad deal, other than from this group. And 

again, this group probably is about four or five that I hear from 

constantly. 

And other than that, as I mentioned, you know, I have yet to 

hear from someone other than these group members who are opposed to this settlement. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Commissioner Montoya, with that being said, how 

much of your district represents the area where the settlement 

would take place? 

Mr. MONTOYA. It is about a third of my complete district. The 

size of the geographic area is about one third of my whole geographic area of northern Santa Fe County. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Sanders, if I could 

ask you a question, as well. 

I know that you touched upon this in your testimony. But could 

you brief upon some of the current core decisions in New Mexico 

that have rendered an opinion on questions of existing water 

rights, and how people would be impacted absent the settlement 

and the benefits associated therein, in a post-settlement environment? 

Mr. SANDERS. Madame Chair, Representative, I believe the situation is this. That without the settlement, the people who do oppose 

this—and you know, it is their right to oppose it, and also they 

don’t have to sign up and participate on it. 

But the fact that there is a large majority of the population, the 

state, the county, the city, the Acequias, and the largest number 

of well owners in the area who agreed to this settlement, they will, 

to this settlement, protect these. And they are domestic well owners who are most junior in the valley, who, without the settlement, 

would be shut off in the event of a priority call. 

So as I said, we have worked tirelessly to try to explain this 

point. And as I said, there, you probably can convince me about 

some things. Once I have some things in my mind nobody can 

change my mind about. I think this is one of those instances. 

So, I firmly believe, and I have advised about two Governors and 

two Attorneys General, that these are the right things to do. Two 

of my bosses have worked tirelessly to get this done. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you very much, Mr. Sanders. And if I could 

ask you to submit something into the record, just something that 

would simply describe the complexity and the dynamics of the state 

laws respective to junior and senior water rights, the function of 

62 

a priority call that makes a settlement necessary for the protection 

of water resources and for water right holders in this area. 

And Mr. Ortiz, if you could just briefly touch upon the rights of 

the Pojoaques, the members of the Acequias, and the Acequia 

water right holders to be protected in the Abeyta case. Mr. Martinez. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. I am sorry, would you repeat the question? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Absolutely, Mr. Martinez. If you could just briefly 

touch upon how will the rights of the Pojoaques, the members of 

the Acequia, and the Acequia water right holders be assured and 

protected in the settlement? Very briefly. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Congressman Luja ́n, the document which is an 

88-page document is extremely complicated, but it has different 

sections. 

As far as the sections are concerned that are covered under Article 8, we feel that they are all protected, all individual water rights 

will be protected. Customary agreements are protected. Even the 

other rural users within the Acequia systems, the mutual domestic 

for example, is a provision for footprint transfers and so forth. 

So we feel that they are all protected. We have run this by all 

parties within the Taos area, and we haven’t had any opposition 

to that. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you very much, Mr. Martinez. 

And Madame Chair, thank you again for allowing me to ask 

some questions today. I hope that we can get some assurance, 

maybe from the Bureau, that they would be willing to meet with 

some of the parties to be able to resolve some of the issues that 

it sounds like we are closer to than not today. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I am allowing you additional time. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you very much, Madame Chair. 

In that regard, Mr. Conyers, Commissioner Connor—you can see 

that Chairman Conyers is on my mind, with all the discussion 

around pending legislation before the House. 

With the concerns that you addressed specifically from the 

Bureau, if those concerns are addressed, the Administration would 

be in a position of stronger support of the whole of the legislation? 

Mr. CONNOR. That is correct. I think that is well established in 

the testimony, that in general, that these bills as currently written 

are in general accord with the principles laid out. 

But the issues identified, if those are resolved, would lead to full 

Administration support. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. And along those lines, Commissioner, is it clear, or 

would you agree with the statement that the Administration understands the importance of the settlements between New Mexico 

and the tribes as it relates to the limitations of water resources in 

both cases? 

Mr. CONNOR. Absolutely. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Madame Chair, with that, I yield back the balance 

of my time, and will stay around for a second round of questions, 

if that does happen. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Certainly. Mr. Heinrich. 

Mr. HEINRICH. Thank you, Chairwoman. I think I am going to 

address this to either Chairman Dorame or Commissioner Connor. 

63 

I want to get back to this issue of what the Federal responsibility 

is here, and why the participation. 

What exactly is the Federal trust responsibility to the tribes regarding water? And is Federal participation in this settlement part 

of that trust responsibility? And I would let either or both of you 

answer the question. 

Mr. CONNOR. That is one of the most complicated questions that 

I think I could be asked on this panel, the nature of the Federal 

responsibility of native water. 

I think fundamentally, as trustee for the tribes’ interest, it starts 

with the fact that the United States files and represents claims on 

behalf of tribes in these general stream adjudications, as having a 

legal interest in those property rights. 

And how it goes beyond that to facilitate the use of those, that 

water, whether it is the adjudicator rights or through a settlement, 

I think is a gray area that is not fully defined. 

