[Senate Hearing 118-120]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 

                                                        S. Hrg. 118-120
 
                      S. 616, S. 1898 AND S. 1987

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

                      COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             JULY 12, 2023

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs
         
         
         
         [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
         
         
         
         
         
                                    


             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 53-617 PDF           WASHINGTON : 2023 
 




                      COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

                     BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii, Chairman
                 LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Vice Chairman
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
JON TESTER, Montana                  STEVE DAINES, Montana
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TINA SMITH, Minnesota                MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
       Jennifer Romero, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                  Amber Ebarb, Minority Staff Director
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on July 12, 2023....................................     1
Statement of Senator Daines......................................    43
Statement of Senator Lujan.......................................     4
Statement of Senator Murkowski...................................     1
Statement of Senator Schatz......................................     1
Statement of Senator Smith.......................................     4
Statement of Senator Tester......................................     2

                               Witnesses

Crockett, John, Associate Deputy Chief for State, Private, and 
  Tribal Forestry, U.S. Department of Agriculture................    14
    Prepared statement...........................................    15
Fineday, Hon. Leonard, Secretary-Treasurer, Leech Lake Band of 
  Ojibwe Indians.................................................    16
    Prepared statement...........................................    18
Juras, Hon. Kristen, Lieutenant Governor, State of Montana.......    38
    Prepared statement...........................................    40
Newland, Hon. Bryan, Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs, U.S. 
  Department of the Interior.....................................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Nygren, Hon. Buu, President, Navajo Nation.......................    22
    Prepared statement...........................................    24
Stiffarm, Hon. Jeffrey, President, Fort Belknap Indian Community.    26
    Prepared statement...........................................    27

                                Appendix

Letters submitted for the record 


Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Tina Smith to:
    John Crockett................................................    61
    Hon. Leonard Fineday.........................................    62
    Hon. Bryan Newland...........................................    63


                      S. 616, S. 1898 AND S. 1987

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2023


                                       U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Indian Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:41 p.m. in room 
628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Brian Schatz, 
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

    The Chairman. Good afternoon. During today's legislative 
hearing, we will consider three bills: S. 616, the Leech Lake 
Reservation Restoration Technical Corrections Act of 2023; S. 
1898, the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project Amendments Act of 
2023; and S. 1987, Fort Belknap Indian Community Water Rights 
Settlement Act of 2023.
    S. 616 would make express the Secretary of Agriculture's 
authority to transfer suitable Forest Service land located in 
the Chippewa National Forest in Cass County, Minnesota, to the 
Secretary of the Interior for the benefit of the tribe in 
fulfillment of the purposes of the Leech Lake Reservation 
Restoration Act.
    S. 1898, introduced by Senators Lujan and Heinrich, would 
amend the Navajo-San Juan River Water Rights Settlement to 
provide the additional time and resources needed to complete 
the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project authorized in 2009.
    Lastly, Senators Tester and Daines introduced S. 1987. This 
bill will authorize and ratify the water rights compact entered 
into by the Fort Belknap Indian Community, the United States, 
and the State of Montana in 2001. It would also provide 
critical water infrastructure and funding for the tribe's water 
development, provide mitigation measures for non-Indian water 
users, and transfer certain lands into trust for the benefit of 
the tribe.
    Before I turn to the Vice Chair for her opening statement, 
I would like to extend my welcome and thanks to our witnesses 
for joining us today. I look forward to your testimony and our 
discussion.
    Vice Chair Murkowski?

               STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding 
this hearing. You have mentioned the three bills before us. I 
am going to keep my comments brief, because you have already 
outlined the specifics. These bills are important, as they 
address the complex tribal water and land issues.
    Just a couple of words here about the Fort Belknap Indian 
Community Water Rights Settlement Act. We were in this 
Committee almost two years ago, back in October of 2021, 
talking about the need to get all the parties together to make 
a real push to reach agreement. So I am pleased that we are 
here with a settlement with broad support including from the 
Governor of Montana. That demonstrates great work, so 
congratulations on that.
    I think we recognized that the Fort Belknap Indian 
Community is tied to one of the most consequential opinions 
issued by the Supreme Court on tribal water rights. This is the 
Winters v. United States case, back in 1908, but it is the 
basis for the Federal Government's trust responsibility to 
safeguard water rights for our tribes. Winters is the reason 
why Indian water settlements approved by Congress often fund 
infrastructure for agriculture, for drinking water, and 
sanitation systems on tribal lands.
    Those on this Committee know that I have talked long and 
often about the issue of lack of access to water in Alaskan 
villages. We have more than 3,000 households and about 30 
Native villages that suffer from a total lack of indoor 
plumbing: that is running water, that is sanitation. It impacts 
everything from the ability to bathe to disease issues as you 
try to move human waste in crude buckets.
    We have so much more to do here. We have made some great 
gains, $3.5 billion in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to 
clear the existing backlog of IHS sanitation projects, $2.5 
billion to implement existing tribal water settlements. So we 
recognize that is big, that is a significant step.
    But it doesn't eliminate the need for the Federal 
Government to continue investing in tribal water projects. I 
think we are just seeing this need grow. Tribes are facing 
ballooning costs with operating and maintaining this influx of 
new water projects, especially when these systems come of age.
    Mr. Chairman, I had a conversation with the Comptroller of 
the GAO, Gene Dodaro, about this. He agreed to my request, 
which is to launch a GAO study to examine the growing financial 
costs that tribes may incur for these operating systems. I am 
looking forward to reviewing the results when we get that back.
    I think we know we have a lot more to do to provide water 
to Native communities, and I am glad that today's hearing 
includes legislation to address this significant unmet need.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Vice Chair Murkowski.
    I will now recognize Senator Tester.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

    Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 
you, Chairman Schatz and Ranking Member Murkowski, for having 
this hearing, particularly as it applies to the Fort Belknap 
Indian Community Water Settlement.
    I would ask unanimous consent to place into the record the 
following letters of support: Rocky Mountain Tribal Leaders 
Council, The Wilderness Society, State Representative Paul 
Tuss, Bear Paw Development Corporation, St. Mary's 
Rehabilitation Working Group, Milk River Joint Board of 
Control, and Blaine County Conservation District.
    The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
    Senator Tester. And I think Senator Daines will have some 
more letters to be put in when he arrives.
    Once again, we are here to talk about the Fort Belknap 
Indian Community Water Settlement, amongst one of the three 
bills up. I want to welcome our witnesses, President Jeffrey 
Stiffarm of Fort Belknap Indian Reservation. Thank you for 
being here, obviously for good reason. Lieutenant Governor 
Kristen Juras, thank you for being here, thank you for making 
the trek.
    I think the fact that you are here, Lieutenant Governor, 
speaks to the fact that this Administration thinks this is an 
important piece of legislation for us to take up. I just want 
to thank you for being here in person today. It would have been 
a lot easier to stay in Montana. It is a pretty good hike to 
get here.
    And it is an honor to have you both testify in front of 
this Committee, and what this means to not only the folks in 
Fort Belknap, but the entire State of Montana.
    The Fort Belknap Indian Community Water Settlement has been 
a long time in the making. I first introduced this bill in 
2012. But to be honest with you, for me it even started before 
that. During my State legislature days, I voted to get this 
bill out in the Montana legislature.
    I have been working with folks on the ground like President 
Stiffarm for over a decade. So to say that I am pleased that we 
have a version that takes into account the perspectives of 
multiple stakeholders coming before this Committee with 
widespread bipartisan support is an understatement. This is a 
historic day for the Fort Belknap Indian Community and for 
folks across north central Montana.
    I have said it before, and I will say it again, because my 
Native American friends taught me this: water is life. Water is 
necessary for crops, for businesses, for our homes, for life. 
The bipartisan settlement we are looking at today is the result 
of years of negotiations between the tribe, local elected 
officials, irrigators, State legislators, Federal agencies, and 
other stakeholders to hammer out a fair compromise that honors 
our trust and treaty responsibilities, while guaranteeing water 
certainty to all water users in north central Montana through 
the rehabilitation of the Milk River project.
    This is the last water settlement to be finalized for our 
great State of Montana. We have to get this done, because in 
Montana we make good on our promises and we work together to 
get things done and find that common ground. That is exactly 
what has happened with this settlement.
    For years, we have talked about moving this settlement 
forward. This Congress, we have a real shot. I want to thank 
the Chairman and Ranking Member, because you guys are helping 
give us that shot.
    Thanks again to everybody who is here today, the folks who 
are testifying, even if you are not testifying for the Fort 
Belknap Water Settlement. And I do know that the BIA will be 
testifying for it, correct, Mr. Newland?
    At any rate, this is so, so important to the people of 
Montana, to the Fort Belknap Indian Community. I look forward 
to the testimony and I look forward to the opportunity to ask 
questions.
    Thank you both.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Tester.
    We will now turn to Senator Smith.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. TINA SMITH, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

