SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
50–754 CC l
1998
H.R. 3478, AND H.R. 745
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 3478
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
THE COLORADO UTE SETTLEMENT ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1998
H.R. 745
A BILL TO DEAUTHORIZE THE ANIMAS-LA PLATA FEDERAL RECLAMATION PROJECT
JULY 28, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC
Serial No. 105–103
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
LINDA SMITH, Washington
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
GEORGE MILLER, California
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
SAM FARR, California
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ADAM SMITH, Washington
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff
ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel
CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator
JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California, Chairman
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
LINDA SMITH, Washington
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
GEORGE MILLER, California
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
SAM FARR, California
ADAM SMITH, Washington
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
————— —————
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
————— —————
ROBERT FABER, Staff Director/Counsel
JOSHUA JOHNSON, Professional Staff
STEVE LANICH, Minority Staff
C O N T E N T S
Hearing held July 28, 1998
Statement of Members:
DeFazio, Hon. Peter A., a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon
Prepared statement of
Doolittle, Hon. John T., a Representative in Congress from the State of California
McInnis, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado
Prepared statement of
Petri, Hon. Thomas E., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin
Prepared statement of
Redmond, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Mexico
Prepared statement of
Statement of Witnesses:
Arthur, George, Vice Chairman, Resources Committee, The Navajo Nation Accounts
Atcitty, Thomas E., President, the Navajo Nation, prepared statement of
Duncan, Mark, Chair, San Juan Water Commission, and Chairman Pro Tem, San Juan County Commission, New Mexico
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement of
Frost, Clement, Chairman, Southern Ute Indian Tribe; accompanied by Leonard C. Burch, Past President and Council Member
Prepared statement of
Isgar, Jim, Member, The Animas-La Plata Water Conservancy District
Prepared statement of
Knight-Frank, Judy, Chairman, The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
Prepared statement of
Martinez, Eluid, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior
Prepared statement of
Potter, Lori, Attorney, Kelly/Haglund/Garnsey/ & Kahn LLC, Denver, Colorado
Prepared statement of
Remington, Sage Douglas, Southern Ute Grassroots Organization
Prepared statement of
Romer, Hon. Roy, Governor of the State of Colorado
Turney, Thomas C., State Engineer, State of New Mexico
Prepared statement of
Utton, Orion, President, Animas River Agricultural Water Users Association, San Juan County, New Mexico
Prepared statement of
Additional material supplied:
Blassingame, Charles, Board Member, La Plata Conservancy District, La Plata, New Mexico, prepared statement of
Griswold, Richard K. (Mike), Board Member, The Animas-La Plata Water Conservancy District, prepared statement of
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Johnson, Hon. Gary E., Governor, State of New Mexico, prepared statement of
Klapper, Gail H., Member-Director, Colorado Forum, prepared statement of
Kroeger, Fred V., President, Southwestern Water Conservation District, prepared statement of
Norton, Gale A., Attorney General, Colorado, prepared statement of
Pakootas, Joseph A., Chairman, Colville Business Council, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation, prepared statement of
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Southern Ute Indian Tribe, prepared statement of
Communications submitted:
''Revised Animas-La Plata, A Report to the San Juan Water Comission''
Res. 98-921, charts, etc.
HEARING ON H.R. 3478, THE COLORADO UTE SETTLEMENT ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1998 AND H.R. 745, A BILL TO DEAUTHORIZE THE ANIMAS-LA PLATA FEDERAL RECLAMATION PROJECT
TUESDAY, JULY 28, 1998
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:04 p.m., in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John T. Doolittle (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. DOOLITTLE. The Subcommittee on Water and Power will come to order.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Today, the Subcommittee will hear from witnesses regarding the Animas-La Plata Federal Reclamation Project. As many of you are aware, in 1996, Colorado Governor Roy Romer and Lieutenant Governor Gail Schoettler began discussions with its supporters and opponents. The original authorized Animas-La Plata Project, H.R. 3478, introduced by Mr. McInnis is based upon those negotiations.
This bill is a modified Animas-LaPlata Project that includes a 260,000-acre feet reservoir, a pumping plant, and inlet conduit. H.R. 745, offered by Ranking Minority Member Mr. DeFazio, would deauthorize the project. One major difference from the original authorized project is a change in the anticipated diversion of water from the Animas River. In 1996, the biological opinion was issued that determined that additional water would be needed to accommodate the environmental concerns in the Animas River. With this information, the change in the allowable depletion was negotiated and project beneficiaries agreed to reduce the annual water depletion to approximately 57,000 acre feet.
Additionally, Mr. McInnis' bill addresses the construction of the selection of the original component of the project. It does not deauthorize any of the 1986 Animas-La Plata Project, as H.R. 745 does. It is anticipated that even if H.R. 3478 became law and the reservoir pumping plant and inlet conduit are built, both Indian and non-Indian stakeholders will need additional financial assistance to complete the original authorized Animas-La Plata Project.
Although the costs for the project have been reduced, this phased approach leaves open the question of where the money will come from for any future phase that may be needed to complete the original authorized project. Those future issues must be addressed for the project to deliver water to the majority of the intended beneficiaries. Other possibilities involving in the sale of water may affect those questions.
While there is no question about the need to settle the Indian water rights issues and improve the water systems in the affected communities, it is essential to identify the appropriate funding mechanisms to resolve those problems. I'm looking forward today to hearing from our witnesses regarding their ideas and how to remedy these water supply issues, as well as how to most appropriately fund the construction of the entire authorized project or as such components are deemed essential. I'll also be interested in each party's view of what would happen after construction. Why the original plan shouldn't be followed and which compromises they see as critical.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We'll recognize Mr. DeFazio for his comments when he arrives.
I think in the interest of time, we'll begin with Mr. McInnis and Mr. Petri, who's just arriving. Then when Governor Romer—oh, he'll be on the first panel.
Let me just say, because of the extraordinary situation we have today with the services for the slain officers, it is my intent to take the Members first on this panel. It's my understanding it'll be a quorum call near 2:30. We'll recess and go over for the memorial services. Those are expected to be about one-half hour, beginning at 3 p.m. Then we'll reconvene immediately following that. So it's anticipated, if they stick to schedule, we might be able to back here and reconvene by about 3:45 p.m. Otherwise, it will 4 o'clock.
So, Mr. McInnis, we're pleased to have you here and recognize you for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT McINNIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I might note that there have been comments that we need to settle the Indian water rights issue. I should bring to the attention of the Committee we have settled the Indian water rights issue on a number of occasions. But continually the United States Government—primarily through its elected bodies and some of the more radical environmental groups, in my opinion—have pulled the U.S. Government from the agreement that they've made. In other words, they have breached the settlement that was made.
I do thank you and the members of the Subcommittee. I'll point out one other thing, Mr. Chairman. The poster that you see up here, that is the full Animas-La Plata Project. Working with the Lieutenant Governor and Governor of the State of Colorado—both Democrats—and coming up with some type of reduced or light Animas-La Plata, we came up with S.R. 1771. You'll see what S.R. 1771 contains that the full Animas-La Plata—or what's excluded from the full Animas-La Plata.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I appreciated the opportunity to come over here today, Mr. Chairman, before the Committee on behalf of H.R. 3478, which is a bill to amend the Colorado Ute Water Rights Settlement Act to provide for a final distribution of the claims of the Colorado Ute Indian Tribes.
I introduced this legislation on March 17, 1998. More importantly, I would like to commend you on your continued involvement on this issue, as we work to satisfy the terms of the Colorado Ute Water Rights Settlement Act. As you know today's hearing is the first crucial step that must be taken to ensure that the Federal Government does not fail once again to fulfill the commitment that they made to the Ute tribe. I, along with the State of Colorado, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe, the Animas-La Plata Water Conservancy District, the Southwestern Water Conservation District will represent the Colorado component of the project and testify in support of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3478 focuses on the three main requirements necessary to fulfill our Nation's obligations to the Ute Tribes. First, it calls for a storage reservoir to be built to hold the promised water. Second, the bill provides the conveyance needed to transport the water to the reservoir. Finally, the legislation would guarantee the Ute Tribe the water in that reservoir. These three items are the minimum needed to fulfill the obligation the United States has contractually made with the Ute Indian Tribe.
This agreement was signed back in the sixties—the 1860's. The Treaty of 1868 promised the Ute Indian Tribes a permanent, reliable source of water. In 1988, another agreement, the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, reaffirmed those rights.
I would note, Mr. Chairman, I was in the State legislature on the Agriculture Committee, chairman of the Agriculture Committee for a number of years, when we made that agreement. I should also note there was not one environmental group, not one outside party, who objected to that agreement; everyone agreed to it.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Under H.R. 3478, the outstanding water rights on Animas-La Plata Rivers of the Ute Mountain Ute and the Southern Indian Tribes would be resolved by the construction of three facilities—the Durango pumping plant, the inlet conduit, and the Ridge Basin Reservoir. The facilities were approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act. Additionally, the tribes would receive 33,050 acre feet of the 57,100 acre feet depletion approved by Fish and Wildlife for use from the these three facilities.
H.R. 3478 would also provide much-needed water for a dry-year supply from the New Mexico cities of Farmington, Aztec, and Bloomfield. The new proposal eliminates the pre-existing water quality concerns because the legislation would no longer require the construction of all of phase 1 of the original project. More importantly, H.R. 3478 would ensure that this important settlement could be achieved consistent with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act.
Finally, the 1988 Act called for a larger project than is before us now which had a price tag of $681 million. H.R. 3478 is expected to be $400 million less.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3478 is the result of discussions between the project supporters and opponents that were initiated by the State of Colorado and the Secretary of Interior Babbitt. Both sides of the dispute regarding the Animas-La Plata were asked to develop an alternative they believe met the purposes of the ALP. Last summer, both sides came forth with their proposals. The two Ute Tribes have formally rejected the project opponents' proposal to provide the tribes with money rather than water.
