[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 3112, TO AMEND THE COLORADO UTE INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT
TO PROVIDE FOR A FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIMS OF THE COLORADO UTE
INDIAN TRIBES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 11, 2000, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 106-92
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
67-697 WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
ELTON GALLEGLY, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California Samoa
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
KEN CALVERT, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ADAM SMITH, Washington
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA MC CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada JAY INSLEE, Washington
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon TOM UDALL, New Mexico
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania MARK UDALL, Colorado
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California, Chairman
KEN CALVERT, California CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California GEORGE MILLER, California
HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ADAM SMITH, Washington
GREG WALDEN, Oregon DONNA MC CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
MIKE SIMPSOM, Idaho Islands
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
Robert Faber, Staff Director/Counsel
Joshua Johnson, Professional Staff
Steve Lanich, Minority Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held May 11, 2000........................................ 1
Statement of Members:
Doolittle, Hon. John T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 1
McInnis, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado, prepared statement of................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Baker, Jr., John E., Chairman, Southern UTE Indian Tribe,
Ignacio, Colorado.......................................... 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Hayes, David J., Deputy Secretary, Department of Interior,
Washington, DC............................................. 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
House, Chairman, Ernest, UTE Mountain UTE Tribe, Towaoc,
Colorado................................................... 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 35
Remington, Sage Douglas, Director, Southern UTE Grassroots
Organization, Ignacio, Colorado............................ 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 41
Additional Material Supplied:
Black, Michael, with Taxpayers for the Animas River, prepared
statement of............................................... 65
Griswold, Richard K., President of the Animas-La Plata Water
Conservancy District, prepared statement of................ 46
Kroeger, Fred V., President of the Southwestern Water
Conservation District, prepared statement of............... 61
San Juan Water Commission in New Mexico, prepared statement
of......................................................... 56
Turney, Thomas C., State Engineer with the State of New
Mexico, prepared statement of.............................. 52
HEARING ON: H.R. 3112, TO AMEND THE COLORADO UTE INDIAN WATER RIGHTS
SETTLEMENT ACT TO PROVIDE FOR A FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIMS OF THE
COLORADO UTE INDIAN TRIBES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 11, 2000
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to other business, at 2:48
p.m., in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John
T. Doolittle (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Doolittle. We will now proceed to the hearing on
Animas-La Plata. I thank the members. Let me invite our
witnesses to come forward. This is a legislative hearing on
H.R. 3112.
May I ask you to please rise and raise your right hands. Do
you solemnly swear or affirm under the penalty of perjury that
the testimony given will be the whole truth and nothing but the
truth?
Mr. Hayes. I do.
Mr. Baker. I do.
Mr. House. I do.
Mr. Remington. I do.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. Let the record reflect that each
answered affirmatively. We are very happy to welcome you here,
gentlemen, and we will begin hearing from the Deputy Secretary
of Interior, Mr. David Hayes. Welcome.
[The prepared statement of John T. Doolittle follows]
Statement of Hon. John T. Doolittle, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California
H.R. 3023, Greater Yuma Port Authority
H.R. 4132, Water Resources Research Act
S. 1211, Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act
Legislative Hearing on:
H. R. 3112, ``to amend the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights
Settlement Act to provide for a final settlement of the claims
of the Colorado Ute Indian Tribes, and for other purposes.
Today we will first markup the following three bills,
followed by a legislative hearing on H.R. 3112, the Animas La
Plata Project. The bills to markup include:
1. H.R. 3023, Greater Yuma Port Authority
To convey to the Greater Yuma Port Authority an area of
land currently controlled by the Bureau of Reclamation
consisting of approximately 330 acres, at fair market value,
just east of the City of San Luis, for the construction of a
commercial Port of Entry.
2. H.R. 4132, Water Resources Research Act
To reauthorize grants for water resources research and
technology institutes established under the Water Resources
Research Act of 1984.
These state water resource research institutes, under the
authority of the Water Resources Research Act, have established
an effective federal/state partnership in water resources,
education and information transfer. They work with state and
federal agencies and water resources stakeholders in their home
states while acting as a network for the exchange of water
resources research and information transfer among the states. I
am pleased that among the 17 cosponsors we already have, many
of them are members of this Subcommittee, on both sides of the
aisle. I look forward to the rest of you joining us in
cosponsoring this bill.