    Senator Smith. Thank you so much, Chair Schatz and Vice 
Chair Murkowski, for holding this hearing today and including 
my bill, the Leech Lake Reservation Restoration Technical 
Corrections Act of 2023.
    Welcome to all of our panelists. I want to particularly 
welcome Leech Lake Secretary-Treasurer Lenny Fineday to the 
Committee today, who is here to testify on the importance of 
this bill to Leech Lake. I want everyone to know that 
Secretary-Treasurer Fineday is a tremendous advocate for Leech 
Lake and has a distinguished background in tribal and Indian 
law. I am very grateful for your advocacy on this issue and so 
many others facing Leech Lake and all the indigenous 
communities in Minnesota.
    In the 1940s, thousands of acres were taken illegally from 
Leech Lake Band's reservation in secretarial transfers. Three 
years ago, with support from this Committee, we passed a law to 
make that right. That bill, the Leech Lake Reservation 
Restoration Act, directed the Department of Interior to 
transfer the wrongly seized land from the Chippewa National 
Forest in Cass County, Minnesota, to be held in trust for the 
Leech Lake Band.
    Today we are considering a technical amendment to that land 
transfer to make two changes. The first is to allow for ongoing 
implementation of the law and the second is to include in the 
law an additional approximately 4,400 acres. This land was also 
wrongly taken from the Band, which we discovered during a 
review of historic records undertaken as we were implementing 
the 2020 law.
    These changes, though technical, are crucial for 
implementing the existing law and to fulfill our goal and our 
trust and treaty responsibilities of restoring illegally taken 
lands to Leech Lake.
    I want to thank the Department of Agriculture and the 
Department of Interior for being here today to support the 
bill. I appreciate your assistance in drafting this technical 
correction. Also, thank you to the Forest Service for your work 
to implement the Leech Lake Reservation Restoration Act. 
Colleagues, I ask for your support for this technical 
correction, which will have a direct and real impact on the 
lives of Leech Lane Band members.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Smith.
    We will now turn to Senator Lujan.

               STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman, thank you, and to our Vice Chair for holding this 
hearing in part to consider my bill amending the Navajo-San 
Juan Water Rights Settlement. Today I am honored to introduce a 
friend, a great leader, and that is President of the Navajo 
Nation, Dr. Buu Nygren, who has traveled here to testify on 
behalf of this important water rights legislation for the 
Navajo Nation. Mr. President, thank you for being with us 
today.
    He was elected in 2022, Mr. Chairman, as the youngest 
Navajo Nation president in history at the age of 35. Dr. Nygren 
is a proud graduate of Red Mesa High School near the Four 
Corners of the Navajo Nation. He earned his Bachelor of Science 
and Master's at Arizona State University, and his Ph.D. from 
the University of Southern California.
    Dr. Nygren is married to Jasmine Blackwater Nygren, who is 
a former representative from the State of Arizona. Together 
they have a young daughter. Both proudly reside in Red Mesa, 
Arizona, where the president grew up. Mr. President, we welcome 
you here today, we welcome all of our guests here today, 
friends, leaders from across America.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senators.
    We will now turn to further witness introductions. First, 
we have the Honorable Bryan Newland, Assistant Secretary of 
Indian Affairs for the Department of Interior. We are also 
pleased to have Mr. John Crockett, the Associate Deputy Chief 
for State, Private and Tribal Forestry at the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture. Finally, we have the Honorable Kristen Juras, 
Lieutenant Governor of the State of Montana.
    I want to remind our witnesses that we have your full 
written testimony that will be made a part of the official 
hearing record. If you could please keep your statements to no 
more than five minutes.
    Senator Lujan has some opening remarks on the legislation. 
Senator Lujan, I apologize.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the benefit 
of being new here. I should have followed the wisdom of my more 
senior colleagues and included my opening statement with my 
introduction of the president. I apologize to everyone and ask 
for their indulgence.
    Mr. Chairman, the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project 
Amendments of 2023 are vital to ensuring that Congress uphold 
its promise to the Navajo Nation, the City of Gallup and the 
Jicarilla Apache Nation in New Mexico. In 2009, Congress passed 
the Navajo-San Juan River Water Rights Settlement Act. As a 
member of the U.S. House of Representatives, I was proud to 
carry that legislation in the House. Senator Jeff Bingaman 
carried that legislation here in this body.
    This project authorize the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply 
Project to pipe water to communities in New Mexico and eastern 
Arizona. Without action by Congress, authorization and funding 
for the project will expire on December 31st, 2024, depriving 
roughly a quarter of a million people in northwestern New 
Mexico and Arizona the water promised by this settlement in 
2009.
    In 2023, between 30 and 40 percent of households on the 
Navajo Nation still live without running water. Once completed, 
the project will help close this water gap and provide a more 
sustainable supply that will improve public health and economic 
opportunities for the region. This legislation must be signed 
into law this Congress to ensure work on the Navajo-Gallup 
Water Supply Project that began in 2009 does not grind to a 
halt.
    I appreciate the chance to be with you all today. I hope we 
earn the support of everyone.
    Before I yield back, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for 
unanimous consent to enter letters of support from the 
settlement parties and the participants into the record.
    The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
    Senator Lujan. With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you again, 
and I urge my colleagues to support these amendments. I 
appreciate all my colleagues for the legislation they have been 
working on as well, in hopes that we can get this done 
together.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Lujan.
    This is the part where I ask you to keep your remarks to no 
more than five minutes. Now that all of the testifiers have 
been introduced, we will start with Secretary Newland. Please 
begin with your testimony.