Additionally, the State of Colorado and local water users have also strongly opposed that concept. Furthermore, the tribal leadership has rejected the concept of buying existing State water rights, primarily because of the uncertainty and inflexibility of the resulting water supply, as well as the difficulties that would arise over management and taxation of the purchased resources.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As the Subcommittee is aware, it has always been the tribal objective to obtain a firm supply of water to meet their present and future needs without displacing the uses of their non-Indian neighbors. Congress recognized this in 1988 by stating that only a storage facility can accomplish that goal.
Simply put, Mr. Chairman, a scaled-down version of the Animas-La Plata Project has been altered to address concerns raised about the original project. The Ute Tribes have accepted this proposal even though it is significantly less than what they were first offered. The tribes are not accepting a smaller offer because it meets all their needs. The Utes are willing to accept this deal for a very simple reason—the tribes need water. They need water.
The Ute Indians are hoping they can rely on the Animas-La Plata Project for the water needs and they are hoping they can rely on the government that promised them the water in the 1860's to follow-through on delivering this water. Opponents of this project have said that they cannot agree with a project that does not have to complete the usual environmental studies and requirements. I completely agree with them. An undertaking of this magnitude will make a big impact and the environmental aspects of it should be studied. It is good, then, that so much work has been done on the environmental situation. The Bureau of Reclamation has already spent $20 million on environmental studies. Fish and Wildlife is determined that a depletion amount of 57,100 acre feet will not endanger native fish.
I believe that any further demands for environmental work at this point are clearly and merely stalling tactics. There are many reasons to support this project. I think the best reason is not because a larger project was already authorized by Congress, not because it's 10 years overdue, not even because it may save the country over $400 million. The best reason, Mr. Chairman, is simply this project should be supported is because it is the duty and the Treaty obligation of the United States to the Ute Indian Tribes.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McInnis follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT MCINNIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the members of the Subcommittee on Water and Power for holding this hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on behalf of H.R. 3478, a bill to amend the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act to provide for a final settlement of the claims of the Colorado Ute Indian Tribes. I introduced this legislation on March 17, 1998. More importantly I would like to commend you on your continued involvement in this process as we work to satisfy the terms of the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act. As you know, today's hearing is the first crucial step that must be taken to ensure that the Federal Government does not fail to fulfill the commitment we have made to the Ute tribes.
I, along with, the State of Colorado, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe, the Animas-La Plata Water Conservancy District, and the Southwestern Water Conservation District, will represent the Colorado component of the project and testify in support of H.R. 3478.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3478 focuses on the three main requirements necessary to fulfill our nation's obligation to the Ute Tribes. First, it calls for a storage reservoir to be built to hold the promised water. Second, the bill provides the conveyance needed to transport water to the reservoir. Finally, the legislation would guarantee the Ute tribes the water in that reservoir. These three items are the minimum needed to fulfil the obligation the United States has with the Ute Indian Tribe. This agreement was signed back in the 60's—the 1860's. The treaty of 1868 promised the Ute Indian Tribes a permanent, reliable source of water. In 1988, another agreement, the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, reaffirmed these rights.
Under H.R. 3478, the outstanding water rights on the Animas and La Plata Rivers of the Ute Mountain Ute and Southern Ute Indian Tribes would be resolved by the construction of the three facilities, the Durango Pumping Plant, the inlet conduit, and Ridges Basin Reservoir, these facilities were approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. Additionally, the Tribes would receive 33,050 acre feet of the 57,100 acre feet of depletion approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service for use from these three facilities. H.R. 3478 would also provide much needed water for dry year supplies for the New Mexico cities of Farmington, Aztec and Bloomfield. The new proposal eliminates the pre-existing water quality concerns because the legislation would no longer require the construction of all of Phase I of the original Project. More importantly, H.R. 3478 would ensure that this important settlement could be achieved consistent with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. Finally, the 1988 Act, called for a larger project than is before us now, which had a price tag of about $681 million, H.R. 3748 is expected to be $400 million less.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3478 is the result of discussions between project supporters and opponents that were initiated by the State of Colorado and Secretary of the Interior Babbitt. Both sides of the dispute regarding Animas La Plata (ALP) were asked to develop an alternative that they believed met the purpose of the ALP. Last summer, both sides came forward with their proposals. The two Ute tribes have formally rejected the project opponents' proposal to provide the tribes with money rather than wet water. Additionally, the State of Colorado and local water users have also strongly opposed that concept. Furthermore, the tribal leadership has rejected the concept of buying existing state water rights, primarily because of the uncertainty and inflexibility of the resulting water supply, as well as the difficulties that would arise over the management and taxation of the purchased resources. As the Subcommittee is aware, it has always been the tribal objective to obtain a firm supply of water to meet their present and future needs without displacing the uses of their non-Indian Neighbors. Congress recognized this in 1988 by stating that, only a storage facility can accomplish that goal.
Simply put, the scaled down version of the Animas La Plata Project has been altered to address concerns raised about the original project. The Ute Tribes have accepted this proposal even though it is significantly less than what they were first offered. The Tribes are not accepting a smaller offer because it meets all their needs. The Utes are willing to accept this deal for a very simple reason: The Tribes need water. The Ute Indians are hoping they can rely on the Animas La Plata Project for their water needs, and they are hoping they can rely on the Government, that promised them that water, to follow through on delivering the water.
Opponents of this project have said they cannot agree with a project that does not have to complete the usual environmental studies and requirements. I agree with them. An undertaking of this magnitude will make a big impact, and the environmental aspects of it should be studied. It is good, then, that so much work has been done on the environmental situation. The Bureau of Reclamation has itself spent about $20 million on environmental studies and the Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the depletion amount of 57,100 acre feet will not endanger native fish. I believe, that any further demands for environmental work, at this point, are merely stalling tactics.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are many reasons to support this project. I think the best reason is not because a larger project was already authorized by Congress, not because it is ten years overdue, and not even because it may save the country over $400 million. The best reason is simply that this project should be supported because it is the duty and treaty obligation of the United States to the Ute Indian Tribes. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. The Chair will recognize our Ranking Member for the purposes of making his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETER A. DeFAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I regret that I was delayed a few minutes in arriving. This really is—although this is called ''Animas-La Plata Lite'' by some, we're really revisiting many of the defects of the original Animas-La Plata Project. In fact, the original Animas-La Plata Project would still be authorized, as should be Mr. McInnis' bill should be passed. In fact, it has a special provision for—in H.R. 3478 for section 4(b) providing the State of Colorado's uncommitted cost share dollars can be used to build the full project.
The bill suffers from the degree of consistency with the Committee's usual action which is waiving environmental laws—Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act—as we've done recently with all water projects on the Committee. And would, therefore, be subject to the same threat of veto by the President should it go through the House and the Senate in this form—as a number of other bills which this Committee has taken up in recent weeks—which is unfortunate to waste everyone's time in that manner.
Further, of course, the ongoing allegation is that what we want to do is a project to meet the rights of the tribes here. This has the same problem as the original Animas-La Plata and that it's going to deliver water pumped uphill but not to the reservation. You know, it's not clear whether that water would or could ever be delivered to the reservation. I'm committed, as is Commissioner Martinez, who I believe we'll hear from later and others, that we meet our Treaty obligations. That we deliver water—real water—to the tribe for their use. But I would suggest that rushing forward with H.R. 3478, at this point and time, is not going to meet the deadlines—the very real deadlines that loom. That is, under the original agreement, the tribe has until 2005 to return to court to obtain its settlement through the courts for each Treaty rights.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If this project were started on October 1st, Bureau of Rec isn't—certainly isn't prepared to do that—but if all environmental laws were waived; if this Committee did sanction this project; and if for some reason the White House didn't veto—the President—the project would be anticipated to be completed about 2010. Again, with no certain delivery to the tribes. I believe the tribes would, in all probability, then refile in—before the end of 2005—and we'd be right back where we started pending litigation except for a few hundred million dollars that the Federal taxpayers would be laying out for Animas-La Plata Lite. So I will oppose legislation should it move and would support the White House and its threats of a veto. I thank the chairman for his indulgence.
[The prepared statement of Peter DeFazio follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. PETER A. DEFAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Chairman:
H.R. 3478 suffers from a host of defects. It is an effort to rush a large water project into construction without adequate cost-benefit analysis or environmental review. We don't even have a reliable estimate of the cost of this new and unstudied project. The bill waives environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. It creates an unprecedented new subsidy for non-Indian water users. And not only does it fail to deliver a single drop of water to the Indian tribes it is supposed to benefit, the Bureau of Reclamation questions whether the facilities included in H.R. 3478 would even be able to function independently.
Let's not be deceived by talk of something called Animas-La Plata Lite. H.R. 3478 is all about building the original Animas-La Plata project. The bill's supporters make that perfectly clear by their refusal to consider deauthorizing those portions of the original project that go beyond the scope of A-LP Lite. H.R. 3478 spells it out in section 4(b) by providing that the State of Colorado's uncommitted cost-share dollars can be used to build the full project.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I heartily endorse and support the position taken by Commissioner Martinez and the Bureau. We all share a desire to satisfy the legitimate water rights claims of the Ute Indians. Let's be clear that much has already been done towards that end. The Bureau has completed construction of the Dolores Project to enable delivery of water to the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation. More than $60 million in development funds have been provided to the two Tribes. Final consent decrees have been entered into on all rivers where the Tribes claim water in order to supply agreed upon quantities of water to the two Tribes.
I share Commissioner Martinez's support for delivering additional wet water for the Tribes' use. A-LP Lite doesn't do that. At a minimum, this new proposal needs to undergo the same kind of study and review that my Republican colleagues would insist upon for any other large expenditure of public funds. There is absolutely no justification for rushing this into law before that review is complete.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Mr. Redmond, you're recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL REDMOND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Mr. REDMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing—for giving me the opportunity to show my support for H.R. 3478, the Animas-La Plata Water Project.