I stated earlier, in response to the Ranking Member, that I am 

not sure of the obligation, the legal standards that exist. That is 

a complicated line of Supreme Court cases, is when the Federal 

government is liable for breaching an obligation. 

But clearly I think the trust responsibility, there is the obligation, and then there is the authorization of what the Federal government can do as part of its trust responsibility. And then there 

I would contend that the provision of water, the representation of 

the right, then the facilitation of the use of that right is well within 

the accepted parameters of what the trust responsibility can entail, 

pursuant to how any particular Administration wants to implement 

that. 

Mr. DORAME. Rep. Heinrich, Chairwoman Napolitano, I am not 

an attorney, and I could turn my back and probably get two attorneys to respond. I don’t think that is what you want to hear. 

My people have always been under the contention that the 

Federal government, as a trustee, has responsibility over everything that goes on on the reservations. It would be an opportune 

time for this Committee and this Congress to show exactly what 

trust responsibility means by approving this settlement agreement 

that we set forth. 

It has been long overdue. It has been ensued for 43 years. But 

the actual responsibility probably comes from the 1924 Pueblo 

Land and Water Act, where it spells out that the Federal government would be held responsible for what happens on our reservations. And you know, that is why I said earlier about whatever it 

takes. If I am not here, my grandkids will probably be here. 

So I think it is, you know, it is time that this settlement is done 

with, so that we can continue with our lives. 

Mr. HEINRICH. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Commissioner. 

Mr. Sanders, I have a quick question for you, and it also relates 

to some of the line of questioning from Mr. McClintock. 

I have a little bit of experience with regional water authorities 

because I used to chair the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water 

Authority. And some of the debates over time when that was being 

created statutorily, over the fact that it seemed that basically that 

entity had to be able to create some of the infrastructure to serve 

64 

that actually had eminent domain throughout the state, even 

though it represented a small portion of the state. 

How does the state view the regional water authority that would 

be created under this settlement? And is there any difference in 

standing between this regional water authority and others that, 

like the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority, 

throughout the state? 

Mr. SANDERS. Madame Chair, Congressman, I think it is an excellent question. 

First of all, it is going to require state legislation. And I was 

there testifying on the Albuquerque Bernalillo Water Authority as 

highly controversial. I think it is safe to say today that there is virtually no opposition to it any longer. And I would say just by nature being an apprehensive individual, I am surprised at the degree of success that it has had. 

Having said that, this authority within the domain would only 

occur once created for extensions, for purposes of serving county 

users. That would be an authority that I would think would probably—again, that is going to be up to the Legislature. 

Our recommendation would be to ensure that the county has the 

ability to, you know, to control eminent domain. I think that would 

satisfy the Congressman’s kind of concern he has with eminent domain. Very unpopular. In fact, they have removed eminent domain 

from the authority of municipalities in the last session. 

So we are very cautious in the State of New Mexico. We are 

highly sensitive to that issue. I know I can say that and it might 

change, but certainly the sentiment today in New Mexico is to be 

extremely limited in our exercise and grants of authority of eminent domain. 

Mr. HEINRICH. I would echo your comments, both in terms of the 

appropriate use of eminent domain, and as someone who was highly opposed to the creation of the water utility authority, and who 

ended up chairing it. And to speak as someone who today believes 

it is a very effective approach toward dealing with our water issues 

on a more regional basis. 

So thank you very much, Mr. Sanders. I am going to yield back 

the balance of my time, Chairwoman Napolitano, and thank you 

once again for holding this hearing. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. McClintock. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, I have no further questions, Madame 

Chairwoman. I just ask if, by unanimous consent, since the opposition couldn’t be here today, if we could submit written questions to 

them so they could respond to some of the testimony, to the opposition that is unable to be here today. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Certainly, if you get them in within the next 

10 business days, as required. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Right. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Luja ́n. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you again, Madame Chair. Just a few quick 

questions. 

Mr. Sanders, could you explain the difference between a junior 

and a senior water right holder? 

65 

Mr. SANDERS. Madame Chair, Congressman Luja ́n, in New 

Mexico, like all western states, we adopted the Prior Appropriation 

Doctrine of water right, water administration. 

That means, in the axiom in the West for all of us who grew up 

here, that first in time is first in right. That means, in this instance, the Pueblos who were here first, and have retained their 

ancestral homelands, have the earliest time and priority. And they 

have the right to first exercise of that right. 

Interesting enough, I have had conversations with probably some 

of your ancestors about when do they get to become Native Americans who qualify as not being indigenous people after 400 years, 

because the priority dates go back so far. That is the same issue 

they have with the subsequent movement of the settlement of New 

Mexico, with the expansion of the United States. You know, their 

rights then became, the water supply got further limited by new 

uses by new settlement. So it has been a problem that has gone 

on for a long time. 