          STATEMENT OF HON. BRYAN NEWLAND, ASSISTANT 
       SECRETARY, INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE 
                            INTERIOR

    Mr. Newland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Aanii, boozhoo, mino 
ghizhep. Good afternoon, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski 
and members of the Committee.
    My name is Bryan Newland. I have the privilege of serving 
as the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department 
of the Interior. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on 
three bills today.
    The United States acts as a trustee for the land and water 
rights of tribes, American Indians and Alaska Natives. In its 
role as trustee, the Federal Government has an obligation to 
advance the interests of the beneficiaries with the highest 
degree of diligence and skill.
    The Administration strongly supports the resolution of 
Indian water rights claims through negotiated settlements. 
These settlements help ensure that citizens of tribal nations 
have reliable and safe water for drinking, for cooking, and for 
sanitation.
    Access to clean water improves the public health and 
environment on reservations. It enables economic growth. It 
promotes tribal self-sufficiency and it helps fulfill the 
United States' trust responsibility to tribes. The Department 
stands ready to work with Congress to advance Indian water 
rights settlements and uphold our sacred trust 
responsibilities.
    S. 1987 would approve and provide authorization to carry 
out the settlement of the Fort Belknap Indian Community's water 
rights in the State of Montana. The Department supports S. 
1987, and does suggest some technical changes to aid in its 
implementation. This bill would resolve the tribe's water 
rights claims in Montana by recognizing the water rights 
established in the Montana-Fort Belknap Water Rights Compact.
    S. 1987 authorizes $1.1 billion in Federal appropriations 
for the design and construction of water projects that would 
benefit the tribes and non-Native users in Montana. The bill 
also authorizes appropriations for the rehabilitation and 
expansion of the Fort Belknap Indian Irrigation Project and the 
Milk River Project. The Department does suggest a feasibility 
study for both projects to avoid cost gaps and guarantee 
completion.
    S. 1987 also identifies the Bureau of Indian Affairs as the 
lead agency for the project, although previous water 
settlements typically authorized the Bureau of Reclamation for 
that work. The Department suggests utilizing the Bureau of 
Reclamation as the lead agency for improvements to that 
project.
    We believe that this legislation would bring meaning to the 
legal victory that the tribes and the United States secured 
more than a century ago in the historic Winters case. We 
support S. 1987 with the technical changes just mentioned.
    The Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project was first authorized 
in 2009 and settled the Navajo Nation's water rights in the San 
Juan Basin of New Mexico. When completed, the project will 
provide a reliable and sustainable domestic municipal and 
industrial water supply from the San Juan River to 43 chapters 
of the Navajo Nation, including its capital in Window Rock, 
Arizona, as well as the City of Gallup, and the southwest 
portion of the Jicarilla Apache Reservation.
    S. 1898 provides an additional authorization of $725 
million to complete the project; $689 million will be used to 
address a cost gap; $30 million would be used to support Navajo 
community connections to the water transmission line; and $6 
million would be used for renewable energy features that would 
save energy costs on the overall project.
    This bill also extends the date by which the project must 
be completed to December 31st, 2029, and eliminates double 
taxation of goods and services.
    The Department appreciates the willingness of the Navajo 
Nation, the Jicarilla Apache Nation, the City of Gallup and the 
State of New Mexico to reach consensus on these issues. We 
support S. 1898.
    S. 616 is a technical amendment to Public Law 116-255 to 
authorize the transfer of additional lands in the Chippewa 
National Forest in Minnesota that met the same criteria listed 
in the original Act. This amendment is necessary to allow for 
the ongoing implementation and to allow for the inclusion of 
additional lands that the Department may identify in the 
future.
    In addition to flexibility for ongoing implementation, S. 
616 would also authorize an acre-for-acre substitution of land 
with the Chippewa National Forest if the Band identifies 
certain parcels that are unsuitable for future use. The 
Department supports S. 616 as well.
    Chairman Schatz and Vice Chair Murkowski, members of the 
Committee, I want to thank you again for this opportunity to 
testify. As always, I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Newland follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. Bryan Newland, Assistant Secretary, Indian 
                Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior
    Aanii (Hello)! Good afternoon Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman 
Murkowski, and members of the Committee. My name is Bryan Newland, and 
I am the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department of 
the Interior (Department).
S. 616
    Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony regarding S. 
616, the Leech Lake Reservation Restoration Technical Corrections Act 
of 2023.
    In December 2020, Congress enacted the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe 
Reservation Restoration Act, Public Law 116-255 (Act). The Act directed 
the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer approximately 11,760 acres in 
the Chippewa National Forest to the Secretary of the Interior to be 
held in trust for the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe in Minnesota (Band). 
The 11,760 acres were restored to the Band after being identified as 
wrongfully transferred from the Band and its members.
    Since the enactment of Public Law 116-255, the Department 
identified an additional 4,362.21 acres of land that met the same 
criteria as in Public Law 116-255. S .616 amends Public Law 116-255 to 
authorize the transfer of any additional lands in the Chippewa National 
Forest in Cass County, Minnesota that are identified as having been 
sold without the consent of a majority of rightful landowners. This 
approach will allow for on-going implementation of Public Law 116-255 
to continue and allow for the inclusion of any additional lands that 
the Department may identify as having been wrongfully transferred. S. 
616 would also authorize an acre-for-acre substitution of lands within 
the Chippewa National Forest in Cass County, Minnesota if the Band 
identifies certain parcels as unsuitable for future use.
    The Department supports S. 616 as it allows flexibility in the 
implementation of Public Law 116-255 while allowing for additional 
lands to be identified and restored to the Band.
S. 1898
    Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony regarding S. 
1898, the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project Amendments Act of 2023, 
which would amend the Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Project Act, 
P.L. 111-11, Title X, Subtitle B, Part III, amended by P.L. 114-57 
(together the 2009 Act). The Department supports S. 1898.
Introduction
    The United States acts as a trustee for the land and water rights 
of Tribes, American Indians, and Alaska Natives. The United States has 
a trust responsibility to Indian Tribes and Indian people and 
consistent with that has charged itself with moral obligations of the 
highest responsibility and trust. These obligations are at their 
greatest when it comes to protecting the ability of Tribes, and their 
citizens, to maintain their existence on lands the United States holds 
in trust for their benefit.
    The Biden Administration recognizes that water is essential for 
people to lead healthy, safe, and fulfilling lives on Tribal lands. 
Water is the among the most sacred and valuable resources for Tribal 
nations.
    The Administration further recognizes that long-standing water 
crises continue to undermine public health and economic development in 
Indian Country. The Administration strongly supports the resolution of 
Indian reserved water rights claims through negotiated settlements. 
Indian water settlements protect the senior water rights reserved by 
Tribal Nations and help ensure that the citizens of these Nations have 
reliable and safe water for drinking, cooking, and sanitation; improve 
the public health and environment on reservations; enable economic 
growth; promote Tribal sovereignty and self-sufficiency; and help 
fulfill the United States' trust responsibility to Tribes.
    At the same time, water rights settlements have the potential to 
end decades of conflict and contention among Tribal Nations and 
neighboring communities and promote cooperation in the management of 
water resources.
    Congress plays an important role by enacting legislation to ratify 
Indian water rights settlements. We stand ready to work with this 
Committee and Members of Congress to advance Indian water rights 
settlements and uphold our sacred trust obligations to Indian country.
    We have a clear charge from the President and Secretary Haaland to 
protect Tribal reserved water rights and improve water access and water 
quality on Tribal lands. To that end, the Biden Administration's policy 
on negotiated Indian water settlements continues to be based on the 
following principles: the United States will participate in settlements 
consistent with its trust responsibilities to Tribal Nations; Tribes 
should receive equivalent benefits for rights which they, and the 
United States as trustee, may release as part of the settlement; Tribes 
should realize value from confirmed water rights resulting from a 
settlement; and settlements should contain appropriate cost-sharing 
proportionate to the benefits received by all parties benefiting from 
the settlement. In addition, settlements should provide finality and 
certainty to all parties involved.
S. 1898, a bill to amend the Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water 
        Project Act to make improvements to the Act, and for other 
        purposes
Background
    The 2009 Act, which was part of the Omnibus Public Land Management 
Act of 2009, approved settlement of the Navajo Nation's water rights 
claims in the San Juan River Basin in New Mexico and, as the 
cornerstone of the settlement, directed the Secretary (acting through 
the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation)) to design, construct, operate, 
and maintain the Navajo Gallup Water Project (Project). When completed, 
the Project will provide a reliable and sustainable domestic, 
municipal, and industrial water supply from the San Juan River to 43 
Chapters of the Navajo Nation, including the Nation's capital of Window 
Rock, Arizona; the city of Gallup, New Mexico; and the southwest 
portion of the Jicarilla Apache Reservation. All of these entities are 
currently relying on a shrinking supply of groundwater that is of poor 
quality and is inadequate to meet present domestic water needs, let 
alone projected needs.
    The 2009 Act authorized an appropriation of $870 million (2007 
price level), adjusted annually using engineering cost indices, to 
plan, design, and construct the Project, which includes construction of 
two water transmission laterals--the Cutter and San Juan Laterals. The 
Department, through Reclamation, has been implementing the 2009 Act 
with significant success. In October 2021, Reclamation declared 
substantial completion of the Cutter Lateral, the smaller of the two 
laterals, and it transferred operation, maintenance, and replacement 
responsibilities for the Cutter Lateral to the Navajo Nation in June 
2022. As of May 2021, the completed segments of the Project have 
facilitated delivery of drinking water to 6,000 people (1,500 
households) in eight Navajo chapters. Reclamation has also made 
significant progress on the San Juan Lateral and has completed over 50 
percent of the features on the lateral. Reclamation and their partners 
have completed or are currently constructing 285 of the 300 miles of 
Project water transmission pipelines. Recently, Reclamation acquired 
the San Juan Generating Station water system facilities that will 
provide both construction and operation and maintenance savings, 
increased operational flexibility, and reduced risks to operations for 
the Project.
S. 1898 Provisions and Positions of the Department of the Interior
    S. 1898 would amend the Act in several ways:

        Increase the authorized Project cost ceiling. S. 1898 provides 
        an additional authorization of $725.7 million to complete the 
        Project. This is comprised of $689.45 million to address a 
        cost/funding cost gap, $30 million for Navajo community 
        connections to the Project water transmission line, and $6.25 
        million for renewable energy features.

        The 2009 Act's appropriation ceiling was based on a 
        preliminary, 2007 appraisal-level design estimate rather than a 
        feasibility level design estimate, which is the level of 
        estimation that Reclamation recommends for reliability. As 
        final design and construction of the Project progressed, the 
        difference between the 2009 Act's appropriation ceiling and the 
        costs estimated to complete the Project (Working Cost Estimate) 
        became apparent. The most recent indexed authorized 
        appropriation ceiling is $1,413.7 million (October 2022 price 
        level) but the Project Working Cost Estimate is $2,138.4 
        million (October 2022 price level). After accounting for non-
        Federal funding contributions from the Project beneficiaries 
        received through the Contributed Funds Act, Reclamation 
        estimates the cost/funding gap is $689.45 million. The cost 
        increases are based on more reliable cost estimate updates, 
        primarily associated with the two water treatment plants and 
        the San Juan Lateral intake. Moreover, the latest Working Cost 
        Estimate reflects the significant inflation and market 
        volatility, at levels not seen in 40 years, which have far 
        outpaced projected indexing used in updating the appropriation 
        ceiling.

        The Department supports the additional authorization contained 
        in S. 1898. The additional authorization will enable 
        Reclamation to complete the Project in accordance with 
        requirements of the 2009 Act and is reflective of Project 
        participant's needs and the reality of construction costs in 
        this remote area of New Mexico. The additional authorization of 
        $6.25 million for renewable energy development will enable 
        Reclamation to construct lower cost and alternative power 
        generation for areas on the project (notably the Cutter 
        Lateral) where Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) power is 
        not available. This provision also provides up to $1.25 million 
        of the $6.25 million to develop small hydropower generation for 
        Project facilities to help offset a portion of the Project's 
        pumping costs. The additional authorization of $30 million for 
        community connections is critical to the Project's success and 
        will ensure that water deliveries are made to all Navajo 
        communities within the original Project service area. The 
        Navajo Nation has agreed to provide an additional $60 million, 
        approximately, of its own funding to cover the full costs of 
        connecting all existing Navajo communities to the San Juan 
        Lateral.

        Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement (OM&R) Waiver. S. 1898 
        provides for a $250 million OM&R trust fund for the Navajo 
        Nation and up to a $10 million OM&R trust fund for the 
        Jicarilla Apache Nation, the latter conditioned on an ability 
        to pay analysis. The 2009 Act includes a provision allowing the 
        Secretary to waive, for a period of not more than 10 years, the 
        OM&R costs allocable to the Navajo Nation when the Secretary 
        determines those costs exceed the Nation's ability to pay. 
        Reclamation conducted an ability to pay analysis in 2020, 
        following Reclamation practice for evaluating the enduser's 
        ability to pay for municipal and industrial water systems, that 
        concluded the Navajo Nation did not have the ability to pay.

        The Department supports establishing a $250 million OM&R trust 
        fund for the Navajo Nation because it will assist the Nation in 
        paying OM&R during the time needed to increase the customer 
        base and economic development necessary to support full OM&R 
        payments. While the 2009 Act did not provide OM&R assistance to 
        the Jicarilla Apache Nation, the Department supports up to a 
        $10 million OM&R trust fund if the allocable OM&R costs are in 
        excess of the Jicarilla Apache Nation's ability-to-pay.

        Expand the Project service area. S. 1898 would also expand the 
        Project to serve the Navajo Nation's four chapters in the Rio 
        San Jose Basin (RSJB) in New Mexico and the Lupton community in 
        Arizona to help the Navajo Nation increase the customer base 
        and potentially lower OM&R costs. The proposed amendments do 
        not include funding that would be needed to increase the 
        capacity of the Crownpoint Lateral, nor additional improvements 
        necessary to supply the RSJB.

        The Department supports the expansion of the Project service 
        area.

        Cap the City of Gallup's Repayment Obligation. S. 1898 would 
        cap the City of Gallup's (City) repayment obligation at 25 
        percent of its allocated construction costs, not to exceed $76 
        million. Under the 2009 Act, the City is responsible for paying 
        between 25 percent to 35 percent of its allocable costs, based 
        on its ability to pay. Reclamation estimates that this 
        provision would reduce the City's repayment obligation by 
        approximately $33 million.

        The Department does not oppose the cap on the City's repayment 
        obligation.

        Project Lands Transfer. S. 1898 would transfer Navajo fee lands 
        and Bureau of Land Management lands, upon which easements have 
        been acquired for Project purposes, to the Navajo Nation in 
        trust with the condition that Reclamation would retain 
        easements for Project construction, operation, and maintenance. 
        S. 1898 also transfers ownership of land underlying the 
        recently acquired San Juan Generating Station water conveyance 
        and storage facilities to the Navajo Nation in trust. S. 1898 
        provides for an easement for Reclamation to continue to carry 
        out construction, operation, and maintenance necessary to 
        incorporate those facilities into the Project until title 
        transfer under section 10602(f) of the 2009 Act.

        The Department supports the land transfer provisions of S.1898, 
        which would take land into trust, exclusive of Project 
        facilities. We would like to make technical changes to the Bill 
        to clarify that Reclamation would retain ownership of Project 
        facilities and infrastructure on the land until transferred to 
        the Navajo Nation under section 10602(f) of the 2009 Act.

        Deferred Construction. S. 1898 would authorize establishment of 
        a Deferred Construction Fund and execution of a deferred 
        construction agreement under which the Navajo Nation would 
        acknowledge that full capacity of several Project features will 
        not be needed until future demands materialize. The Navajo 
        Nation would be able to use the Deferred Construction Fund to 
        construct or expand facilities as higher demand requires over 
        time.