As you know, the Animas-La Plata Project has been controversial work-in-progress for over four decades. In spite of what you just heard, that we're rushing forward, I think 150 years is long enough for us to keep our word. As Members of Congress who do not represent districts in the West, who do not understand the situation with water that we have in the four corners area of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona—this is one of the most significant areas—one of the most significant projects for the four corners area. But one of the largest tribal populations in America, I want you to understand why this project is necessary.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I don't know how many of your are from the Southwest, but as you probably know, it's dry in the Southwest. Water is not a small matter where we live. Here in Washington, DC, which is built over swamp, and Virginia and Maryland, you don't have to go far to find a stream, or a river, or a lake, or an ocean. In New Mexico, you could drive hundreds of miles without seeing a drop of water. When a community in the Southwest begins to grow and expand like the communities in Farmington and the San Juan area, support for those communities is dependent on a water supply.
When a tribe, or tribes, in the remote area of the four corners such as the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and the Southern Ute Tribe are still carrying their water in buckets from the rivers to their homes—a water supply plan is necessary. These two issues are the reason that I support H.R. 3478 to authorize the funding and construction of the Animas-La Plata Water Project. After 40 years of discussions about its importance, in 1986 Congress passed the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act which was designated to resolve all the water rights claims of the two Colorado Ute Indian Tribes in a way to provide the tribes with water they deserve and need—and the surrounding communities in Colorado and New Mexico, the water that they want to help their communities, as well.
In 1986, the statute was the culmination of the efforts that began in the 1930's. For over 4 years, the State of New Mexico and the communities in the northwest corner of the State have supported Animas-La Plata Project, due to the recognized need for the dependable water supply. I was only 2 years old when the Native Americans in the Southwest were carrying their waters in buckets. I'm now 44 years old and they're still carrying their waters in buckets to their homes.
For over 40 years, at a cost of over $53 million, the government has studied, and studied, and studied, and studied the planning and the environmental impacts of the Animas-La Plata. The environmental concerns have been addressed over and over again to meet the constant updated regulatory standards mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Because of the cost concerns associated with the Federal Government's share of implementation, the project has been scaled back by over $400 million. H.R. 3478 settles tribal claims, in spite of what was previously stated; addresses water quality concerns; significantly reduces the cost of the project; provides protection for existing water right holders in New Mexico; and allows the State of New Mexico and the Northwest corner to adequately develop water supplies to meet the needs of their arid communities.
I appreciate your interest in this legislation and I'm willing to work with you and the interested parties to resolve any further concerns you may have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Redmond follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL REDMOND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing and for giving me the opportunity to show my support for H.R. 3478 and the Animas La Plata Water Project. As you all know, the Animas La Plata project has been a controversial work in progress for over four decades. As the Member of Congress who not only represents the Northwest corner of New Mexico where this project will have the most impact, but one of the largest tribal populations in America I want you to understand why this project is necessary.
I don't know how many of you are from the Southwest but as you probably know it's dry out there. Water is no small matter. Here, in Washington, DC which is built over a swamp, and in Virginia and Maryland, you don't have to go far to find a stream, a river, a lake or the ocean. In New Mexico, you could drive hundreds of miles without seeing a drop of water.
When a community in the southwest begins to grow and expand, like the communities in the Farmington/San Juan County area, support for those communities is dependent on a water supply plan. When a tribe or tribes in the remote four corners area, such as the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and the Southern Ute Tribe are still carrying their water in buckets from the rivers to their homes, a water supply plan necessary. These two issues are the reason I support H.R. 3478 to authorize the funding and construction of the Animas La Plata Water Project, after over 40 years of discussion about it's importance.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In 1986, Congress passed the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, which was designed to resolve all of the water rights claims of the two Colorado Ute Indian Tribes in a way that provided the tribes with the water they deserved and and needed, and the surrounding communities, in Colorado and New Mexico, the water they wanted to help support their communities needs as well. This 1986 statute was the culmination of efforts that begin in the 1930s.
For over 40 years the State of New Mexico and the communities in the Northwest Corner of the State have supported the Animas La Plata Project, due to the recognized need for a dependable water supply. When I was two years old, there were Native Americans in the Southwest who were carrying water in buckets to their homes. I am 44 years old and they are still carrying this water in buckets to their homes.
For over 40 years, at a cost of $53 million, the government has studied the planning and environmental impacts of the Animas La Plata. Environmental concerns have been addressed over and over again to meet the constantly updated regulatory standards mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act.
Because of the cost concerns associated with the Federal Government share of implementation, the project has been scaled back by over $400 million.
H.R. 3478 settles tribal claims, addresses water quality concerns, significantly reduces the costs of the project, provides protection for existing water rights holders in New Mexico, and allows the State of New Mexico and the Northwest corner to adequately develop water supplies to meet the needs of their arid communities.
I appreciate your interest in this legislation and am willing to work with you and the interested parties to resolve any further concerns you may have.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Mr. Petri is recognized.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS E. PETRI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to come before your Committee today on a matter of concern to the taxpayers of the United States. Building the Animas-La Plata Water Project is not economically or environmentally sound and does not deliver water to the members of the Ute Tribes on their reservations. That's why I decided to become an original co-sponsor of H.R. 745 which would deauthorize the project and direct the Secretary of the Interior to enter into negotiations with the tribes to find alternatives to fulfill their outstanding water rights claims.
In contrast, H.R. 3478, the Colorado Ute Water Rights Settlement Act, amendments of 1998—also known as Animas-La Lite—makes no substantial changes in the original project. As has been pointed out, it simply reauthorizes phase 1, stage A, of the original plan.
The Animas-La Plata Water Project was originally authorized in 1968 in the hey-day of mammoth water projects out West. However, Congress and the Federal Government soon abandoned this plan because it was a waste of money to build it. For 30 years, the proponents of the project have never been able to convince Congress otherwise. Moreover, the budgetary and environmental landscape has changed since this project was originally authorized making its prospects even darker than they were initially.
The reality is that under today's budget constraints and desire to preserve the beauty of our natural resources, this project is unlikely ever to be built. The proponents know that this is true and have attempted to keep the project alive by attaching it to the Ute Tribe's water claims. It's time to deauthorize this unjustified project once and for all.
Alternative proposals to satisfy the Ute Tribe's water claims have been developed and are now being looked at by the Federal Government. H.R. 745 requires the Secretary of the Interior to look at the full range of alternatives to deliver water to the tribes. On the other hand, H.R. 3478 attempts to obligate the Secretary to begin construction, entirely prematurely on one of these proposals—that is Animas-La Plata Lite. The Bureau of Reclamation has not conducted an analysis of the feasibility or viability of this proposal. There is no reliable cost estimate, no benefit cost ratio, and no definite plan report. We've never approached water resource development with such a complete lack of planning in the history of this Congress. This is no time to start.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to emphasize that many provisions of H.R. 3478 are highly controversial and I'm sure that many members will have great concern and skepticism if it's advanced by the House Resources Committee. H.R. 3473 does not deauthorize any portion of the original Animas-La Plata Project. On the contrary, it exempts major components of the project including a pumping station, and Ridges Basin Reservoir, from environmental laws and standard budget and economic requirements.
Of particular concern is the new financing scheme found in H.R. 3478. This legislation would cap repayment of capital costs from municipal and industrial water at $29 million for non-Indian project beneficiaries regardless of any cost overruns that may occur. It would also release the tribes from any capital repayment obligations, as well as any portion of the operation and maintenance costs of the project. All remaining costs, whatever they may ultimately be, would be borne by the Federal taxpayers. The bill would have Congress give a blank check for this demonstrably uneconomic project.
This is completely the reverse of the policy set in the original 1988 Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act which was predicated on full repayment with interest of all the capital costs from municipal and industrial water development. This new financing method violates at least five current Federal laws. This bill also increases the Federal cost share for the conceived project from 63 percent to a minimum of 90 percent of the cost for developing an outrageously expensive water supply for communities that cannot demonstrate a need for the water and clearly are unwilling to pay for it themselves.
If I were to propose that the Federal taxpayer subsidize 90 percent of the cost of developing municipal water in my State, I'd be surprised if Members of this chamber would support such a proposal. In general, it's been the policy of the Federal Congress not to subsidize municipal and industrial water development which is fundamentally a non-Federal responsibility.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, H.R. 3478 also proposes a highly controversial waiver of environmental laws as they relate to this project. This is generally referred to as sufficiency language. It waives the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and the Endangered Species Act.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3478 is not a genuine alternative solution to the Animas-La Plata Water Project conflict. It's simply Phase 1, Stage A of the original project. It's not really new at all and therefore it perpetuates all the problems with the original project—while introducing new ones, including a dramatic decrease in local cost share, introduction of a new class of Federal subsidies, and highly controversial sufficiency language.
This bill and the Animas-La Plata Project will not deliver water to the Ute Mountain Ute and the Southern Ute reservations. It's time to stop holding the Ute Tribes' legitimate water rights claims hostage in order that non-Indian interests might finally construct their great boondoggle pork project paid for by the Federal Government. The Animas-La Plata project should be deauthorized without further delay. Again, I would thank Members of the Committee for inviting me today and for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Petri follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS E. PETRI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Mr. Chairman I appreciate the opportunity to come before the Committee today to share my views on a matter of concern to me and, I believe, to the taxpayers of the United States. Building the Animas-La Plata water project is not economically or environmentally sound and it does not deliver wet water to members of the Ute Tribes on their reservations. That is why I decided to become an original cosponsor of H.R. 745, which would deauthorize the Animas-La Plata project and direct the Secretary to enter into negotiations with the Tribes to find alternatives to fulfill their outstanding water rights claims. In contrast, H.R. 3478, the Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 1998, also known as ALP-Lite, makes no substantial changes in the original ALP project. It simply reauthorizes Phase I, Stage A, of the original plan.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Animas-La Plata water project was originally authorized in 1968 in the heyday of mammoth water projects out West. However, Congress and the Federal Government soon abandoned this plan because it simply was a waste of money to build it. For thirty years now the proponents of the project have never been able to convince Congress otherwise. Moreover, the fiscal and environmental landscape has changed since this project was originally authorized, making its prospects even darker than they were initially. The reality is that under today's fiscal constraints and desire to preserve the beauty of our natural resources this project is unlikely ever to be built. The proponents know that this is true and have attempted to keep the project alive by attaching it to the Ute Tribes water claims. It's time to deauthorize this unjustified project once and for all.