3. S. 1211, Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act
To increase the current Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Act authorization from $75 million to $175 million. In
addition, the legislation requires the secretary to file a
report to address salt contributions from Bureau of Land
Management lands.
Prior to 1995, Reclamation's efforts to reduce salinity
were costing between $70 to more than $100 for each ton of salt
that was controlled. One of the important steps we took in
reforming this program in 1996 was the introduction of private
parties and the use of market forces to bring those costs down.
It is a testament to the use of entrepreneurial methods that I
can now report that costs for salt removal are around $30 per
ton. In addition, for every $100 spent by the federal
government, an additional $43 is spent by the Basin States.
H.R. 3112, an amendment to ``the Colorado Ute Indian Water
Rights Settlement Act to provide for a final settlement of the
claims of the Colorado Ute Indian Tribes.''
Two years ago, this Subcommittee held a hearing to address
issues raised by the Romer-Schoettler process regarding what
direction to take with the Animas La Plata Project, and to hear
testimony from project proponents, opponents, and the
Administration. During the hearing, then Counselor to the
Secretary of the Interior, David Hayes indicated the desire of
the Administration to address additional issues. On August 11,
1998, the Secretary of Interior presented an Administration
Proposal to implement the Settlement Act. H.R. 3112 is an
attempt by project beneficiaries to implement these
negotiations and come to a final Settlement Act.
Since the hearing the Tribes, and other project
beneficiaries have agreed to a much smaller ALP Project. In
fact, if you consider the full cost of project, as anticipated
in 1968, in 1999 dollars, the project would have an estimated
price of $754 million. The bill before us today, specifically
regarding the ALP project, is estimated to costs between $180
and $240 million. This is a drastic reduction in the project
cost.
I commend the Project beneficiaries for their continuing
flexibility to work with the Administration to draft
legislation that meets their demands, and one that provides an
equitable settlement to the tribes. I would also just like to
note the municipal and industrial water beneficiaries
commitment to fully fund their portion of the capital
investment--in full and up front.
I look forward to hearing the testimony and discussing the
issues with the witnesses.
STATEMENT OF DAVID J. HAYES, DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I have submitted a written statement that I would
appreciate being entered into the record, Mr. Chairman.
In my oral comments, I would like to just briefly review
some of the highlights of what has brought us here to this
hearing today on H.R. 3112. This hearing, as the chairman noted
at the outset, is on a bill that is intended to provide a final
settlement for the claims of the Colorado Ute Indian Tribes in
Southwestern Colorado and Northern New Mexico. Those remaining
claims exist in the Animas and La Plata river basins in
Southeastern Colorado and their resolution also requires a
resolution of issues associated
with the Animas-La Plata project that was originally
authorized in 1968 and which has not been built. We are very
interested in resolving these very difficult issues once and
for all and we thank Congressman McInnis for introducing the
bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McInnis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.004
Mr. Hayes. The administration supports H.R. 3112 with some
modifications that are identified in my testimony. The reason
we support passage of this legislation is that we feel strongly
that it is time to resolve the longstanding claims of the
Colorado Ute Tribes, the Southern Utes and the Mountain Utes.
In 1986, Congress passed the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights
Final Settlement Agreement, which identified the legal rights
of the two tribes to reserve water under the Winters doctrine.
It anticipated that those legal rights would be implemented
through the construction of the Animas-La Plata project that
originally was authorized in 1968.
Unfortunately, however, that project could not be
implemented in the form in which it was authorized in 1968,
and, in fact, this administration identified serious problems
both with the original project and also with the project
commonly known as ``ALP Lite'', which emerged out of the Romer-
Schoettler process that the chairman referred to earlier in his
comments. The administration was concerned that even ALP Lite
was too large a project, raised significant environmental
concerns and financial concerns.
Yet Secretary Babbitt and the administration appreciated
the fact that it was necessary to bring closure to the tribal
water rights and we proposed in August 1998 that a further
scaled-down project that was geared toward the tribal water
right proceed for full environmental review. That review has
been undertaken and it is because the review has been
undertaken with full public process that we are here today
believing it is time to go forward and write the final chapter
of Animas-La Plata.