        The Department supports establishing a Deferred Construction 
        Fund because it will allow Reclamation to first construct those 
        water treatment and storage facilities needed to satisfy 
        anticipated demand over the next 20-plus years, rather than 
        immediately beginning work on the larger facilities that will 
        not be needed until demand increases substantially. This 
        provision is fiscally conscious and minimizes OM&R costs that 
        would otherwise be spent on un-used Project facilities in the 
        first years of water deliveries while providing for the later 
        development of facilities to meet the Project's full build-out 
        demand.

        Extend Completion Deadline to December 31, 2029. S. 1898 
        extends the date by which the Project must be completed to 
        December 31, 2029.

        The Department supports extending the Project completion 
        deadline. Necessary design changes, including incorporating San 
        Juan Generating Station water system facilities into the 
        Project, have created delays in construction and a deadline 
        extension is necessary to allow remaining Project features to 
        be completed.

        Eliminate Double Taxation. S. 1898 would allow taxation by 
        either the Navajo Nation or the State of New Mexico depending 
        on the ownership of land underlying Project facilities. 
        Currently, both the State of New Mexico and the Navajo Nation 
        have been taxing Federal contractors on construction activities 
        on Navajo Tribal lands.

        The Department supports eliminating the double taxation that is 
        an additional and unnecessary cost to the Project. Reclamation 
        estimates that this provision will save approximately $50 
        million.

Conclusion
    The Department appreciates the dedication of all parties, including 
the Navajo Nation, the Jicarilla Apache Nation, the City of Gallup, and 
the State of New Mexico in developing S. 1898 and the willingness of 
all the parties to reach consensus on contentious issues. The 
Department supports S. 1898, as it will allow the Department to fulfill 
the commitments made in the 2009 Act to deliver clean drinking water to 
the Navajo Nation and other Project beneficiaries.