Alternative proposals to satisfy the Ute Tribes water claims have been developed and are now being looked at by the Federal Government. H.R. 745 requires the Secretary to look at the full range of alternatives to deliver water to the Tribes. On the other hand, H.R. 3478 attempts to obligate the Secretary of the Interior to begin construction, entirely prematurely, on one of these proposals—that is, ALP-Lite. The Bureau of Reclamation has not conducted an analysis of the feasibility or viability of this proposal. There is no reliable cost estimate, no benefit/cost ratio and no definite plan report. We have never approached water resources development with such a complete lack of planning in the history of this Congress, and this is no time to start.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to emphasize to you that many provisions of H.R. 3478 are highly controversial and I am sure that many Members will have great concern and skepticism if it is advanced in any way by the House Resources Committee. H.R. 3478 does not deauthorize any portion of the original ALP. On the contrary, it exempts major components of the project, including a pumping station and Ridges Basin Reservoir, from environmental laws and standard fiscal and economic requirements.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Of particular concern is the new financing scheme found in H.R. 3478. This legislation would cap repayment of capital costs for municipal and industrial water at $13 million dollars for non-indian project beneficiaries, regardless of any cost overruns that may occur. It would also release the Tribes from any capital repayment obligations, as well as any portion of the operation and maintenance costs of the project. All remaining costs, whatever they may ultimately be, would be borne by the Federal taxpayer. H.R. 3478 would have Congress give a blank check for this demonstrably uneconomical project. This is completely the reverse of the policy set in the original 1988 Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, which was predicated on full repayment, with interest, of all the capital costs for municipal and industrial water development. This new financing method violates at least 5 current Federal laws.
This bill also increases the Federal cost share for the conceived project from 63 percent to a minimum of 90 percent of the cost for developing an outrageously expensive water supply for communities that cannot demonstrate a need for the water and clearly are unwilling to pay for it. If I were to propose that the Federal taxpayer subsidize 90 percent of the costs of developing municipal water in my state, I would be surprised if Members in this chamber would support such a proposal. In general, it has been the policy of the Congress not to subsidize municipal and industrial water development, which is fundamentally a non-Federal responsibility.
Finally, H.R. 3478 also proposes a highly controversial waiver of environmental laws as they relate to this project in the form of what is generally referred to as ''sufficiency language,'' waiving the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Endangered Species Act.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3478 is not a genuine alternative solution to the Animas-La Plata water project conflict. It is simply Phase I, Stage A, of the original project. It is not really new at all and therefore it perpetuates all of the problems with the original project while introducing new ones, including a dramatic decrease in the local cost share, introduction of a new class of Federal subsidies and highly controversial sufficiency language.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, this bill and the Animas-La Plata project will not deliver water to the Ute Mountain Ute and the Southern Ute reservations. It is time to stop holding the Ute Tribes' legitimate water rights claims hostage in order that non-indian interests might finally construct their great boondoggle pork project paid for by the Federal Government. The Animas-La Plata water project ought to be deauthorized without further delay.
Again, I thank the Chair and the Committee for the opportunity to express my concerns. Thank you for your time.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you very much. The plan will now be to recess the Subcommittee. Then at approximately 3:45 p.m. or as soon as we reconvene after the conclusion of the memorial services, we will reassemble here and hear from the members of panel one. So the Subcommittee will stand in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. The Subcommittee will reconvene to hear testimony from our witnesses. We'll begin with panel one.
Let me ask our witnesses—it's customary that the witnesses take the oath. So if you'd please rise and raise you right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Let the record reflect each answered in the affirmative.
Gentlemen, we're very pleased to have you here. I'm confident that some of my colleagues will drift in, but we have a long witness list and you have been patient to wait this long while as it is. So I think we'll begin.
Our first witness is the Honorable Roy Romer, Governor of the State of Colorado. Governor Romer.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF HON. ROY ROMER, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
Governor ROMER. Thank you, Congressman. I know we began the second part of it right after the memorial service. I just want to recognize, as a Governor, who lives in a capital building daily, the risk that all of you public officials run and the risk that those officers run. I just want to pay tribute to those two gentlemen and their families before I make further comments.
My name is Roy Romer. I'm Governor of Colorado. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to share my comments on H.R. 3478 that would authorize the construction of a smaller Animas-La Plata Project in southwestern Colorado. For the record, I've submitted a copy of the full text of my remarks to the Committee. I'd like to take a moment to highlight my views.
Mr. Chairman, this is my third term as Governor. I'm in my 12th year. I was first elected in 1986, the same year the State of Colorado signed an agreement with the Southern Ute and the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribes settling a longstanding, difficult controversy regarding the tribes' water rights. I've been working to get the tribes the water they deserve since my first day in office. I regret to say that, after 12 years, we're still trying to get that job done.
I'm here to express my support for H.R. 3478. In my opinion, this bill represents our best vehicle for satisfying our obligations to the Ute Tribes for water. As you know, this bill is a result of years of efforts, negotiations, and compromise. The project was first authorized by Congress in 1968. Following the authorization, the Ute Tribes began to assert their widely recognized right to water in the streams and rivers that flow through the reservations based on the Reserved Water Rights Doctrine.
Given the scarcity of water in the region and the possible disruption that the establishment of Indian water claims would have posed for the existing non-Indian water right holders, Colorado sat down with the tribes in the mid-1980's to settle the tribes' claims. The result was a 1986 Settlement Agreement. This agreement establishes the tribes' water rights and sorts out non-Indian water claims. It was signed by all parties—the State, the tribes, non-Indian users, municipalities, and the United States Department of Interior, and the United States Department of Justice. It's a very important agreement.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It allows us to resolve possible water conflicts, preserve the social, and economic well-being of the area, and avoids decades of expensive litigation. Most importantly, it acknowledges our obligation to provide water to the tribes. In order to fulfill the obligations for water outlined in this agreement, the agreement calls for the construction of the Animas-La Plata Project, a project that would store water and make it available to the tribes and other users. It was authorized in 1968.
Congress formalized this agreement in the 1988 Settlement Act. Now this Congress is still considering legislation on the project. We still have not satisfied our obligations to the tribes. Under the agreement, the tribes have the right to go to court and to assert their claims if they do not believe that progress is being made. That risk is real and its troubling.
Now, I understand that this delay has been brought about because opponents of the project have raised environmental and fiscal concerns. It was in recognition of this and the threat of lengthy and costly litigation that the Lieutenant Governor Gail Schoettler, of Colorado, and I brought all sides of this issue together in an effort to discuss compromises and consensus on all alternatives. That process was a difficult one. It took many hours of discussion, public input, and months of negotiation. However, we did succeed in narrowing the debate to two alternatives.
One of the alternatives, the so-called Animas-La Plata Lite proposal, involves the creation of a much smaller project at less cost and less environmental impact.
The other alternative, called the Animas River Citizens' Coalition proposal, would set aside about $100 million—$110 million for the tribes to purchase land and water rights in the area instead of building a reservoir. It also includes adding more storage capacity of existing water projects in the region.
Now last year, I publicly expressed support of the Animas-La Plata Lite alternative for the following reasons. First, it satisfies our obligation to the tribes for water. Animas-La Plata Lite is the only alternative that tribes will accept and will satisfy that obligation.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Second, it includes everyone—tribes and non-Indians alike. We must have a solution for the entire region. One that will not disrupt the long-established water development and economic activities in the area. The 1986 Settlement Agreement was created and signed just for that reason—to resolve everybody's rights in light of the tribal claims. It is thus critically important to include non-Indian water users. ALP Lite accomplishes this goal.
Third, it is less costly and poses less environmental impacts than the original project. ALP Lite reduces the cost by $400 million. Since it is a smaller project, it avoids many of the environmental impacts that were of concern to the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Fourth, it avoids a complete renegotiation of that 1986 Settlement Agreement. As I have said, the Settlement Agreement was the result of hard-fought compromises with the tribes and other water rights holders. Renegotiating this agreement would take many years and at enormous expense to the taxpayers.
Since the signing of the agreement in 1986, funds have been set aside and expended to implement its provisions with the sole exception of the construction of the Animas-La Plata Project. The ALP Lite alternative will complete the last commitment made in the Settlement Agreement.
Fifth, it avoids further delay. We've been at this for decades. We have negotiated, compromised and studied this project extensively. It's time to get off the dime and get on with satisfying our obligations to the tribe. ALP Lite will get us there.
Now, H.R. 3478 adheres to these principles. As a result, passage of this bill will accomplish our goals. I urge you to support it.
Let me say the Interior Department can, in my view, play a very helpful role in this controversy. They were represented in our discussions concerning the Animas-La Plata Lite alternative. They could help us by taking the two alternatives developed in this negotiation process; plug them into the appropriate environmental processes; select Animas-La Plata Lite as the preferred alternative; and quickly come out with a decision. In my view, either Interior should work with the product that we have developed and come to a decision; or Congress should direct Interior on how to resolve this issue by passing H.R. 3478.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It's the only way we're going to get this resolved, short of going to court for years to come. Now H.R. 3478 and Senate bill 1771—the companion Senate bill—can serve as the framework for further discussions to address Interior's concern. But one thing is certain, we cannot start from square one again. Too much time has been lost and we've already discussed plenty of alternatives. These bills represent the product of difficult compromises and should not be rejected.
In closing, I have noted that Secretary Babbitt has asked his counsel, David Hayes, to meet with the tribes and their neighbors to see if an agreement can be reached on amendments to this legislation. I would ask Mr. Hayes to come to Colorado, meet with me and the other signators of the Settlement Agreement, but this must be more than just more talk or more process. Mr. Hayes should come and must come with a portfolio to speak for the administration. We need some decisions to be made here. I would hope he would come with a clear proposal, and I would ask him to come with a clear proposal for amendments to the legislation that will satisfy the administration's concern.
Finally, I think we must meet in August, if this Congress should pass this legislation—with or without the administration's support—to finally honor commitments under the Settlement Agreement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Governor Romer may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.