The bill that Congressman McInnis has introduced is, in
essence, a consensus bill among the tribes, the administration,
and the project proponents. It eliminates the irrigation
component of the original ALP project, which was a serious
concern for environmental purposes and also cost effectiveness
purposes. It is a much scaled-down reservoir, off-stream
facility, that still allows the Animas River to remain free-
flowing.
Thirdly, it incorporates non-structural concepts and
anticipates that the tribes will purchase some of their water
rights while also having a structural facility for certainty
for the bulk of their water rights. And it is premised on full
environmental review, full implementation under the Endangered
Species Act and under NEPA. And it finally anticipates that
some water would be available for municipalities in the area,
but only unsubsidized water for M&I uses only.
And most importantly, it will finally resolve the Ute
Tribes' water rights. We think that is important not only
because of the trust responsibility that we owe to the tribes,
but also because resolution of those water rights will avoid
the uncertainty of water rights in the entire Southwestern
Colorado and Northern New Mexico area. If we do not bring
closure here, the Settlement Act of 1968 will go by the
wayside, litigation will commence, and potentially very
significant senior water rights claims will be brought against
current non-Indian water users in Southern Colorado and
Northern New Mexico. We think a consensual solution along the
lines of what has been developed among the parties and with the
administration's help as reflected in Congressman McInnis's
bill is the way to go.
A final point, we do think it is important to deauthorize
the ALP project and make it clear that this is the final
chapter. We also think it is important to reflect the concept
of full repayment for the M&I users. We think there is a way to
do this that will be consistent with the needs of the water
users and the interests of all parties.
Finally, I will note that an important feature of this bill
and the administration's proposal is a drinking water pipeline
for the Navajo Nation between Farmington and Shiprock, a much
needed replacement of an important municipal water supply that
the current pipeline of which has lived beyond its useful life.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and
providing the opportunity to testify.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hayes follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.017
Mr. Doolittle. We are in the middle of a vote, but I think
we have time to take the testimony of one more person before
that happens, so we will hear from Mr. John E. Baker, Jr.,
chairman of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Ignacio, Colorado.
STATEMENT OF JOHN E. BAKER, JR., CHAIRMAN, SOUTHERN UTE INDIAN
TRIBE, IGNACIO, COLORADO
Mr. Baker. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank each and every one of you for allowing me this
opportunity to speak on behalf of my tribe.
Good afternoon. My name is John E. Baker, Jr. I am the
chairman of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. On behalf of the
tribe and the Tribal Council, I offer unqualified support for
the enactment of H.R. 3112. We hope that the bill can be
promptly enacted into law.
Last fall, I was elected chairman of the tribe on a
platform that included a new approach to tribal government. A
lot has changed since I took office, but one thing has not, the
strong support for the Animas-La Plata project. ALP is the only
way to provide the tribe with a water supply to meet its
present and future needs. The Tribal Council continues to
support ALP just as a prior Tribal Council did when my father,
John E. Baker, Jr., was chairman, just as the council did when
my uncle, Chris A. Baker, Sr., was chairman, just as the
council did when my predecessor, Clement J. Frost, was
chairman, and just as the council did during the many years of
leadership under Leonard C. Burch.
The Tribal Council is elected to lead the Southern Ute
Indian Tribe. Over the years, the council has sought a firm and
reliable supply of water to serve as the foundation for tribal
economic growth and we as we move into the new century. The
present council, like past councils, understands that economic
success in the arid Southwest requires a dependable water
supply. Water will be needed whether the future of the Southern
Ute Indian Tribe includes continued success in natural resource
development or reflects the recreation and tourist industry
that is now an important part of the economy of the Four
Corners region. With an ever-growing tribal membership, we also
need houses and domestic water supply on the west side of our
reservation no matter what economic enterprises the tribe
ultimately undertakes.
Based on the studies of the draft EIS, we know that storage
is required to provide the tribe with a firm and flexible
supply of water. The United States promised that the tribe
would have such a water supply in 1868 when it created the Ute
Reservation. It confirmed that promise in 1988 when it passed
the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act in 1988,
102 Stat. 2973. Now is the time for the United States to carry
out those commitments.