The seniors, though, have the right to curtail the juniors. So it 

would be the newest settlers, the newest people to the community, 

the people who most likely rely on domestic wells for their home 

water supply that would be curtailed. That is very significant, and 

it is a very almost disturbing kind of outcome of the draconian nature of the Prior Appropriation Doctrine. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. And Mr. Sanders, along those lines, absent a settlement, could you describe what would happen to senior and junior 

water right holders if there was a call? And what the settlement 

is trying to do to protect all individuals in the Valley there? 

Mr. SANDERS. Madame Chair, Congressman, this, the settlement—and we are talking about both settlements really, but significantly in the Aamodt settlement—is that there is, again, 

through the drought periods of the summer, there is just an inadequate supply of water. 

In order to supply that, in order to facilitate the irrigation by the 

senior water right holders, the Pueblos, they would be entitled to 

call against everyone junior, including the 1690 priority dates for 

some of the Acequias. That is a pretty early cut. 

That means all domestic use would likely be curtailed. Folks 

would have no, they would be unable to reside in their homes without going out and hauling water to their homes. The very situation 

we have tried to avoid, or create a solution to, for the Navajo nation. We would just be recreating the very problems we tried to 

solve with the Navajo nation, we are recreating them here in the 

Nambe, Pojoaque, and Tesuque Valley. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. So if the settlement was adopted, would it protect 

non-Indian water users in the Valley? 

Mr. SANDERS. Madame Chair, Congressman, yes, it would. And 

it also will equally protect—well, not equally protect, but provide 

enhanced protection, far more protection than they have today, for 

any individual who does not sign on the settlement, and does not 

want to be a part of the rural water authority pipeline. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Are there any communities within the Valley, 

Pojoaque Valley, Nambe Valley, Nambe is part of the Pojoaque Valley, the Tesuque Valley, are there any communities within the reVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:23 Mar 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\52312.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
66 

gion that would not be affected or impacted by this settlement? 

That reside outside of where the water flows. 

Mr. SANDERS. Madame Chair, Congressman, I believe the answer 

to that is no. What it does do, though, is the pipeline, when constructed, there will be areas it will not serve within the valley. And 

those folks who do sign on to the settlement and support the settlement, they will be protected as if they, they won’t be required, 

there is no way they will ever be required to hook up the pipeline. 

And they will be treated as a settling party, and they will be entirely protected from prior administration, to my understanding. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Madame Chair, thank you very much. I yield back 

my time. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But these new junior water future customers, 

they would have to pay some money to be able to join, right? 

Mr. SANDERS. Madame Chair, if they were not settling parties, 

the answer is yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Mr. Heinrich? No more. 

Well, thank you for the testimony. I have had great interest in 

reading and listening, and having you answer some of the questions. 

It is really appalling that in this day and age, that there is such 

a water shortage in the Native American lands and that this government has not complied with the commitment made to the 

Native Americans. 

And I would like to ask Mr. Connor if, in any of these areas, is 

USGS looking at any aquifer storage? I realize that there is not 

much water to store. But when there are rains or possibility of including water recycling projects to be able to utilize that water and 

put it into aquifers, if possible. Is there anything being connected 

to that? 

Mr. CONNOR. With respect to pending settlements, I am not 

aware of specifically anywhere where USGS is helping with evaluations of groundwater management. 

I think in general, parties have relied on USGS reports in certain 

areas to help define. And both of these settlements I think really 

took shape once the full understanding of the water resources in 

the respective basins came about. That allowed parties the foundation to negotiate the settlement. 

So I think there has been some general reliance. I know in other 

water issues, USGS is helping to help, to define groundwater situations that might help resolve those issues. But there was another 

part to your question I was going to answer. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, that was water recycling. 

Mr. CONNOR. Water recycling. Not in these particular settlements. But I do know that a fundamental part of the Shivwits 

Band of the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Water Rights Settlement 

that was enacted in 2000 was a water recycling project that the 

City of St. George, Utah was putting in place, that was part of the 

overall resolution of water rights with the Shivwits Paiute tribe. 

So, it has historically been part of a settlement to help resolve 

issues in a particular basin. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And does the panel have any input on that? 

Mr. DORAME. Madame Chair, with permission from the Governor 

of Pojoaque, I would like to answer that by saying that they are 

67 

pursuing wastewater management systems in the area so that they 

can reuse the water for economic purposes and farming. The Pueblo Tesuque also is looking toward that same venture with our nonIndian communities in the area like the Village of Tesuque, Rio en 

Medio, Chipodero. And we hope to begin those kinds of conversations with them. 

And I might add that some of these people that we are trying to 

help are in opposition to our settlement. But that doesn’t deter us 

from the fact that we want to have clean water for everyone. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Excellent. Any help we can give in that regard, we would be happy to, the staff, myself. 

Yes, Commissioner. 

Mr. CONNOR. I was just going to add actually one or a couple of 

mutual benefits projects in the Taos settlement is an aquifer storage and recharge project. So that is part and parcel of the Taos settlement. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I am glad to hear that. There is that fourth 

treatment now rendering the water even pure enough to be able to 

inject into the aquifers, so it would be reused for consumption as 

pure water. 