S. 1987
    Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony regarding S. 
1987, Fort Belknap Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 
2023. The Department supports S. 1987 and suggests some technical 
changes to aid in its implementation.
Introduction
    The United States acts as a trustee for the land and water rights 
of Tribes, American Indians, and Alaska Natives. The United States has 
a trust responsibility to Indian Tribes and Indian people and 
consistent with that has charged itself with moral obligations of the 
highest responsibility and trust. These obligations are at their 
greatest when it comes to protecting the ability of Tribes, and their 
citizens, to maintain their existence on lands the United States holds 
in trust for their benefit.
    The Biden Administration recognizes that water is essential for 
people to lead healthy, safe, and fulfilling lives on Tribal lands. 
Water is the among the most sacred and valuable resources for Tribal 
nations.
    The Administration further recognizes that long-standing water 
crises continue to undermine public health and economic development in 
Indian Country. The Administration strongly supports the resolution of 
Indian reserved water rights claims through negotiated settlements. 
Indian water settlements protect the senior water rights reserved by 
Tribal Nations and help ensure that the citizens of these Nations have 
reliable and safe water for drinking, cooking, and sanitation; improve 
the public health and environment on reservations; enable economic 
growth; promote Tribal sovereignty and self-sufficiency; and help 
fulfill the United States' trust responsibility to Tribes.
    At the same time, water rights settlements have the potential to 
end decades of conflict and contention among Tribal Nations and 
neighboring communities and promote cooperation in the management of 
water resources.
    Congress plays an important role by enacting legislation to ratify 
Indian water rights settlements. We stand ready to work with this 
Committee and Members of Congress to advance Indian water rights 
settlements and uphold our sacred trust obligations to Indian country.
    We have a clear charge from the President and Secretary Haaland to 
protect Tribal reserved water rights and improve water access and water 
quality on Tribal lands. To that end, the Biden Administration's policy 
on negotiated Indian water settlements continues to be based on the 
following principles: the United States will participate in settlements 
consistent with its trust responsibilities to Tribal Nations; Tribes 
should receive equivalent benefits for rights which they, and the 
United States as trustee, may release as part of the settlement; Tribes 
should realize value from confirmed water rights resulting from a 
settlement; and settlements should contain appropriate cost-sharing 
proportionate to the benefits received by all parties benefiting from 
the settlement. In addition, settlements should provide finality and 
certainty to all parties involved.
I. S. 1987
    S. 1987, Fort Belknap Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act 
of 2023 would approve and provide authorizations to carry out the 
settlement of the Tribes' water rights in the State of Montana (State). 
The Department supports resolving the Tribes' water rights claims 
through a comprehensive settlement.
a. Reservation and Historical Background
    Congress established the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation 
(Reservation) in 1888 to secure a homeland for what are now the 
Assiniboine (Nakoda) and Gros Ventre (Aaniih) Tribes (the Tribes). This 
homeland in Montana is just a small portion of the Tribes' ancestral 
homelands.
    Not long after the Reservation was established, the Federal 
Government filed a lawsuit to protect the Tribes' right to water on its 
homelands. That lawsuit eventually reached the Supreme Court in 1908. 
The Supreme Court determined that the establishment of the Reservation 
included the senior right to water on the Reservation. Winters v. 
United States, 207 U.S. 564. In its opinion, the Court explained that 
the Reservation would be inadequate to fulfill the needs of the Tribes 
and the policy goals of the United States ``without a change of 
conditions.'' The Court also noted, [t]he lands were arid and, without 
irrigation, were practically valueless.''
    The Winters case has had far-reaching and long-lasting consequences 
for all of Indian country. It stands for the principle that the 
establishment of a reservation for a Tribe includes the reservation of 
waters necessary to make the reservation a livable homeland. The 
Winters doctrine protects Tribal rights and homelands, safeguarding the 
rights and interests of Tribes across the United States. Despite their 
legal victory in the Winters case, Tribes of the Fort Belknap Indian 
Reservation have not been able to fully put their reserved water rights 
to use.
    Today, the Reservation is comprised of approximately 605,338 acres, 
including lands held in Trust for the Tribes and allotments held in 
trust for individual Indians, situated mainly in the Milk River Basin 
in north central Montana. The Milk River forms the Reservation's 
northern boundary. The southern boundary is from 25 to 35 miles south 
of the Milk River, extending on either side of the northern crest of 
the Little Rocky Mountains.
    The low rainfall on most of the Reservation severely limits what 
can be grown without irrigation. Not surprisingly, the major water use 
on the Reservation is the Fort Belknap Indian Irrigation Project 
(FBIIP). The BIA owns the FBIIP, which diverts water from the Milk 
River and two tributaries, Threemile Creek and White Bear Creek, and 
includes a 634 acre-feet (af) reservoir on Threemile Creek. The FBIIP 
serves 10,475 assessed acres, 92 percent of which are held in trust by 
the United States for the benefit of the Tribes or allottees. 
Groundwater wells on the Reservation are primarily used for domestic 
and municipal purposes and, to a lesser extent, stock watering.
    According to Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Tribal data, 3,351 
Tribal members currently live on the Reservation. The total Tribal 
membership in August 2021, including members living off the 
Reservation, was 8,609. Most on-Reservation residents reside in three 
main towns: Fort Belknap Agency on the northern boundary of the 
Reservation, and Lodge Pole and Hays on the southern portion of the 
Reservation.
    The primary sources of employment on the Reservation are Tribal and 
Federal government services. The main industry is agriculture, 
consisting of cattle ranches, raising alfalfa hay for feed, and larger 
dryland farms. The unemployment rate on the Reservation is nearly 50 
percent, according to a 2019 Montana State University study.
b. Proposed Fort Belknap Indian Community Settlement Legislation
    In its role as Trustee, the United States filed water rights claims 
for Reservation lands in the Milk River and Missouri River basins in 
the ongoing statewide water rights adjudication. Since 1990, the 
Tribes, State, and United States have engaged in negotiations to 
resolve the Tribes' and allotees' water rights within the State. In 
2001, the Montana legislature approved the Montana-Fort Belknap Indian 
Community Water Rights Compact (Compact). Congressional approval is 
necessary before the United States may join in the Compact.
    S. 1987 would authorize, ratify, and confirm the Compact to the 
extent it is consistent with S. 1987. This would resolve the Tribes' 
water rights claims in Montana by recognizing the Tribal Water Right, 
which is defined by and established in the Compact. The Tribal Water 
Right entitles the Tribes to over 446,000 acre-feet per year (afy) of 
surface water, plus groundwater. Consistent with Federal law, S. 1987 
protects the rights of allottees to use a portion of the Tribal Water 
Right for agricultural, domestic, and related uses on their allotments. 
In addition to the Tribal Water Rights provided by the Compact, S. 1987 
includes a 20,000 afy allocation of storage from Lake Elwell, a Bureau 
of Reclamation (Reclamation) facility on the Marias River, also known 
as Tiber Reservoir. S. 1987 would also authorize funds to implement the 
provisions of the Compact and S. 1987.
    S. 1987 authorizes $1.17 billion in Federal appropriations for 
three general purposes: rehabilitation of the Fort Belknap Indian 
Irrigation Project; administration and development of the Tribes' water 
rights; and mitigation for the impacts on water users outside the 
Reservation. S. 1987 is a mixed project- and fund-based settlement.
    S. 1987 includes two specific projects that the Department is 
charged with planning, designing, and constructing: (1) the 
rehabilitation, modernization, and expansion of the existing FBIIP; and 
(2) the rehabilitation and expansion of certain Milk River Project 
facilities to satisfy the Compact required mitigation negotiated by the 
Tribes and the State.
    S. 1987 authorizes the appropriation of up to $415.8 million for 
the rehabilitation, modernization, and expansion of the FBIIP. The 
Department supports rehabilitating and expanding the FBIIP to serve 
additional lands susceptible of sustained and economically viable 
irrigation. Without a feasibility level study, however, the costs of 
such a project cannot be reliably determined. The Tribes believe that 
the requested authorization will cover the costs. S. 1987 contains a 
provision providing that the Secretary's obligations to rehabilitate, 
modernize, and expand the FBIIP will be deemed satisfied if despite 
diligent efforts, the project cannot be completed as contemplated due 
solely to the authorized appropriation being insufficient. S. 1987 
identifies the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) as the lead agency for 
the rehabilitation, modernization, and expansion of FBIIP, while 
providing the Tribes the opportunity to perform these activities 
through self-determination contracts. The identification of BIA as the 
lead agency for the rehabilitation, modernization, and expansion of 
FBIIP is unusual.
    Previously enacted Indian water rights settlements that have 
required the Secretary to plan, design, and construct major 
infrastructure have identified Reclamation as the lead agency for such 
purposes. Reclamation has the staffing and expertise and a demonstrated 
history of success in planning, designing, and constructing 
infrastructure. For these reasons and to ensure successful 
implementation of S. 1987, the Department suggests that Reclamation is 
better suited to lead the rehabilitation, modernization, and expansion 
of the FBIIP as well as the Milk River Project rehabilitation and 
expansion discussed below.
    S. 1987 authorizes the appropriation of up to $300 million to 
rehabilitate and expand certain Milk River Project facilities to 
implement the mitigation measures required by the Compact. S. 1987 
identifies Reclamation as the lead agency to implement these mitigation 
projects. The Department testified in the 117th Congress about 
practical concerns regarding its ability to satisfy Compact provisions 
requiring mitigation of impacts on junior non-Indian and Milk River 
Project water users caused by the development of the Tribal Water 
Right. However, since the time of that testimony, Reclamation completed 
modeling that identifies viable alternatives to satisfy the Compact's 
mitigation requirement. Based on Reclamation's modeling, the Department 
determined that rehabilitation of the St. Mary Canal and the expansion 
of the Dodson South Canal will provide the 35,000 afy of mitigation 
required by the Compact. Again, without a feasibility level study, 
reliable costs of such a project cannot be determined. In an effort to 
avoid cost gap issues, S. 1987 provides that the Secretary's 
obligations to complete Milk River Project mitigation projects will be 
deemed satisfied if despite diligent efforts, the projects cannot be 
completed as contemplated due solely to the authorized appropriations 
being insufficient.
    Because the St. Mary Canal is located on the Blackfeet Reservation, 
S. 1987 requires Reclamation to complete the canal's rehabilitation in 
coordination with the Blackfeet Tribe.
    In addition to the project-based components described above, S. 
1987 establishes a $454 million trust fund for the Tribes to be used 
for various purposes. Some of these purposes, such as the development 
of domestic water infrastructure and establishment of a Tribal water 
resources department to administer the Tribal Water Right, are 
commonplace in Indian water rights settlements. S. 1987 specifically 
would authorize the Tribes to use their trust fund to plan, design, and 
construct a pipeline to transport Lake Elwell water from an off-
Reservation point of diversion on the Missouri River to the southern 
portion of the Reservation. The Department understands that the Tribes 
would be required to comply with all applicable Federal and State laws 
when implementing this and all other provisions in the settlement.
    Finally, S. 1987 transfers 10,322.58 acres of federal land and 
3,519.3 acres of land currently owned by the Tribes into trust for the 
Tribes as part of the Reservation. In addition, S. 1987 directs the 
Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to negotiate 
with the State to exchange certain State lands within the boundaries of 
the Reservation for federal lands elsewhere in the State.
c. Conclusion
    The Department recognizes that the Tribes and State of Montana have 
worked hard to negotiate this settlement. The Department believes that 
this legislation is consistent with the Administration's priorities of 
protecting Tribal homelands and meeting our trust responsibility. It 
would also bring meaning to the legal victory the Tribes and the United 
States secured more than a century ago in the Winters case. We support 
S. 1987, but note that the Department still needs to conduct additional 
analysis of this settlement agreement. We also note that we recommend 
some technical changes to aid in its implementation.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before this Committee 
to provide the Department's views on S. 1987. We look forward to 
continuing working with the Committee in support of Indian water rights 
settlements.
    Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman Murkowski, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department's 
views. I look forward to answering any questions.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Crockett, please proceed with your testimony.