Our next witness is Mr. Thomas Turney. Mr. Turney is the State engineer for the State of New Mexico. Mr. Turney.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS C. TURNEY, STATE ENGINEER, STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Mr. TURNEY. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I thank you for letting me testify this afternoon. I also brought a statement with me from the Governor of the State of Mexico. He sends his apologies but he cannot be here this afternoon. We would like to have his statement entered into the record.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. TURNEY. Today, I'd like to speak on behalf of H.R. 3478 which means changes to the authorized ALP project. At the same time, would like to speak against H.R. 745 which speaks of deauthorization.
The reconciled Animas-La Plata Project would provide two basic components of New Mexico's plans for development of its water resources in northwestern New Mexico. The reconciled project generally settles the claims of two Colorado Ute Indian Tribes to waters of the Animas-La Plata Rivers. This is an important aspect of the project because it provides certainty to the New Mexico water users on these two rivers so that, in fact, they will have water available to them under their State water rights.
Secondly, the reconciled project will provide a more dependable water supply for both Indian and non-Indian communities in northwest New Mexico. Northwest New Mexico is growing and it's very important to provide an adequate water supply for this area's future. The need for a dependable water supply for this area has long been recognized. Although the majority of communities in the State of New Mexico get their water from wells, communities in this particular area must get their water from river waters. Ground water in the area generally contains very high level of contaminants and is unusable. The Animas River has historically run dry or very near.
Raw water storage is necessary to supply water to communities when the river runs low. The Animas-La Plata Project is designed to provide a water supply during low-flow conditions for both Indians and non-Indians in New Mexico—a goal which the State of New Mexico very much supports.
H.R. 3478 is a compromise bill negotiated by Indians and non-Indians. It addresses many concerns previously expressed by New Mexico, including final settlement of Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights claims, a much needed municipal and industrial water supply for the area; a reduction in project costs; a habitat for endangered species; protection of senior water rights; and does not lessen water qualities. Negotiations are ongoing to further refine this bill to include language to provide for a pipeline to carry project water from Farmington to the Navajo community of Shiprock.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The State assigned approximately 50,000 acre feet of water to the Department of Interior for development at this project about 40 years ago. Subsequently, an interstate compact was developed to establish equal priority of project water rights between Colorado and New Mexico. Congress approved the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement in the late 1980's. This Act provides for final settlement of the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights claims on the Animas-La Plata Rivers. The construction of the ALP Project is the cornerstone of this settlement.
It is neither timely nor appropriate to consider deauthorization. It is true that the project is controversial. However, H.R. 3478 has been introduced as a compromise by Indians and non-Indians in northwest New Mexico and southwest Colorado. Deauthorization will cause several major problems for New Mexico. If the Colorado Ute Indian claims are not settled and the Ute Indians return to court, New Mexico will be forced to intervene. To protect New Mexico water users on the Animas-La Plata Rivers, New Mexico will be forced to challenge every PIA and other claims that the Ute Indians might advance.
Based on similar cases in New Mexico where one ongoing Indian water right cases has been argued for a little over 32 years. We would anticipate that this case will last for decades. There will be no doubt that our intervention is going to cause strained relations between New Mexico and the Colorado Ute Tribes in the State of Colorado. Due to the lack of certainty of future water availability, such a prolonged action could significantly impair land transfers and existence of future development in New Mexico. Deauthorization will terminate the Animas-La Plata interstate compact exposing New Mexico users to suffer shortages caused by junior appropriators in Colorado.
Deauthorization will not stop the need of New Mexico communities for a raw water storage. To meet summertime demands, storage will continue to be needed. Although Navajo Reservoir is available on the nearby San Juan River flow recommendations recently proposed for the recovery of an endangered species will probably preclude the use of this storage for New Mexico communities. Alternate storage sites are generally not available, potentially necessitating the development of multiple reservoirs. The cost of these reservoirs may be many times the amount that money New Mexicans will pay under the reconciled project.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Deauthorization is going to hurt our ongoing negotiations with the Navajo nations. In 1996, the State of New Mexico entered into an agreement with 22 Indian pueblos and tribes. These disagreements set forth principles of government to government negotiation proceeding before litigation. This agreement has led to negotiations between the Navajo nation and New Mexico to determine if a negotiated settlement of Navajo water claims is feasible. The reconciled project will include a proposal to construct a transmission line from Farmington to provide treated project water to the Navajo community of Shiprock.
For public health and safety reasons, this pipeline is extremely important to the Shiprock area whose population has swelled in recent years. Final settlement of the Navajo claims in the San Juan basin is extremely important, not only to northwestern New Mexico but it will provide certain communities along the river to receive their water from the San Juan trans-mountain diversion. This deauthorization could potentially significantly impact major population centers in New Mexico.
New Mexico strongly opposes deauthorization of the Animas-La Plata Federal Reclamation Project. Instead, New Mexico supports a reconciled project that provides wet water to New Mexico and provides for final settlement of Ute Indian claims. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Turney may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.
Our next witness is Mr. Eluid Martinez, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. Mr. Martinez.
STATEMENT OF ELUID MARTINEZ, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to present the administration's view on H.R. 745, an Act to deauthorize the Animas-La Plata Project and H.R. 3748, the Colorado Ute Settlement Act of 1998. My written statement has been submitted for the record, and if acceptable I'll summarize that statement.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The administration fully supports providing wet water to the Colorado Ute Indian Tribes as part of the final settlement to their water rights. In providing the water to the tribes, we need to also consider how the possible solutions would affect the municipal and industrial water supplies of the regional communities, while protecting the area's natural resources. Mr. Chairman, the administration does not support the approaches included in the two measures before the Subcommittee today.
They charge H.R. 745 would deauthorize the Animas-La Plata Project—a participating project under the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956. If enacted, this bill would direct the Secretary of Interior to promptly seek to enter into negotiations with the Ute Indian Tribes to satisfy, in a manner consistent with all Federal laws, the water rights interests of those tribes that were intended to be satisfied with water supplied from the Animas-La Plata Project.
It should be noted that the H.R. 745 does not provide for an alternative to the original Animas-La Plata Project. While the administration agrees that there is limited support for the original Animas-La Plata Project, we are not prepared to recommend complete deauthorization. Instead, the administration believes it is important to focus on the priority of delivering wet water to the tribes and to address the deauthorization issue with the tribes and other affected parties.
Mr. Chairman, with respect to H.R. 3748, this bill would amend the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988. The administration does not support the approach included in this legislation for the reasons detailed in my written statement. Mr. Chairman, the question is where do we go from here? On July 20, 1998, Secretary Babbitt wrote to the tribes to assure them where the administration stands with respect to their water rights. That letter, in part states ''We, the administration fully support providing wet water—water beneficially usable to the tribes to the Colorado Ute Indian Tribes as part of the final settlement of your claims. We need to consider how the possible solutions would affect the municipal-industrial water supplies of the regions' communities and protect the area's natural resources.''
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, the administration fully understands and respects the significance of the tribe's efforts and those of the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor, and other parties in the Romer-Schoettler process that helped to focus the issues surrounding this project. The administration is prepared to enter into a good faith dialogue with the tribes to identify the best mutually acceptable means to enable the tribes to obtain wet water for their present and future use. I place emphasis on the fact that at the same time, we need to consider how possible solutions would affect the municipal-industrial water supplies of the region and the natural environment of the area.
However, in identifying an acceptable means, the administration believes that full consideration should be given to all alternatives, including appropriately sized storage that would satisfy the tribe's water rights. In undertaking that consideration, however, the full impact disclosure alternative analysis and the public involvement aspects of the National Environmental Policy Act should not be circumvented, nor should NEPA procedural requirements be segmented.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. David Hayes, counselor to the Secretary of Interior, and who has been named by the administration as the leader to engage in a dialogue with the tribes, has forwarded a letter yesterday to the tribal chairperson seeking initiation of discussions. He has also extended letters of invitation to the other 1988 water settlement parties because of his expectation that they will need to participate in discussions pertaining to potential revisions of the Settlement Act.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my summary of remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martinez may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, thank you. Commissioner, I recall in a previous career, you were the State engineer of New Mexico, were you not?
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, were you involved in all of this controversy back with Governor Romer or where do you fit in in this?
Mr. MARTINEZ. Chairman, I've been involved in New Mexico water issues and controversy since 1971.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. That's remarkable.
[Laughter.]
Mr. MARTINEZ. I fully understand the implications of this project.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Cal, I think you and I need some more of that wet water they want to get out there in New Mexico and Colorado.
[Laughter.]
Well, let me ask you, Commissioner, do you have or does the administration have amendments to Mr. McInnis' bill that would satisfy the administration's concerns?
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, my written comments have specific—statement has specific concerns. The administration is committed to working quickly to try to work with the tribes and other folks in this area to bring something to the Congress that we would find acceptable.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. What role does the counselor in charge of Indian water rights settlement negotiations—what role do you think he seeks to play in this project?
Mr. MARTINEZ. The intent is to have Mr. Hayes speak for the administration on these issues.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. How does this project compare to other water rights settlement negotiations within the Department of the Interior?
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MARTINEZ. Other Indian water rights settlements also contain components for water delivery projects.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, I was pleased to hear you reaffirm the administration's commitment for storage. Governor, you're to be commended for your persistent and long-term role in trying to bring this settlement all about. It's a rather remarkable settlement it seems to me. It's unfortunate that it's lasted so long. Apparently, it's up to us to complete the final piece of this extensive and complex agreement.
Governor ROMER. Let me reply. I listened to Congressman DeFazio's comments earlier this morning. Look, we have a problem here. We need a solution to the problem. The problem is that we have an obligation to deliver water to the Indians. I think that this can be solved. We need to solve it. We ought to solve it right now.
Secondly, I think an essential ingredient in that solution is for the administration to come to the table and say this is what we propose. That has not been the case yet and I think that Commissioner Martinez and the Secretary of Interior have indicated that Mr. Hayes is coming with authority to speak for the administration. If that's the case, that's a very helpful step.