I don’t have any other questions. Any other statements? Yes, Mr. 

McClintock. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. One more question, just to walk through the 

arrangement in the financing here. 

The settlement gives the tribe rights to a certain portion of the 

water, correct? That they essentially own those rights. 

The taxpayers of the United States kick in a sizable portion of 

the delivery system for that water, correct? 

If the Pueblo doesn’t need all of the water that they have rights 

to, they can sell the surplus, correct? As conveyed through this taxpayer-financed water system. Do I understand that correctly? 

If the Pueblo has surplus water, what does the Pueblo do with 

that? It is up to your discretion, right? 

Mr. DORAME. That is correct. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. OK. So they can sell that, am I correct? 

Mr. DORAME. Well, if a tribe chooses to do so. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Right. 

Mr. DORAME. I am just confused about the question. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So I guess—well, the question is, you are selling it. You are taking money in for it, but the taxpayer, who has 

financed the project, isn’t getting it. 

Mr. DORAME. OK. In New Mexico, Indians pay taxes. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Right. So you pay tax from the profit. 

Mr. DORAME. We are part of that. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. But I mean, you are taking—so the concern I 

am getting at is, is the tribe taking a significant profit by selling 

surplus water that the taxpayers have basically financed. 

Mr. DORAME. Yes, that is right. But we don’t, we are not planning on selling the water. We are planning on holding those water 

rights for future use, for our children’s children. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. No, no, I am not suggesting selling the rights. 

But you have the right to the water. You don’t need to use all that 

water in a single year. You sell the surplus. 

Mr. DORAME. I will let DL answer that. 

68 

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the way it would work is that I 

don’t believe they will be diverting water, treating it, and then be 

selling it just because of the location of where the pipeline would 

be. Fundamentally, it is just not feasible to do that. 

The unused portion of water rights that they do own, though, 

would be made, might be made available on short-term leases, 

under New Mexico law, for purposes of facilitating other uses in 

the state. That is consistent with the prior provision doctrine. 

We don’t just let water float on the rivers, we make beneficial 

use of it. So any water that they are entitled to that they are not 

using would not be treated and then sold, but it would be leased 

to other, other Pueblos, other citizens, cities. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And those other Pueblos, citizens, and cities 

would then be paying the Pueblo for that lease. 

Mr. DORAME. Mr. Chairman, I mean Madame Chair, Congressman, if I understand correctly, yes, I would charge them for it. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And again, that gets back to my concern that 

the taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for it. The system should be financed by the users of the water in proportion to the use. 

Mr. Connor’s response is essentially well, we have always done 

this. We have always done it this way. 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, it is a little bit more than we have always 

done it. With respect to the concern, I mean I sense a concern 

about whether we are constructing systems to deliver water which 

the Pueblos might use, decide to sell that water and not use it in 

those systems. That is not the case with the regional water system. 

I think there are marketing provisions in Aamodt not related to 

the 2,500 acre-feet of water that would be used for the regional 

water system. 

In the Taos settlement there is an opportunity to market water 

that is recognized in the settlement, pursuant to state law. There 

is also an opportunity to subcontract some of the San Juantamo 

project water that is going to be made available to the Pueblo, and 

that is one of the recognized benefits in the settlement. 

In the Taos situation there is not a large infrastructure project 

that is contemplated as part of that settlement to make use of that 

water. So it is recognized that here is an asset that has been reserved for well over 30 years that we are making available as part 

of this settlement, but not to construct facilities that may ultimately not be used. 

The funding that is available in the Taos settlement is for a series of smaller projects, like rehabilitation, wastewater facilities, et 

cetera. And those are the type of projects contemplated. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Luja ́n. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Madame Chair, I guess I am a little confused. 

Former Governor Dorame, Mr. Martinez, or Commissioner Montoya, would the water be used for people to drink? 

Mr. DORAME. Are you talking about treated water, Congressman? 

Or water that would replenish the aquifers in the water system? 

Would people drink that water? If it is clean, yes, I would think 

so. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. If there is a water system that people hook up into 

that goes to their homes, that don’t have access to water, they 

might use that to drink, to make their food, yes. To grow their 

69 

crops in traditional cultural ways that they have done for centuries, for families. Would some of the water rights of the Acequia 

be able to use that for that purpose? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madame Chair, Congressman Luja ́n, I think in 

the case of the ASR project, it is injected, taken out for irrigation. 

It does impact the groundwater, which may be used by some other 

mutual domestic water systems perhaps. That if they do, it would 

be no different than what they do today; take it out and treat it, 

and purify it, and use it again. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. But the Acequias would allow people to grow crops 

for their families, as well? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Congressman, with the ASR project, that is the 

intent, is to recover water that maybe got transferred by the U.S. 

in the 1930s. But we will find a way to compensate for that, and 

this ASR project will do that. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Madame Chair, the reason I ask that question, I just 

want to be very clear here. What we are talking about with some 

of these people are, what happens if there is a drought, where 

there is a water call? They won’t be able to drink, much less bathe, 

cook their food, provide for their families. Communities could disappear. Ways of living in a beautiful part of the country could be 

devastated. 