 STATEMENT OF JOHN CROCKETT, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF FOR STATE, 
              PRIVATE, AND TRIBAL FORESTRY, U.S. 
                   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

    Mr. Crockett. Good afternoon, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair 
Murkowski, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today and provide the perspective of the 
USDA Forest Service on two tribal bills under consideration for 
today.
    As Associate Deputy Chief for State, Private, and Tribal 
Forestry, I am responsible for the administrative oversight of 
the Office of Tribal Relations, including coordination and 
collaboration with all deputy areas across the agency to 
fulfill our trust responsibility to tribal nations.
    The Forest Service is responsible for managing millions of 
acres of lands and waters which are the ancestral homes of 
American Indians and Native American tribal nations. Many of 
those lands and waters lie within areas where tribes have 
reserved rights to hunt, fish, and pray by ratified treaties 
and agreements with the United States.
    As part of fulfilling that trust responsibility, we fully 
share the Administration's commitment to strengthen the nation-
to-nation responsibility. This includes a focus on co-
stewardship, respectful application of indigenous knowledge, 
and the protection of sacred sites.
    The Department of Agriculture is committed to continually 
improving our relationship with tribes. I appreciate the 
opportunity to share the Forest Service's perspective on these 
two bills today.
    S. 616, the Leech Lake Reservation Restoration Technical 
Corrections Act of 2023, would amend the Leech Lake Band of 
Ojibwe Reservation Restoration Act to address the illegal 
transfer of lands from the Department of Interior to the USDA 
for inclusion as part of the Chippewa National Forest. This 
bill would direct the USDA to transfer specified lands within 
the Chippewa National Forest to the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, 
specifically those lands that were sold without the consent of 
the majority of the rightful landowners, according to the 
records of the BIA.
    Additionally, this bill would allow the USDA to transfer 
lands to tribes on a rolling basis as land is identified and 
surveys are completed. The technical amendments to S. 616 would 
address the newly identified acreage not included in the 
original legislation. USDA appreciates and supports the intent 
of this Act.
    S. 1987 modifies and ratifies a specified water rights 
compact amongst the State of Montana and the tribes of the Fort 
Belknap Indian Reservation. Among other things, it requires the 
tribes' water rights to be held in trust for the benefit of the 
community and their allottees as directed by the Department of 
Interior and the Department of Agriculture to negotiate with 
the State of Montana the exchange of those specified parcels on 
reservation as well as off-reservation.
    The USDA and other agencies within USDA support the broad 
goals of this legislation and stand ready to work with the 
bill's sponsors, the Committee, and the implementing agencies 
to provide additional technical assistance on this legislation.
    This concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity 
to testify. I will be happy to answer any questions when the 
time is ready.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Crockett follows:]

Prepared Statement of John Crockett, Associate Deputy Chief for State, 
      Private, and Tribal Forestry, U.S. Department of Agriculture
    Chairman Schatz, Vice-Chair Murkowski, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to 
discuss the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture on bills that 
include provisions related to the USDA Forest Service.
S. 616, Leech Lake Reservation Restoration Technical Corrections Act of 
        2023
    Following the passage of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Reservation 
Restoration Act, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest 
Service has been working closely with the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe. In 
the early stages of implementation of the Act, the Forest Service and 
the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) identified additional lands 
that had been wrongfully transferred from the Band and its members to 
the Chippewa National Forest. S. 616, the Leech Lake Reservation 
Restoration Technical Corrections Act of 2023, would amend the Leech 
Lake Band of Ojibwe Reservation Restoration Act to address the wrongful 
transfer of lands from the DOI to the USDA for inclusion as a part of 
the Chippewa National Forest.
    The bill would direct the USDA to transfer specified land in the 
Chippewa National Forest to the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe-specifically 
land that was sold without the consent of a majority of the rightful 
landowners, according to records maintained by the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs. Upon agreement between the USDA and the tribe, the Department 
would substitute alternative National Forest System land located in 
Cass County, Minnesota, on an acre-for-acre basis, for those parcels of 
federal land to be transferred that are found to be unsuitable for the 
future uses of the tribe. The bill would further allow the USDA to 
transfer land to the tribe on a rolling basis as that land is 
identified and surveys are completed. Any such agreement, and any 
transfer of land made pursuant to such agreement, would be considered a 
final agency action.
    The technical amendments in S. 616 would address the newly 
identified acreage not included in the original legislation. The USDA 
appreciates and supports the intent of the Leech Lake Reservation 
Restoration Technical Corrections Act of 2023.
S. 1987, A bill to provide for the settlement of the water rights 
        claims of the Fort Belknap Indian Community, and for other 
        purposes
    S. 1987, a bill to provide for the settlement of the water rights 
claims of the Fort Belknap Indian Community, and for other purposes, 
modifies and ratifies a water rights compact among the State of 
Montana, and the Fort Belknap Indian Community, which consists of the 
Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes (Tribes) of the Fort Belknap 
Reservation of Montana. Among other things, it requires the Tribe's 
water rights to be held in trust for the benefit of the Tribes and 
their allottees, and it directs DOI and USDA to negotiate with the 
State of Montana for the exchange of specified parcels of state land 
located on and off the Reservation as well as for DOI to hold received 
land in trust for the benefit of the Tribes.
    USDA, and other agencies within USDA, support the broad goals of 
this legislation and stand ready to work with the bill sponsors, the 
Committee, and implementing agencies to provide additional technical 
assistance on the legislation to ensure no unintended consequences 
related to all USDA equities prior to further consideration before the 
committee and the full Senate.
    That concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to 
testify. I am happy to answer any questions the Committee may have for 
me.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Secretary-Treasurer Fineday, please proceed with your 
testimony.