Third, we just need to get at the table. I think the elements of the solution are we need to deliver on the obligation to the tribe. We need to take care of the non-Indian water user. We need to do it in a responsible, environmental way. We need to do it without further delay. I think that—I would hope that the momentum that I sense from the administration can carry us to a solution very quickly.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, that sounded encouraging. So let us hope that we see some positive developments here. Let me just ask a technical question about this—maybe I overlooked in the reading I did. But you have this reservoir that you're going to pump water into it. What's going to be the vertical lift from the river up to the reservoir?
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MARTINEZ. I understand somewhere around 500 hundred feet.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. About 100 feet?
Mr. MARTINEZ. Five hundred.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Five hundred feet. Well, if we can get our administration to act quickly, is it you sense, Commissioner, that this gentleman's going to get really engaged and help bring this to a conclusion fairly fast?
Mr. MARTINEZ. It would be my hope that we move sooner than later, and surely within the next month to try and bring some focus to this issue.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, that would be excellent. This proposal has been criticized for lack of environmental compliance or documentation. Is there something, in you opinion, further that needs to be done in this regard? Mr. McInnis said that they've spent $20 million studying this thing.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I'll reserve judgment on that. But one thing that I would say is that we sure don't want to get hung up by the courts. Whatever proposal I think the administration moves forward with, we ought to make sure it complies and provides a deep analysis and full due process so we don't get hung up in the court system.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Do you have any specific suggestions about how the language in the bill could be modified in the environmental area to improve it?
Mr. MARTINEZ. I think that, with respect to the legislation, the concern we have is the sufficiency language.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, is there any other substitute that you would suggest? It sounds like a great deal of time and money has been studying it. I would suppose the proponents don't want to have another open-ended study on it. Is there some compromise language that could be arrived at here?
Mr. MARTINEZ. With respect to the H.R. 3478?
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes.
Mr. MARTINEZ. To the extent that the only issue was, the only concern that the administration has with H.R. 3478 would be NEPA analysis, I think we could come together with some language. However, that's not the only issue that the administration has raised with concerns to H.R. 3478. We have issues having to do with deauthorization, appropriate deauthorization of the project, cost sharing, and other issues.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. So you're also seeking, then, specific deauthorization of certain components of the project.
Mr. MARTINEZ. What we're saying is that some of those might be appropriate.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, I'll recognize Mr. DeFazio for his questions.
Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the chairman. To any of the participants, is Animas-La Plata Lite identical to Phase 1(a) of the Animas-La Plata?
Mr. MARTINEZ. As I recall, phase 1(a) was primarily an M&I delivery.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Phase 1(a) also included a reservoir sized to enable water to be developed and used for irrigation purposes.
Mr. DEFAZIO. So the environmental analyses that were done, and the cost analyses that were done for phase 1(a) are not applicable to Animas-La Plata Lite? I mean, it's not the same project?
Mr. MARTINEZ. To the extent that water is taken from the river at different times of the year and is used for M&I purposes and return flow's assumption may differ from what was considered in 19—the supplemental—environmentally backed statement, it's a different project. It would require a different analysis.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. So we don't have an economic analysis for the project proposed to deauthorize in the bill before us?
Mr. MARTINEZ. No. The Bureau of Reclamation has not done an analysis.
Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. So you lack both an environmental and an economic cost analysis. I guess—turning then to Governor Romer for a moment. I congratulate you in your efforts in getting involved in this very difficult decision. As I understand the Romer-Schoettler process, there was some agreement, was there not, that any alternative should comply with all Federal laws?
Governor ROMER. I think that's correct, but I don't remember the exact language of that agreement. But let me tell you the concept that was in our minds. There is an existing environmental process. We felt that, whatever we came up, if we could get the administration's approval, we could have that ongoing environmental process; consider that as the preferred alternative that where you could continue to do the work that needs to be done, but you don't need to go back to square one.
Congressman, I have a very strong environmental record. I do not want to have the environment damaged by this project. But this is a contentious issue. Sometimes environmental processes and litigation involved in them are used, in my judgment, not for the purpose of saving environment but for the purpose of killing a project. I simply would like to have this decision made. Let me suggest to you, if we can get an agreement on what this is, and if the administration will come to the table and say, you know, this is where we are—I think that we can take that agreement and satisfy all of the existing environmental law by including it in the existing process and just enlarging whatever investigation needs to be made based upon changes.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, I'm puzzled as to the consistency of the statement. Then do you support the sufficiency language in Mr. McInnis' bill which says, this is deemed sufficient to meet all environmental laws, no matter what analysis has gone forward previously, even though it's different than and was applied as first stage? Do you support that then? I mean, having that language in there?
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Governor ROMER. I support this——
Mr. DEFAZIO. Or do you support doing the appropriate process?
Governor ROMER. I support this bill with that language in it. Now, let me explain, Congressman.
Mr. DEFAZIO. All right.
Governor ROMER. I was very troubled by this. Let me tell you, I did that because there was no alternative. I was dealing with somebody that wouldn't give me an answer. I'm the Governor of Colorado. I've got an obligation to deliver on that agreement to the tribe. When I can't get an answer, I'll use whatever weapon I got to use. The weapon I chose to use is I agreed to sufficiency language in this bill.
Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. So——
Governor ROMER. It's not the best way to go.
Mr. DEFAZIO. No, in fact——
Governor ROMER. But let me tell you that it's better——
Mr. DEFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, Governor, if I could—I don't have time for filibuster, here. So, you support basically finding a project which hasn't been evaluated by the Federal Government for its environmental problems or benefits. You just support deeming it to have met that myriad of Federal laws, without the public having any right to further appeal litigation from whatever perspective, and, you know, you find that to be consistent.
Governor ROMER. No. That's not a fair characterization of my views.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, what is the result of——
Governor ROMER. You're making an unfair characterization——
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DEFAZIO. I'm very familiar, Governor, if I could, I'm very familiar with sufficiency language. I one time in my congressional career supported it and it was a bad thing to do. I learned that. It was nowhere near as big a deal as this project in terms of its environmental impacts—the one time I supported it. So it's really hard to say I'm a 100 percent environmentalist. I'm a strong environmentalist. In this case, I don't know what the impacts are. The government, the Federal Government, doesn't know what the impacts are, but I know that this would satisfy those Federal laws and environmental requirements. It's just not consistent.
I see my time has expired. Perhaps on the next round, we can get back to that.
Governor ROMER. Can I reply to your statement?
Mr. DEFAZIO. It's up to the chairman. My time has expired.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Please, go ahead.
Governor ROMER. OK. I want to reply, Congressman, because you characterized my position, I thought, in an inaccurate and unfair way. Let me describe why it's inaccurate and unfair.
I am for this solution. I think that there has been many years of work in terms of environmental impact.
Mr. DEFAZIO. But not on this alternative, Governor.
Governor ROMER. Congressman, let me finish.
Mr. DEFAZIO. We've done billions of years of environmental work in this country and it's a very frustrating process on billions of projects. But every time you come up with a new idea and a new project, you got to do another one.
Governor ROMER. Got it.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Or you have to modify the ones that went previously. That you're not supporting that here. You're saying——
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Governor ROMER. Excuse me.
Mr. DEFAZIO. This would fit into the work that's been done before. The work that was done before was not done on this alternative.
Governor ROMER. Yes. Let me tell you, Mr. Congressman, the alternative that we're talking about is a storage project. It's pumping water out of the river; it's the management of that project, and it has a limited quantity. Now, we already have done a very great amount of work. If there are some modifications that need to be made in this proposal in order to make it acceptable to the administration, first, we need to know what those modifications are.
Second, once we know what they are, then we can see whether or not we can use the existing process or whether we have to start another one.
Third, when I supported this bill, I did not have an alternative from the administration even to discuss. So, sir, I want to tell you I'm here as a strong environmentalist. But I'm also here saying we've screwed around 12 years without solving this problem. As Governor of Colorado, I've got 6 months to go. I don't want to leave this problem unsolved. I think you and I, and everybody involved in the National Government and in the State of Colorado and New Mexico ought to solve this problem. We owe it to the Indians. We owe it to those communities.
Mr. DEFAZIO. I think we should resolve the problem, too, Governor, but deeming it to have the environmental laws is, according to this administration, is veto bait—on any and all bills and projects, no matter how material. So that's a fatal flaw, among other flaws, in this legislation.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, Commissioner, in other conversations we've had, you've been very gracious to offer to cooperate and try, and maybe with Mr. Hayes, we'll be able to move in this direction, but actually get the parties down and get sort of an expedited plan for moving this off dead center. I'm certain the sponsors of the bill aren't absolutely locked in concrete in every last detail of it. I'm sure, if they saw the opportunity to move ahead, there'd be some willingness to cooperate. But there's been so much work done, just as you yourself know since you were one of the key parties over the years; it seems like we need to have it resolved. We need to have some sort of environmental agreement that can come to a conclusion in a reasonable period of time and not drag out kind of open-ended.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I wondered if I might ask Mr. Turney a question? You talked about a pipeline, I guess, for the Navajo Nation. Could you tell us about that? Maybe the estimated cost of that, the length, and the construction time, et cetera?
Mr. TURNEY. Mr. Chairman, the pipeline would be run from Farmington to Shiprock. Shiprock is about 30 to 35 miles west of Farmington. The purpose of the pipeline would be to take treated water and move it from Farmington to Shiprock. For many, many years the Navajo community of Shiprock has tried to take water directly from the river. But the water is simply too muddy by the time it gets down to Shiprock. There's some major arroyos that dump silt into the river. For this reason, surface water treatment is just extremely difficult.
The project to be built would, I'm sure, require further NEPA evaluation. I believe some preliminary numbers have been floated around about a 24-inch pipeline. There is an existing 16-inch pipeline today—so this new pipeline to be augmenting an existing pipeline. Probably the project would be in the neighborhood of, let's say, $25 to $30 million.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Would that be built along the same right-of-way as the existing pipeline?