The project that would be constructed under the present
legislation is much different than the originally proposed ALP.
It is much different than Phase I of the project which was to
be constructed under the terms of the 1986 Settlement Agreement
and the 1988 Settlement Act. It is also much different than the
ALP Lite project, which was proposed only 2 years ago. All of
the changes that have been made respond to arguments by the
project opponents.
First of all, the project is now unquestionably an Indian
water rights project.
Second, the major environmental issues associated with
irrigation and the Endangered Species Act have been eliminated
by downsizing the project.
Third, the cost of the project has been greatly reduced.
Fourth, the proposed legislation contains no short cut to
environmental compliance.
Despite these major changes to the project, there is still
opposition. The opponents would oppose any water project, no
matter how small its impact and no matter who gets the
benefits. Congress should not be swayed by the arguments that
are raised against the project but should move forth to carry
out the promises made to the two Ute Tribes. The bill is still
a good solution to a very difficult problem. It should be
passed.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation
for your work on this matter. I also want to note Congressman
McInnis's leadership on this difficult issue. We appreciate his
hard work and support.
Finally, we want to say thank you to Secretary Babbitt,
Deputy Secretary Hayes, and the Department of the Interior for
their work on these matters. We also want to state our
appreciation for the sacrifices made by our non-Indian
neighbors who have never wavered in their insistence that the
United States should honor its commitments to the two Ute
Tribes.
In closing, I sit here as a veteran of this country and I
believe that we live in the greatest country of the world and I
think it is only honorable that we honor the agreements made
between the United States and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe.
Thank you.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.025
Mr. Doolittle. The committee will now recess for the votes,
which I think there are two, so we should be back here in about
20 minutes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Doolittle. The subcommittee will reconvene and we will
hear from Mr. Ernest House, chairman of the Ute Mountain Tribe
in Colorado. Mr. House?
STATEMENT OF ERNEST HOUSE, CHAIRMAN, UTE MOUNTAIN UTE TRIBE,
TOWAOC, COLORADO
Mr. House. My name is Ernest House, Sr. I am the tribal
chairman for the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. I am honored to
testify today in support of H.R. 3112, the Colorado Ute
Settlement Act Amendment of 1999.
It is difficult to describe my tribe's long-term commitment
to obtain a fair and just settlement of our water claims in
Southwest Colorado and Northwest New Mexico. I thought the best
way to do so might be to introduce you to my father, Thomas
House, Sr., who served on the Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Council
more than a quarter of a century ago.
I also wanted to demonstrate to the chairman and members of
the committee that the real reason we have remained so
committed in spite of the many years which have passed and
delays which have been endured. The Ute Mountain Tribe and our
sister tribe, Southern Utes, entered into a settlement and have
patiently waited for its implementation for the future of our
tribe. Joining me today are my son and daughter, the picture of
our future generation who will benefit from this firm supply of
water. I ask you to welcome my son, Ernest House Jr. and my
daughter, Michelle House.
I was a young tribal member, like them, in 1968 when my
grandfather, the late Chief Jack House appeared before the
House Interior and Insular Affairs to testify in support of the
Animas-La Plata project. I was also a tribal chairman in 1986
when the Southern Ute Tribe and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe signed
the original settlement agreement with the State of Colorado.
The agreement eventually became the Colorado Ute Indian Water
Rights Settlement Act of 1988, which was passed by Congress and
signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. Needless to say,
the Ute Mountain Ute people rejoiced with the Southern Ute
people and our non-Indian neighbors because we thought we had
finally won the long battle to acquire a firm water supply to
meet the present and future needs of our Indian people of
Southwest Colorado.
Two years ago when we came before the subcommittee in
support of legislation to implement the Colorado Ute Indian
Water Rights Settlement Act, the Clinton administration refused
to support our cause. Today, however, I understand, hopefully,
that the Clinton administration will support H.R. 3112, along
with the State of Colorado, New Mexico, and sister tribe, the
Southern Ute Indians. H.R. 3112 will provide for the final
settlement of the water rights claims of the Southern Ute
Indian and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes in Southwestern Colorado.
The legislation creates substantial new water supply to the Ute
Tribes and supplemental supplies to the non-Indian communities
in our area.