I just don’t want us to forget, Madame Chair, that we are talking 

about people here and families. In some instances, land that was 

taken by the Federal government. And that is why I believe that 

sovereignty is something that is recognized as a trust by the 

Federal government. And I just don’t want us to lose sight of that. 

Because there are still parts of New Mexico where they don’t have 

running water, parts of the Navajo nation. 

I know that this isn’t part of that, part of the state. But we are 

talking about people here. And I think that is why when, you 

know, we look across this great country of ours, and to see how we 

can support one another to get water where water is needed, in 

times of drought we go in to even help livestock to get them water 

or feed, so that they don’t lose their assets. 

We are talking about people here, as well, Madame Chair. And 

I just really don’t want to lose sight of that. People like Commissioner Montoya are people that I go to church with on Sunday, 

people that I see at the grocery store, at my nephews’ and nieces’ 

Little League games, people that I grew up with, that I respect 

very much. And I just don’t want to lose sight of that. 

Thank you very much, Madame Chair. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Luja ́n. Your comments have 

been very remindful of the piece of legislation that came before us 

on the Navajo Nation. I introduced into the record a drawing by 

some of the children who were asked where the water came from, 

and they drew a water truck. That was introduced into the record. 

So yes, in this day and age it is appalling that we still have those 

situations. And we need to work, the Federal government, our 

agencies that are now really diving into the issue, be cognizant of 

what has been ignored for generations, and do the best that we can 

for you. 

So with that, we thank you for your testimony. And thank you 

for hanging in there with us, Commissioner; I appreciate that. That 

70 

concludes the Subcommittee’s legislative hearing on H.R. 3254 and 

H.R. 3342. 

Thank you again for appearing, for traveling, for bearing with us 

this long hearing. And I prefer sometimes, when we don’t have that 

many people, to ask questions to ensure that everybody gets an opportunity to really get down and ask appropriate questions that 

bring a lot more information to light. 

Your testimonies and expertise have really been very enlightening and helpful. Under Committee Rule 4[h], additional material 

for the record should be submitted within 10 business days after 

today’s hearing. The cooperation of all the witnesses in replying 

promptly to any questions submitted to you in writing will be most 

greatly appreciated. 

So with that, this hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:37 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

[A supplemental statement submitted for the record by Harry B. 

Montoya, Santa Fe County Commissioner, New Mexico, follows:] 

Supplemental Statement submitted for the record by Harry B. Montoya, 

Santa Fe County Commissioner, New Mexico, on H.R. 3342 

Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Member McClintock, I appreciated the opportunity to appear before you at the hearing of H.R. 3342 held on September 9, 

2009. I respectfully submit the following supplemental testimony addressing some 

of the aspects of the non-Pueblo portion of the Regional Water System that will be 

operated by Santa Fe County pursuant to the Aamodt Settlement Agreement. I also 

want to describe additional outreach efforts the County will be undertaking in the 

community to help complete settlement of this difficult dispute. 

I strongly agree with the view of Ranking Member McClintock articulated at the 

hearing that the water system should not be an ‘‘Indian-only’’ system. Water service 

should be made available on a non-discriminatory basis to any County resident 

within the system’s service area. I am confounded by the position of some non-Pueblo parties that would deprive other residents of the right to willingly connect. Under 

the settlement, residents who do not want to connect to the system may keep their 

domestic wells. Why shouldn’t the wishes of other residents who do want to connect 

also be respected and accommodated? 

The position of the Pojoaque Basin Water Alliance is that no one will hook up, 

and therefore the County portion of the system should not be built. That position 

is not credible for a number of reasons. First, under the settlement new users in 

the valley will be required to hook-up. Although the County has designated the 

Pojoaque Basin as a ‘‘low-growth’’ area, the number of new users will add up over 

time. 

More significantly, I am convinced many existing water users will decide to connect. The settlement agreement contains financial incentives to make connection to 

the system desirable. For example, existing water users choosing to connect will not 

pay hook-up fees and will not be charged for water rights acquisitions. The County 

is acutely aware that the monthly cost of service must be affordable and will structure utility finances to keep customer rates down. Importantly, the system will offer 

a clean, reliable supply. Water sampling in the valley has shown a number of areas 

of poor or declining water quality. Over time and as existing wells begin to need 

replacement, I am certain that many residents will be glad the system is available 

to them. 

Criticism by the PBWA of the cost of the County portion of the system also misses 

the mark. All of the costs to design, engineer and construct the County system, including distribution lines, are included in the September 2008 Engineering Report 

and are reflected in the Cost-Sharing and System Integration Agreement. For example, Table 5-5 of the Report shows more than $30 million in state and local pipeline 

costs to pay for distribution lines and for increasing the size of transmission lines 

to provide up to 1,500 acre-feet of capacity for the County water utility. 