Mr. TURNEY. I presume so. As I recall the last pipeline, it took about one and one-half years to design it, and about a year to construct it. Because we're dealing with a slightly larger project, sized pipeline, it may take a little longer than that.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. All of you have worked very hard to retool this proposal which you call Animas-La Plata Lite—sounds like a term your opposition may have coined, but, anyway, you use it yourselves. Well, has it lessened the opposition in any way? Did you get some of the opponents to go along with this that wouldn't go along with the full Animas-La Plata? Or are we still facing the same types of opposition?
Governor ROMER. I will speak to that. In the course of the extensive conversation we had when the so-called Romer-Schoettler process—even though we did not come to an agreement, I thought that we found the kind of differences we had were narrowed. We all began to sense that there's a reality here, and that is that we've got to solve this problem. I think there was a recognition that you just can't solve this problem by putting money on the table and say, ''Go buy water rights.'' This isn't a solution that's acceptable to the tribe. Therefore, I think there's a reality that all of us on both sides come to, saying the time is now, let's get it done, and let's find the proper way to do it.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes, Commissioner.
Mr. MARTINEZ. If I might add to that, I think I at one time said that, based on my 30 years in this business, I find that if we try to deal with water issues based on consensus, we'll never get anything done. You can only go so far. I've yet to find any particular project out West where you're going to have a 100 percent concurrence. I think where we're at is the administration has extended an invitation to the tribes to enter into a dialogue to focus the issues and bring this to resolution, bring something to Congress that you can make a conscious decision on. That's why I committed to assist Mr. Hayes and the administration in this.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, that sounds very encouraging.
I'll recognize Mr. DeFazio for his questions.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, following up on that with Mr. Martinez, then what sort of timeline would you have in mind for that?
Mr. MARTINEZ. I'm going to push it as quickly as possible. I would hope that we would have something within the timeframe that has been expressed today—30 to 60 days. But I can't speak for the rest of the administration, because, as you know, on an issue like that we'd have to get administrative clearance. But I intend to move this thing quickly through the Bureau of Reclamation.
Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. So you believe 30 to 60 days of discussions with the principal tribes could reach—you could reach a point of resolution?
Mr. MARTINEZ. I would hope so.
Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. In those discussions, I would assume you deal with variances from the existing environmental laws. Then if you reach a conclusion with them, I assume there would be a substantial proposal.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Well, I don't think you can—you can get many answers from environmental laws. It would appear to me that you're going to have to comply with them. But that being said, there's been $21 million worth of environmental studies on this project that has a—you have a resource on which you can draw upon.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DEFAZIO. Have any of those ever been challenged legally? Let me reverse the question. Has any of the studies every withstood a legal challenge?
Mr. MARTINEZ. My history, particularly history with people on this issue, is it's impossible for me to ask for that. But I would assume that it's been challenged and I want recall that the—I'd like to correct the record—but I want to recall the last order entered by the judge on an issue like this had to do deal with cultural resources study and not the need for sufficiency.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. Well, I understand that previous environmental assessments have been found to be inadequate by the courts. I don't know which all aspects of that.
Mr. MARTINEZ. But I'll provide an answer for the record.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. DEFAZIO. There's another concern here which goes beyond the environment, which goes to local responsibility. I'm curious as to how the administration would look upon the reduction and the capping of local cost-sharing in the alternative. My understanding is, basically, according to the Bureau of Reclamations, we've seen phase 1 of Animas-La Plata. About 44 percent of Animas-La Plata Lite capped at 10 percent, that means a much larger additional burden in the initial project phase or, as we're told now, in the final—and initial project phase—since that's sort of the assumption here.
Although I have to get also to the question of, if we're going to—if we accepted this, would Arthur and others, Governor Romer, accept that we would deauthorize parts of the project that weren't consistent and went beyond? But to you, is that a problem with the administration?
Mr. MARTINEZ. Well, let me try and sort of put this in perspective. The original project estimated about $400—$754 million to construct what represented about 55 percent non-Federal cost-share. As I understand it, the M&I non-Federal cost-share was to be paid at 100 percent reimbursement with interest. Then you had the large component of irrigated agricultural costs. Then, of course, you have the Indian costs associated with a project, which were irrigation costs which were deferred under the Levitt Act—the M&I costs which would be payable by the tribe at the time they put their water to use.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Under the new proposal, the proposal that is set forth in H.R. 3478, we would have a project of about $268 million, of which the Federal costs associated with the tribal expenses would be deferred—would be nonreimbursable. As I understand, the Federal—non-Federal costs would be capped at $29 million. So percentage-wise the non-Federal costs are greater under this project. But again, it would be the administration's position that, as we move forward with a project that would involve non-Indian M&I uses or other uses, that those costs be payable pursuant to reclamation law. For M&I purposes, it would be 100 percent with interest on that portion that could be allocated to the M&I project.
Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. So then does 10 percent do that or not?
Mr. MARTINEZ. We'd have to do the analysis, but my first indication said it's not sufficient. It doesn't come up to it.
Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. We'd like to thank the members of this panel. I'm sure we'll have some other questions and we will tender those in writing and hold the record open for your responses. We appreciate very much the time you've taken to get here and the expertise you've brought with you.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. We'll excuse the members of panel one and begin with the second panel and invite the members of the second panel to come forward.
Let me ask you, ladies and gentlemen, to please rise and raise you right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let the record reflect that each answered in the affirmative.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We're very happy to have you here. We'll begin our testimony with Mr. Clement Frost, chairman of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. Mr. Frost.
STATEMENT OF CLEMENT FROST, CHAIRMAN, SOUTHERN UTE INDIAN TRIBE; ACCOMPANIED BY LEONARD C. BURCH, PAST PRESIDENT AND COUNCIL MEMBER
Mr. FROST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee members.
First of all, in our traditional way, to you people we would like to pay tribute and honor to the two slain officers, the warriors of the Capitol Police Office. We hope that our Creator will grant the families peace and strength to deal with the loss of their loved ones.
My name is Clement Frost. I'm the chairman of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. I appreciate the time given to me and my tribal people. I brought with me Mr. Leonard C. Burch, past chairman and now council member of the tribe. I'm here today to testify in support of H.R. 3478, the Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendment from 1998.
On behalf of my people, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, and our tribal council, I ask that Congress fulfill the promises that the United States has made to the Southern Ute Indian Tribe to provide water that the tribe needs now and in the future—wet water that guarantees the survival of our people and our land.
I'm also here today to oppose H.R. 745, the bill deauthorize the Animas-La Plata Project. In my thinking, H.R. 745 is a direct slap in the face and dishonor to my tribal people and my tribal leadership who have negotiated in good faith and have also compromised a compromise.
H.R. 745 breaks the agreement that the United States made with the two Colorado Ute Tribes that was signed into law by President Reagan in 1988. It also violates the United States trust responsibility to the two Colorado Ute Tribes. Those who support that legislation have very short memories. I can promise that if Congress were to disauthorize the ALP and demand that the tribe return to the negotiating table, my tribe would return to court. That's a promise I can fulfill. We would sue the United States for its breach of the 1986 agreement and we would seek to establish our rights through litigation.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Why would any tribe negotiate with the United States if the Congress is going to back out of any authorized agreement just because it doesn't like it anymore? The Southern Ute Tribe has been more than willing to work to address the problem that have delayed the construction of the Animas-La Plata. Because the water is important to my people, we will not walk away from the promises that were made in the 1988 Settlement Act. We believe the right way to address the issue is facing the ALP is H.R. 3748. The right way is not pretend that the 1988 Settlement Act was never passed.
When the Ute band find a treaty established in a Ute reservation in 1868, the United States promised the Ute people that the reservation would be our permanent homeland that would support our people forever. The key to carrying out that promise is wet water—the fact that the tribal leadership has always known, but what the United States has sometimes forgotten.
Former Chairman Leonard C. Burch and former Chairman Chris A. Baker worked hard to have the Animas-La Plata Project built. They knew that the project is the best way for a tribe to get water needs for the future. The future of my people depends on making sure that the tribe has a reliable water supply that can be used for the continued future development of our homeland and our future generations.
The parties to the original settlement are here today to support modification to the 1988 Settlement Act. The foundation for the settlement is still the Animas-La Plata Project, but only a small portion of the project is required to complete the settlement. As a result of those modifications, the tribe knows that we will not receive all the benefits that we were promised in 1988. But the tribe will get a reliable supply of stored wet water that it can control for its own use. That's what we've always wanted. We know that construction of a stored reservoir is only the first step in putting water to use for the benefit of our people. We are confident that, with that supply, we can move forward into the next century.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I want to address the position of the administration. We have tried our best to work with the administration to carry out the 1988 settlement. So far, we have met with little success. Throughout the Romer-Schoettler process, the Federal agencies never acknowledged the trust responsibility to our tribes or try to help find solutions that would remain true to the spirit of the 1988 Settlement Act. Now the administration wants to talk to us. We received a letter just 2 days ago saying its opposition to our proposal was misunderstood and that we need to talk of yet another alternative. We don't agree. We understand the need to talk, but we have many questions. Let the administration understand those representatives must talk with all parties.
In closing, I want to make three points. First, despite the changes of the settlement that had been proposed, we know that these compromises will not satisfy all our opponents. We hope that you understand the benefits of this settlement to the Southern Ute Tribe and recognize the importance of providing wet water to the Ute Tribes without taking water away from the non-Indian neighbors.
Second, I want to recognize the honor and integrity of our non-Indian neighbors who are the tribes' partners in the project. We appreciate their sacrifices to make this settlement work.
Finally, I want to ask you to remember the promises that were made in 1868 to the Ute Tribe and confirmed in 1988. Finally, to ask at the end, who among you will have the courage to fill the cup of empty promises and pass H.R. 3478? Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Frost may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.
Our next witness will be Mrs. Judy Knight-Frank, chairwoman of the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe. Mrs. Frank.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF JUDY KNIGHT-FRANK, CHAIRMAN, THE UTE MOUNTAIN UTE TRIBE
Ms. KNIGHT-FRANK. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is Judy Knight-Frank. I am the chairman of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe which is located in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. With me today I have two of our members of the council—Rudy Hammond, the vice chairman, and Eddie Dutchie, Jr., who is the treasurer of the tribe. He is also the representative from the White Mesa Ute community.