We urge you to promptly consider and approve the
legislation so that at the conclusion of our environmental
process, the Secretary of the Interior can move forward with a
record of decision and construction of this crucially needed
water supply project.
As a tribal leader on the national, State, and local level
for several years, I have witnessed on many occasions major
confrontation and battles between Indians and non-Indians on
various issues affecting tribal sovereignty, tribal natural
resources, social and economic issues.
Finally, I would like to thank on behalf of the Ute
Mountain Ute tribe and our other tribal and non-tribal partners
in Colorado and New Mexico, both the Congress and the Clinton
administration for their leadership. Through the efforts
undertaken different times with different styles, a commitment
has emerged from both the U.S. Congress and the Clinton
administration to resolve once and for all this lengthy
struggle to find a legally and scientifically supportive
solution. We are indeed fortunate that the elected leaders from
the tribes, La Plata and Montezuma Counties, and the States of
Colorado and New Mexico, and elected and non-elected officials
in Denver and Washington, DC., have put aside their differences
and worked to develop a rational and equitable solution.
It is time to move forward. I want my father to see this
project in his lifetime and I am hopeful my children will be
able to focus their efforts on other important tribal issues
and will not 10 years from now be sitting here where I am today
asking for the water for my people.
I thank you, Chairman, for the time that you have allowed
me. Also, for the record, I would like to say that the State of
Colorado has submitted their support and it is in the record,
to let the committee know that the State of Colorado also
supports the water project. Thank you very much.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. House follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.029
Mr. Doolittle. Our next witness is Mr. Sage Douglas
Remington, Director of the Southern Utes Grassroots
Organization from Colorado. I might note, it is my
understanding that Mr. Remington has been quite ill and has
spent a good deal of time here today waiting for us to get
through this hearing, so we hope you are feeling better and I
appreciate your patience. Mr. Remington?
STATEMENT OF SAGE DOUGLAS REMINGTON, DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN UTE
GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATION, IGNACIO, COLORADO
Mr. Remington. Thank you. My name is Sage Douglas Remington
and I am a representative of the Southern Ute Grassroots
Organization, which represents Southern Ute Tribal members who
are deeply concerned about the Animas-La Plata project and its
long-term effect on water resources of the Southern Ute Tribe.
First of all, a number of groups that are concerned about
the ALP water project are not present because verbal testimony
has been limited to one representative. Therefore, I am not in
a position to address or cover their issues of concern.
Our main concern is that there has been little
communication between the Southern Ute Tribal membership and
the Tribal Council about the long-term benefits of the Animas-
La Plata water project. We are not opposed to ALP. What we are
opposed to is the autocratic attitude of the Southern Ute
Tribal Council.
The ALP water project does not meet the legal mandate of
NEPA or other fiscal and environmental laws and the Bureau of
Reclamation has ignored the alternative proposed by the
opponents to the project. The indefinite purposes and needs for
the project violates NEPA, the Clean Water Act, and is not
consistent with sound taxpayer public policy.
The SEIS states that the purpose of and the need for the
preferred ALP alternative is to implement the Colorado Ute
Water Rights Settlement Act by providing the Ute Tribes with an
assured long-term water supply and water acquisition fund in
order to satisfy the tribes' senior water rights claims as
quantified in the Settlement Act and to provide for identified
M&I water needs in the project area.
What the concerned members of the tribe believe is that the
proposed project does not implement the Settlement Act.
Instead, it proposes an entirely different configuration of the
water development as originally proposed. Settling Indian water
claims may be a purpose, but implementing the 1988 Settlement
Agreement clearly is not.
The Bureau's position is that no uses of the water must be
identified because it implements an Indian water rights
settlement. The proposed action does not, however, identify any
need for non-Indian water in the project. As a matter of fact,
it does not even justify why non-Indian water is needed, if
needed at all. There is no valid comparison of the alternatives
if the purpose of the project is not clearly defined.
Absent is any specification of how the Ute Tribes will
actually use their water. According to the SEIS, the ultimate
use of project water, about three-fourths of the total water
supply, by the Ute Tribes would be more specifically defined by
those tribes as future needs develop. The SEIS lists a number
of non-binding different water uses that the tribes may or may
not decide to pursue in the future. Noticeably absent is a
discussion of firm tribal plans to utilize their water. It
appears that the only presently foreseeable use is tribal water
marketing.