It is important to note that 1,500 acre-feet is the maximum capacity of the County 

system and that subsection 101(d)(2) of the bill provides a mechanism to modify sysVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:23 Mar 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\52312.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
71 

tem size and capacity if the parties to the Cost-Sharing Agreement determine that 

a smaller capacity is appropriate to meet customer demand. Obviously any decision 

to modify system size and capacity must be made before the system is engineered 

and constructed. With assistance of a reputable engineering firm the County is in 

the process of analyzing customer demand scenarios. Because both the State and 

County will be investing millions of dollars in the County system, it is critical that 

the system be sized optimally to meet customer demand and the purposes of settlement. 

The last area I want to discuss is the vexing problem of achieving a settlement 

that has widespread community support. As I have testified, the settlement is a 

carefully constructed compromise—a product of serious give and take by parties desiring a better path than continual litigation. Under the settlement, existing nonPueblo uses will be protected, far better than the most optimistic litigation outcome. 

At the hearing DL Sanders, the Chief Counsel for the New Mexico State Engineer, 

succinctly laid out the jeopardy facing junior non-Pueblo water users in the absence 

of settlement. He described the serious risk during summer months of curtailment 

of non-Pueblo ground and surface water users. Written submissions by the two largest non-Pueblo surface water user groups also acknowledged that risk and emphasized the great benefit of settlement in protecting non-Pueblo water users. Nonetheless, any water users opposing the settlement will have the right to raise their objections with the federal court. 

I recognize that some of my non-Pueblo constituents continue to be dissatisfied 

with the settlement. Consequently, the County will be conducting a series of community outreach and settlement focus meetings in the coming months. The purpose 

of the meetings will be to hear public concerns and to provide information about the 

settlement. Although a number of community members oppose the settlement, no 

one has provided a viable alternative. For example, as I have discussed, the proposal by the PBWA to eliminate part of the water system is not constructive. Oftentimes it is easier to be a critic than it is to come up with real solutions. This is 

especially so in the context of settling the Aamodt case, where many decades of 

grievances have tortured our path. 

The settlement process has taken a long time and has encountered many obstacles, but the settling parties have continued to work hard, after years of good faith 

and painstaking negotiations, to arrive at something that will work. The settlement 

will achieve a fair and equitable resolution of the difficult and entrenched water disputes that have festered in our valley for so many years. 

In conclusion, I want to thank the Chairwoman and Ranking Member for your 

thoughtful questions and remarks at the hearing and for considering this supplemental statement. On behalf of Santa Fe County, I urge the Committee on Natural 

Resources to mark-up H.R. 3342 and to send this important legislation to the floor 

of the U.S. House of Representatives. 

[A statement submitted for the record by Governor George 

Rivera, Pueblo of Pojoaque, follows:] 

Statement submitted for the record by Governor George Rivera, 

Pueblo of Pojoaque on H.R. 3342 

This statement addresses the concern raised by Ranking Member Tom McClintock 

at the Legislative Hearing held by the Subcommittee on September 9, 2009, namely, 

why should United States citizens outside of the Pojoaque Basin pay for ‘‘a local 

water settlement’’ such as the proposed Aamodt settlement? The question deserves 

a response. 

The hearing concerned the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act (H.R. 3342), a comprehensive settlement of the Indian Water Rights Claims of the Pueblos of Nambe, 

Pojoaque, San Ildefonso and Tesuque (‘‘the four Pueblos’’). The proposed legislation 

would settle an issue that has plagued Congress since the ratification of the Treaty 

of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. The proposed settlement would resolve the New 

Mexico v. Aamodt case, filed in 1966 and now the longest-standing Indian water litigation in the Federal court system. 

During the September 9, 2009 hearing, in a burst of alliterative fancy, the distinguished gentleman from California, Congressman Tom McClintock, persuasively 

asked why the people of Poughkeepsie and Pomona should pay for the water of the 

Pueblo of Pojoaque. The simple answer is that Congress should keep promises made 

through treaties and legislation. Congress ratified the Treaty of Peace, Friendship, 

Limits and Settlement, commonly referred to as the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 

1848. Congress, through successive and consistent acts after the Treaty of GuadaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:23 Mar 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\52312.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
72 

lupe Hidalgo, has promised to recognize and protect the property rights of the Pueblos. In 1924, Congress admitted that it had failed to protect the property rights of 

the Pueblos. The Pueblo Lands Act of 1924 and the Pueblo Lands Act Amendments 

of 1933 were designed to correct the problem. 

Despite these efforts, Congress has not lived up to its promise and the Pueblos 

suffer from lack of a clean, stable source of water. The Four Pueblos, through consistent requests, have repeatedly petitioned Congress to do what it has promised to 

do. The House committees have heard these petitions for almost a century. 

H.R. 3342 goes a long way in meeting the obligations assumed by Congress and the 

American people. As for the people of Poughkeepsie and New York, they shed their 

blood in the Mexican War. Their sacrifice resulted in the land of the Pueblos being 

brought from the dominion of Mexico to the dominion of the United States. 