I want to thank you for inviting me to testify in support of H.R. 3478 on behalf of my tribe. I especially want to thank Congressmen Scott McInnis and Bill Redmond for introducing this important bill which we hope will finally settle our water rights. This bill is essential to the tribe's future, so they may continue the economic self-sufficiency and tribal self-determination which we have worked so hard to achieve.
I would ask that my written statement be included as part of the record. I also have a letter from some tribal elders which I ask also be included in the record.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Ms. KNIGHT-FRANK. As the Committee is aware, H.R. 3478 seeks to amend the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988. The Animas-La Plata Project was a key part of the 1988 Act. After a decade of delays in construction on ALP, the tribes went to the Secretary in August 1996 to ask for help. Secretary Babbitt told us he agreed that a new water storage facility was the only way to settle the tribe's water rights without tearing apart the social and economic fabric of the area. He told us to ask Governor Romer to assist us with bringing all the parties together to come up with a consensus project.
We did this, and the process resulted in two alternatives—a reduced ALP and a proposal which would have the tribes buying land and water in the area. The tribes have formally rejected any money for land deal because it is environmentally and physically unworkable.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
H.R. 3478 represents the tribe's efforts to answer environmental and fiscal questions about ALP. Our proposal reduces Federal costs of the project by two-thirds. The tribes are getting less water than promised before but are asking to pay less for it. All of the irrigation facilities have been removed from the project. As you will hear today, this answers New Mexico's concerns about water quality.
Finally, H.R. 3478 also provides the means to assure the successful recovery of endangered fish in the San Juan Basin. That program simply cannot continue without the support of the tribes and the construction of the three facilities identified in this bill.
A nearly identical bill, S. 1771, was introduced in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in March. I presented testimony at a hearing on that bill on June 24.
As we were told to do, the tribe submitted its testimony on time, so the committee could prepare for the hearing. We had been told by administration officials that any opposition to S. 1771 would be weak. As with many other things told to American Indians, this was far from the truth. The administration, through the same designated representative present today, Commissioner Martinez, gave us its testimony only 2 hours before that hearing. They strongly opposed S. 1771, and only a few words have changed in their testimony today.
Secretary Babbitt wrote to me and told me that the administration is prepared to enter into a good faith dialogue with the tribe to solve our water rights. We have had over 10 years of the administration's good faith—and let me tell you, their good faith doesn't hold water. The entire time we negotiated with project opponents, the administration has sat on the sidelines. They knew what we were doing every step of the way. They knew what this bill looked like months before it was even introduced. Yet they never told us what they really thought until just before that—last month's hearing. Nothing has changed here today.
We find it completely unfair for the administration to refuse to support a project which does not contain delivery facilities when it was exactly that project feature which previously caused them so many concerns. It is also unfair for the administration to state that environmental laws will be violated by the project set out in this bill. We all know this is not the case, as these three features of the original project were studied extensively—now, in fact, the only features authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The bill must contain a statement that 15-plus years of studies are sufficient or the United States together with the tribes may be in court for another 10 years.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, the Commissioner's written statement explains that David Hayes, counselor to the Secretary, has contacted the tribes. Well, Mr. Hayes allegedly faxed us a letter last night. This is not good enough. If Mr. Hayes is now the point person on our water settlement and ALP; I ask the administration and this Committee, where is David Hayes today? As far as the tribe engaging in a dialogue with Mr. Hayes, we will only consider doing so when the administration agrees. We are not starting over. We must focus on this bill. Based on past experience, we do not expect that to happen. I ask this honorable Committee to schedule this bill for markup and move it to the floor. Only then will the administration see that Congress is serious about not breaking anymore promises to the Indian tribes.
A promise has been made and a promise has been broken. For the administration to say there was no guarantee ALP would be built is simply not genuine. We have complied with every law and are now asking for even less. It's time for action.
I again thank you for your time and express my sadness at the loss we all sustained last Friday. Such violence affected our area recently, taking the life of a Cortez Colorado city police officer. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Knight-Frank may be found at end of hearing.]
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
pages 11 to 16
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.
Our next witness will be Mr. Sage Douglas Remington of the Southern Ute Grassroots Organization. Mr. Remington.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF SAGE DOUGLAS REMINGTON, SOUTHERN UTE GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATION
Mr. REMINGTON. ''Mike-Ku.'' In the native Ute language, I thank you for this opportunity to testify on H.R. 3478 and H.R. 745. I am the spokesperson for the Southern Ute Grassroots Organization, which is a group of Southern Ute Tribal members who live on the Southern Ute reservation in Colorado, and who are in support of H.R. 745 and opposed to H.R. 3478.
I've been instructed by the SUGO Elder Council to present a cultural and spiritual perspective that is in conflict with the mainstream political and cultural value system. My colleagues, in opposition to ALP, will speak about the environmental, taxpayer, and economic concerns that we all share.
The roots of SUGO go back to 1989, when a group of concerned Southern Ute Tribal members formed the Committee For Better Tribal Government. The committee's principal concern was that the best interests of the majority of the Ute people were not properly being represented in the Animas-La Plata Reclamation Project. This group of Southern Ute tribal members gathered the necessary signatures to institute a recall for the tribal council. With some questionable maneuvering, the incumbents succeeded in disqualifying one recall vote, thus resulting in a tie. Under the tribal constitution, the tie preserved the status quo. Dissatisfied with ALP, abuses of power and lack of responsiveness by the tribal government did not fail—did not die after this failed recall attempt. The organizers of the Committee for Better Government proceeded to form the Southern Ute Grassroots Organization.
Our Ute people have maintained a connection with the land and water since they were loosely confederated bands of a people called the ''Nuche.'' We believe that rocks, trees, the rivers, and the Earth are alive, and we have lost much of our land base through the violence, assault and legal manipulations that have separated the Utes from their land and water. The Utes share with other traditional tribal peoples three primary political principles—two, rather. All land, water, and other natural resources are communally owned by the tribe; private ownership of land, water, goods beyond those of the immediate household are unthinkable. And all tribal decisions are by consensus, in which every tribal member participates.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There has never been a general council meeting of the Ute people dedicated to discussions about the benefits of the Animas-La Plata Project. In general council meeting, every adult member of the tribe is permitted to speak, and discussion continues until consensus is reached. Questions and concerns about this project, the original ALP and ALP Lite have gone unanswered.
In December 1996, SUGO held a meeting with members of the Southern Ute tribal membership to discuss an alternative to Animas-La Plata project, and it was at this time that the Ute Legacy Land and Water Fund concept was developed. Ute tribal members who had land assignments and allotments were asked, ''What would you like to see result from this project?'' Their responses were unanimous. Ute tribal members wanted to restore the integrity of the traditional Ute land base with purchases of land and water rights on the reservation.
It is with a heavy heart that the Southern Ute Grassroots Organization must declare its support for H.R. 745, a bill that would deauthorize the old project. It is not the answer, but it is a possibility of the beginning of a new solution. This project was never clearly defined in terms of benefits to the Southern Ute tribal members. It can never be constructed as originally planned until the 1986 Settlement Agreement.
H.R. 745 directs the Secretary of Interior to negotiate an alternative that is consistent with all the Federal laws. An alternative to ALP should provide the full amount of water allocated to the tribes in the 1986 Settlement Agreement. ALP's a parody of the history of the American West. It's become a saga of lies—lies, half-truths, and myths.
ALP has its own mythology. Ute people do not haul water by the bucket. Ute people are not drinking dishwater on this very day with bugs and debris a part of the water.
I'm reminded of a scene that took place here in Washington, DC, on May 2, 1948. The Federal Government forced a strong-armed settlement on the Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara Tribes to make way for the Garrison Dam on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in North Dakota. This picture illustrates the heavy heart of George Gillettee, chairman of the Fort Berthold Indian Tribal Business Council, as he is forced to sign an agreement for the dam. This is not how Indian water projects should continue to develop. The Southern Ute tribal membership must have a voice in the decisionmaking process of any ALP water project, and it can be done.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
''Tuvus-Togoy-Ax.''
[The prepared statement of Mr. Remington may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.
Our next witness will be Mr. Jim Isgar, member of the Animas-La Plata Water Conservancy District. Mr. Isgar.
STATEMENT OF JIM ISGAR, MEMBER, THE ANIMAS-LA PLATA WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
Mr. ISGAR. Good afternoon. My name is Jim Isgar. I'm a board member of the Animas-La Plata Water Conservancy District. I'm joined today by Charlie and Freda Blasingame, and Elbert and Nila Hamblin, La Plata River irrigators from New Mexico.
Let me thank the Committee for the opportunity to be here and for your support in the past. I am a farmer/rancher in La Plata County, Colorado, in Southwest Colorado, on private land that lies entirely within the boundaries of the Southern Ute reservation. My grandfather homesteaded on another part of the reservation near Ignacio.
Approximately 50 years ago, my father moved to our present location near the La Plata River. The soil is good, but the water supply was limited, but there was talk of a water project that would bring water from the Animas River to the La Plata Basin. My dad became involved in working on the water project, and finally, after 20 years in 1968, the Animas-La Plata Project was authorized by Congress.
My dad was here in Washington for the signing of that bill. I was 17 at the time. My dad told me that he would be too old to benefit from the water by the time the project was built, but that it would be a great thing for me. The project at that time included water for the Ute tribes. That amount became more quantified when it became necessary to resolve the Tribal Reserve Water Rights claims. It hinged on the building of the Animas-La Plata Project. The La Plata River only had a fraction of the water necessary for the current non-Indian irrigators. It was obvious to all involved that the only solution to the Tribal Settlement Act was storage. When the Water Rights Settlement Act was signed, we thought we were at last done.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Over the past 10 years, we have actively pursued the project; however, a variety of issues has slowed us down. We have been sued by the environmental community, the Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the Colorado squawfish might be impacted by the project, and we've began a 7-year program to determine what that effect might be. Our involvement in that process resulted in the Fish and Wildlife