The failure to identify actual uses for tribal water is a
fundamental law that infects the analysis undertaken by the
Bureau of Reclamation in the SEIS. Without knowing how Ute
water will be used, it is difficult to rationalize whether or
not the proposed reservoir is necessary. Other than providing
water uses proximate to the proposed reservoir or within the
Animas basin, it is difficult to see what advantages the Ridges
basin reservoir will achieve that could not be accomplished by
exchange using the numerous other Federal storage facilities in
the greater project area. The end uses of the water are
connected and interdependent actions and NEPA on them must be
completed before the project can be approved.
The failure to specify actual water uses is not remedied by
the speculative non-binding uses offered in the SEIS. While
several of these may have merit at some point in the future,
others, notably the single largest water use proposed for a
project, a coal-fired power plant which the tribal membership
does not know anything about, are speculative and painfully
strain even the most optimistic assumptions about future
development in the Four Corners region. No private sector
investor, whether for-profit or not-for-profit, would ever
direct valuable resources into such a pipe dream regardless of
the beneficiaries.
The Animas-La Plata project is not needed to facilitate
tribal water marketing and will impose serious legal and
economic penalties on the tribal attempts to market water.
Because the SEIS offers no foreseeable use for the majority of
tribal water other than marketing, Interior and other Federal
departments have failed to justify any actual need for the
Animas-La Plata project.
The membership of SUGO feels that if the settlement of the
Indian water rights claim is truly a purpose of the project,
then the issue of tribal water leasing or sale out of State
must be considered. Thank you.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Remington follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.033
Mr. Doolittle. It seems to me over the 10-years I have been
on this committee, I have heard several hearings on Animas-La
Plata, so hopefully we will actually make this happen this
time.
I would like to include in the record statements from
Richard K. Griswold, President of the Animas-La Plata Water
Conservancy District; Thomas C. Turney, State engineer with the
State of New Mexico; the San Juan Water Commission in New
Mexico; Fred V. Kroeger, President of the Southwestern Water
Conservation District; and Michael Black with the Taxpayers for
the Animas River.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Griswold follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.038
[The prepared statement of Mr. Turney follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.041
[The prepared statement of the San Juan Water Commission
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.045
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kroeger follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.048
[The prepared statement of Mr. Black follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7697.051
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Hayes, it has been implied that this
legislation impedes the tribe from interstate water marketing
and I wondered if you agree that the tribe has given up any
right to market their water or would they be required in any
case, with or without this bill, to abide by State law in
marketing their water.
Mr. Hayes. Mr. Chairman, the marketing constraints have
been identified in the existing Animas-La Plata legislation and
the proposed amendments would not affect that in any way. So
the status quo in terms of authorization would continue in
place, and there are some restrictions on interstate marketing
in the current authorization.
Mr. Doolittle. So we are not making anything worse in that
regard by the present legislation?
Mr. Hayes. There is no change.
Mr. Doolittle. There is language in this bill, I think,
intended to address the administration's concern about the
desire to deauthorize the project; it is on page seven at the
bottom, paragraph three, which says, ``if constructed, the
facility described in paragraph 1(a) shall not be used in
conjunction with any other facility authorized as part of the
Animas-La Plata project without express authorization from
Congress.'' Does that legislation meet your concern and cause
you to support the bill, Mr. Hayes?
Mr. Hayes. On this issue, the language that have set forth
would address the issue satisfactorily from the
administration's perspective, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. This project is much reduced from
what it was. Personally, I would have preferred the larger
version, but perhaps some of you would, too. In any event, this
is where we are. It has been a long, difficult process. I
appreciate the patience you have had with our committee. It
really would not have taken very long if we had not been
delayed by those votes.
The subcommittee is pretty familiar, I think, with this
project because of the number of times it has been before us. I
would hope we could go to markup fairly soon after this hearing
and go from there and hopefully it can move through the Senate
side expeditiously.
I would like to thank all of you for your attendance today.
We may have further questions and I would ask you to respond
expeditiously to those that we would tender following the
hearing. With that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:19 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]