A review of the Congressional history surrounding the Pueblos of New Mexico 

should suffice to reawaken the institutional memory. By 1846, the Pueblos were established on their ancestral homelands for approximately a thousand years. In 1846, 

the Pueblos were under the dominion of the Mexican government. At the same time, 

Mexico refused to recognize the annexation of Texas, formerly part of Mexico, by the 

United States. After hostilities broke out in April 1846, President James K. Polk 

sent a special message to Congress. In May 1846, the House and Senate, by very 

large majorities (174 to 14, and 40 to 2), voted 50,000 men and $10,000,000 to prosecute the war against Mexico. All of the United States joined in the war. Like most 

American businessmen, the shipbuilders of Poughkeepsie profited. The shipping industry turned from building and servicing whaling ships to building a schooner. The 

schooner M. Vassar was built in 1846 and immediately chartered by the government 

and sent to Vera Cruz with stores for the army. New York answered the call to 

arms and provided two regiments of volunteers for service in California and Mexico. 

U.S. soldiers occupied Santa Fe, New Mexico and established control over the territory, including the Pueblos. The country called the nation to war—the citizens responded. 

Ultimately, the war was successfully prosecuted and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed. As the price to pay for the blood shed by the American soldiers, 

and for $15,000,000 paid by the United States to Mexico, the Mexican government 

ceded the lands of New Mexico (which included Arizona) and California and recognized the Rio Grande as the southern and western boundary of Texas. In Article 

VIII of the Treaty, the United States obligated itself to recognize and protect the 

property rights of the Pueblos. The Treaty was ratified by the Senate by a vote of 

38 to 14 on March 10, 1848. 

Almost immediately upon ratification, the American government failed to protect 

the Pueblos’ property rights. The territorial and federal courts declared that the 

Pueblo Indians were not to be protected by laws designed to protect wandering savage Indians. Encroachment upon the Pueblo lands was rampant. In New Mexico, 

lands without water were worthless. The Pueblos, located next to the invaluable Rio 

Grande, were subject to mass settlement by squatters and encroachment. The Pueblos were finally recognized as Indians deserving of federal protection by the United 

States Supreme Court in the case of U.S. v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1913). 

After the Sandoval decision, titles to lands within the Pueblos were in chaos. The 

federal government had failed to protect the lands since 1848 and now no one knew 

who had clear title to those lands. The Pueblos, with the of the irrigable lands possessed by outsiders, were in dire straits. Congress decided to step in. 

The extent of the Pueblos’ problem is reflected in Exhibit A, a Santa Fe New 

Mexican December 5, 1922 reprint of an article appearing in The New Republic, 

‘‘The Death of the Pueblos, Tesuques Starving.’’ Misappropriation of water was identified as the major cause of the Pueblos’ rapid deterioration. 

By 1923, the word reached Congress that because of the scarcity of water, the 

Four Pueblos involved in the current legislation were starving and that their thousand-year-old Pueblo culture was in danger of extinction. 

Dear Mr. King: 

Early last fall the Government was asked to provide rations for the Pueblos 

of Tesuque and San Ildefonso. Last week we heard that the stock of San 

Ildefsonso was dying.’’ 

We learned that there was no more feed in the pueblos, that three horses 

had starved to death, that the cattle were in very, very poor condition... 

The situation at Tesuque yis worse. They have a little hay left, but only 

because the council decided to feed the work teams and let the others 

starve. They have lost three horses and do not know how many cattle... 

73 

It is, however, the human situation at Tesuque that has become acute. The 

Government rations are delivered to the Indians at Espanola. It is a 48- 

mile round trip from Tesuque over heavy sandy roads, and the undersized, 

weakened Indian horses cannot haul over 500 pounds at a trip. In the cold 

weather we are now having it is a terrible drive for the men, as they are 

undernourished and poorly clad. But the most pathetic and terrible thing 

is to feel that their morale is breaking. The lieutenant governor asserted 

proudly, ‘‘Yes, we’re short of grub, but we’re not begging.’’ And they are not 

begging... ‘‘Yes; we like to have a garden and our own vegetables. Yes; our 

women can dry them. But what’s the use. We don’t have no water. We plant 

them, but in June they all dry up and our work and seed is all wasted. 

There isn’t any use unless we get the water. Our patent says we have a 

right to the water for four days a week, but last summer we didn’t have 

it at all, not even for one day. There isn’t any use doing anything unless 

we can get the water.’’ 

February 5, 1923 Letter from Margaret McKittrick, New Mexico Association 

of Indian Affairs, quoted in Hearings before Committee on Indian Affairs, 

House of Representatives, 67th Congress, 232-33 (1923). 

Coast-to-coast, the American people found the Pueblo Indians to be ‘‘exploited, 

pauperized and humiliated.’’ As Theodore Roosevelt stated, ‘‘The Pueblos are one of 

America’s most priceless possessions. Let us cherish them tenderly and proudly!’’ 

Exhibit B, Santa Fe New Mexican, February 17, 1923. 

Citing the moral duty to rectify the Congressional neglect that led to the encroachment of the Pueblos’ land and water, Congress passed the Pueblo Lands Act 

of 1924. The Pueblo Lands Act of 1924 provided that the Pueblos were to receive 

compensation for their damages as a result of the United States’ failure to seasonably protect Pueblo lands and water. Money damages, though, was not the ultimate 

goal. Section 19 of the Pueblo Lands Act of 1924 states: 

That all sums of money which may hereafter be appropriated by the Congress of the United States for the purpose of paying in whole or in part any 

liability found or decreed under this Act from the United States to any 

pueblo or to any of the Indians of any pueblo, shall be paid over to the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, which Bureau, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, shall use such moneys at such times and in such 

amounts as may seem wise and proper for the purpose of the purchase of 

lands and water rights to replace those which have been lost to said pueblo 

or to said Indians, or for purchase or construction of reservoirs, irrigation 

works, or the making of other permanent improvements upon, or for the 

benefit of lands held by said pueblo or said Indians. 

43 Stat. 636, 642 (emphasis added). 

Despite the lofty goals of the Pueblo Lands Act of 1924, the goal of replacing the 

lands and water rights has never been realized. 

The supply of water in the Rio Grande and Colorado River is limited. Since 1924, 

the federal government, who has recognized its duty to protect the Pueblos’ land and 

water has looked the other way. When Colorado, New Mexico and Texas agreed in 

the Rio Grande Compact to allocate the waters of the Rio Grande to their respective 

states it appeared that the water supply for the Indian tribes might be limited by 

that Compact. The federal government saw the danger and made no demand that 

Indian rights be protected. 

The Pueblos have never waived their right to seek to enforce the United States’ 

duty to secure and protect replacement land and water rights. Recognizing their 

Congressional predecessors’ failed attempts to protect the Pueblos’ water rights, the 

inability of 42 years (at the time) of litigation to rectify the water problem, and the 

necessity of Congressional action, the New Mexico delegation has continually supported the efforts of the local governments to find a sensible, fair solution to guarantee a clean, continual, guaranteed source of water for all the Pueblos and their 

non-Indian neighbors. 

During the 110th Congress, while acutely cognizant of the long and fractious history of Pueblo water rights in New Mexico and the responsibilities of the federal 

government, New Mexico Senators Peter Domenici and Jeff Bingaman introduced 

S.3381, a bill similar to H.R. 3342. 

Senator Peter Domenici’s September 11, 2008 testimony before the Senate Indian 

Affairs Committee deserves to be heard again, and again, by any Member of Congress considering such legislation. The statement reflects the frustration over the 

lack of action on the Pueblos’ water settlements and the advice of one of the most 

knowledgeable and long-standing Members of Congress. 

74 

Sen. Domenici: Well let me say and let me say this especially to our Chairman... I say this to you and our Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I believe these 

settlements ought to be approved by our committee, and I’m going to ask 

that we do it in spite of the opposition of the Administration... I don’t believe we’re going to be able to negotiate anything for a lesser amount of 

money... 

I do believe the position of the federal government that they will not comment positively about the settlement costs is wrong, in this case, and it’s 

not going to be getting any better. 

More cases are coming and were not going to, nobody up here is going to 

sit up here and sit around and take OMB’s evaluations of these things 

when they know less about what’s going on than most of us. I can tell you, 

you can’t say it, but I can, I’ve had to go to the President on items of significance for this country when OMB didn’t care what the situation was and 

it didn’t take the President five minutes to decide they were wrong... 

But I tell you they’re making some bad mistakes of judgment in their recommendations and this is one of them. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

75 

[A statement submitted for the record by the Pojoaque Basin 

Water Alliance follows:] 


52312.003.eps
76 


52312.004.eps
77 

[A letter submitted for the record by The Honorable Bill 

Richardson, Governor, State of New Mexico, follows:] 


52312.001.eps
78 

The documents listed below have been retained in the 

Committee’s official files: 

• D’Antonio, John R., Jr., P.E., New Mexico State Engineer, 

Interstate Stream Commission Secretary, Letter to Congressmen Luja ́n, Heinrich, and Teague submitted for the record 

• ‘‘A Memorial Requesting Continued Funding for Native American Water Rights Settlements’’ submitted for the record 

• Montoya, Hon. Harry B., Commissioner of District 1, Santa Fe 

County Commission, Santa Fe, New Mexico, Letter to Hon. 

Ben Ray Luja ́n submitted for the record 

• Rio de Tesuque Acequia Association, Letter to Senators Bingaman and Udall, and Congressmen Luja ́n, Teague, and Heinrich 

submitted for the record 

• Pojoaque Valley Irrigation District, Letter to Luja ́n, Teague, 

and Heinrich submitted for the record 

• Rivera, Governor George, Pueblo of Pojoaque, Letter to 

Congressman Ben Ray Luja ́n submitted for the record 

Æ 


52312.002.eps