 STATEMENT OF HON. LEONARD FINEDAY, SECRETARY-TREASURER, LEECH 
                  LAKE BAND OF OJIBWE INDIANS

    Mr. Fineday. Thank you. Aanii and mino ghizhep, Chairman 
Schatz, Vice Chair, and Committee members. My name is Lenny 
Fineday, and I am honored to serve as Secretary-Treasurer of 
the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe.
    I am here today to speak to the need for S. 616 and to 
briefly share the appalling history of illegal takings and loss 
of land from our reservation.
    I first want to thank Senator Smith and this Committee for 
the work that you have done to enact the Restoration Act back 
in 2020, which directs the Secretary of Agriculture to return 
``approximately 11,760 acres'' of lands under the control of 
the Chippewa National Forest to the Secretary of Interior to be 
held in trust for the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe.
    For more than a century, the Leech Lake people have worked 
diligently to restore the lands our ancestors reserved for us. 
The Restoration Act is a culmination of generations of work to 
restore a very small portion of our reservation that was 
illegally transferred more than half a century ago.
    The Restoration Act and the technical correction will 
enable Leech Lake to address the severe housing needs of our 
citizens, improve access to wild rice beds and culturally 
significant areas of our reservation, and restore a measure of 
justice to our people.
    The Leech Lake Reservation was established through a series 
of treaties and executive orders in the mid-1800s. As this 
Committee knows, the United States did not give us our lands or 
reservation. Instead, through these treaties, we ceded millions 
of acres of our homelands to help establish what is now the 
State of Minnesota. In return, the United States promised that 
the Leech Lake Reservation would serve as our permanent home.
    However, shortly after the last executive order was signed 
to finalize the boundaries of our reservation, Congress enacted 
a series of laws designed to take our lands, disseminate our 
government, and destroy our way of life. My written testimony 
provides a detailed history of these takings, which started 
with the Nelson Act of 1889, the establishment of the Chippewa 
National Forest at the turn of the century, and the series of 
administrative takings known as secretarial transfers that 
occurred in the 1940s and 1950s.
    Today, because of these laws and administrative actions, 
less than 5 percent of our treaty-guaranteed homelands are in 
protected trust status. The Restoration Act focused on 
restoring the illegal secretarially transferred lands to our 
reservation. The need for the technical correction arose during 
implementation of the Restoration Act.
    As the agencies worked to identify documents associated 
with parcels for restoration, the Bureau of Land Management's 
Indian Land surveyor completed a record search and review of 
all BIA land transfers during the 1940s and 1950s. The surveyor 
found that more than 16,000 acres of land currently held by the 
Forest Service were acquired through the illegal secretary 
transfer process, far more than the approximately 11,760 acres 
estimated in the Act.
    The injustice that took place more than half a century ago 
was clearly underestimated. That is why we are back before the 
Committee today. I truly want to thank the BLM for its 
transparency, the Forest Service for its partnership throughout 
this process, and Senators Smith and Klobuchar for introducing 
the technical correction.
    The technical correction simply amends the Restoration Act 
to meet the original intent of the Act, which is to restore all 
the lands that were wrongly taken from our reservation. The 
impact of Congress taking action to restore lands wrongfully 
taken from Leech Lake people cannot be overstated. 
Dispossession of Indian Lands of the Leech Lake Reservation 
have impacted generations of people on the Leech Lake 
Reservation by perpetuating historical trauma, fostering 
resentment toward Federal agencies and their staff charged with 
the care of these lands, limiting access to spiritually and 
culturally significant lands and resources as well as 
exacerbating social issues related to homelessness and 
overcrowded housing.
    Stories of Leech Lake people showing up at their family 
lands only to find a U.S. Forest Service gate and learning of a 
transfer of their land to the Forest Service years after the 
action are unfortunately all too common on Leech Lake. These 
stories will change only through passage of the bill today.
    I know that the passage of the Restoration Act in 2020 was 
a day many people will not forget. It marks a big step toward 
recognizing and correcting the social inequity and injustice 
that have been a lived experience for our people and our 
families.
    I again want to thank this Committee for its work on 
returning these illegally transferred lands which will 
guarantee a governing land base for future generations. I ask 
this Committee to advance the bill so that we can fully 
accomplish the original intent of the Restoration Act.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Miigwech. I 
am prepared to answer any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Fineday follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Leonard Fineday, Secretary-Treasurer, Leech 
                      Lake Band of Ojibwe Indians
    Good afternoon Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski and Members of 
the Committee. My name is Lenny Fineday, and I am honored to serve as 
Secretary-Treasurer of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (``Leech Lake'' or 
``Tribe'').
    The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe is a Federally recognized Indian 
tribe with approximately 10,000 Tribal citizens and a Reservation 
located almost wholly within the Chippewa National Forest.
    I'm here today to speak to the need for the Leech Lake Reservation 
Restoration Act Technical Correction and to briefly share the appalling 
history of illegal takings and loss of land from the Leech Lake 
Reservation.
    I first want to thank Senator Smith and this Committee for your 
efforts to enact the Leech Lake Reservation Restoration Act (``LLRRA'' 
or ``Restoration Act''), which directs Secretary of Agriculture to 
return ``approximately 11,760 acres'' of lands under control of the 
Chippewa National Forest (CNF) and located within Cass County, 
Minnesota to the Interior Secretary to be held in trust for the benefit 
of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe.
    The Restoration Act is the culmination of generations of work by 
hundreds of people to restore a small portion of our homelands. 
Restoring our homelands has been Leech Lake's focus for more than a 
century.
    The Restoration Act and the Technical Correction will enable Leech 
Lake to address the severe housing needs of our citizens, improve 
access to wild rice beds and culturally significant areas of our 
Reservation, and restore a sense of justice to our people. The Leech 
Lake Reservation was established through a series of treaties and 
executive orders dating from 1855 to 1874. As this Committee knows 
well, the United States did not give us our lands or Reservation. 
Instead, through these treaties we ceded millions of acres of our 
homelands to help establish what is now the State of Minnesota. In 
return, the United States promised that the Leech Lake Reservation, 
which included more than 550,000 acres of surface lands and more than 
300,000 acres of lakes, would serve as our permanent home.
    However, shortly after the last executive order was signed to 
finalize the boundaries of the Leech Lake Reservation, Congress enacted 
a series of laws designed to take our lands, dismantle our government, 
and destroy our way of life.
    Below is a more detailed discussion of the history of these 
takings, which started with the Nelson Act of 1889, the establishment 
of the Minnesota Forest Reserve and later the Chippewa National 
Forest--which were carved out of our Reservation, the Weeks Act of 
1911, and a series of administrative takings termed ``Secretarial 
Transfers'' that occurred in the 1940s and 50s.
    As a result of these takings, only 29,000 of the original 550,000 
acres remain in trust. This is less than five percent of the 
Reservation that treaties promised would be our permanent home. \1\ 
Many Leech Lake trust/allotted lands are swamplands and not suitable 
for housing, infrastructure, or economic development. The U.S. Forest 
Service and the state of Minnesota now hold most of the usable lands 
within the boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ A current day map of the Reservation and the overlapping 
boundaries of the Forest is retained in the Committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Restoration Act focused restoration on the Secretarial Transfer 
lands that Interior illegally transferred without consent of the Indian 
landowners to the Chippewa National Forest through a series of 
transfers in the 1940s and 50s. The Interior Solicitor found that the 
transfers violated the Indian Reorganization Act, and the illegal 
transfers stopped in the late 1950s.
    The Tribe and individual tribal members sought to restore the lands 
through various efforts, including litigation, but a federal court 
found that the claims were time barred \2\--and only Congress could 
accomplish the restoration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See United States v. Mottaz, 476 U.S. 834, 851 (1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The need for this Technical Correction arose during implementation 
of the Restoration Act. As the agencies worked to identify parcels for 
restoration, the BLM Indian Land Surveyor completed an audit of all 
Chippewa National Forest land holdings within Cass County. He 
discovered that the illegal Secretarial Transfers were more widespread 
than initially estimated.
    Instead of the ``approximately 11,760 acres'' listed in the 
Restoration Act, the surveyor found 16,122 acres were acquired by the 
Forest Service through Secretarial Transfers. The injustice that took 
place more than a half century ago was clearly underestimated. And 
that's why we are back before this Committee today.
    I truly want to thank BLM for its transparency, the Forest Service 
for its partnership throughout this process, and Senators Smith and 
Klobuchar for introducing the Technical Correction. The Technical 
Correction simply amends the Restoration Act to meet the original 
intent of the Act, which is to restore all the lands that were wrongly 
taken by the United States from our Reservation.
    The additional lands that would be impacted by the Technical 
Correction are located within Cass County. The County passed a 
resolution in 2017 that it did not oppose the Restoration Act and it 
stands by that position for purposes of the Technical Correction.
    In addition, Leech Lake entered into an ``Agreement Regarding 
Existing Electric Utility Easements on Lands Subject to the Leech Lake 
Band of Ojibwe Reservation Restoration Act'' with Beltrami Electric 
Cooperative, Inc., Crow Wing Cooperative Power and Light Company, and 
Lake Country Power on September 17, 2020.
    The Agreement clarifies the rights of the three Rural Utilities to 
continue to provide services to Leech Lake citizens on all lands 
``administratively transferred from the National Forest Service to the 
Secretary of the Interior and held in trust for the benefit of the Band 
pursuant to the Act.'' These rights include their ability to access and 
service existing utility easements and related infrastructure to ensure 
that the electric transmission and distribution systems of the Rural 
Utilities continue to provide safe, reliable, and affordable electrical 
services to all residences and businesses located on the Reservation. 
As noted above, the Agreement applies to all lands that will be 
transferred pursuant to the Restoration Act, including any amendments 
made to the Act. We appreciate the strong relationship we have with the 
rural utilities and the critical services they provide throughout our 
Reservation.
    Our lands--our Reservation--are the very foundation of the Leech 
Lake Tribal Government's sovereignty. After a century of targeted 
takings, the Restoration Act and the Technical Correction represent the 
most significant pieces of land restoration in our history. The lands 
that would be restored to the Leech Lake Reservation will help the 
Tribe address the severe housing needs of our citizens, address needs 
for community and economic development, and provide access to places of 
cultural importance to better enable our citizens to exercise treaty 
rights, conduct ceremony, and maintain our way of life.
    In closing, I want to thank the Committee for its focus on righting 
a portion of the historic injustices that have been inflicted on the 
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, and for helping the Tribe restore our 
homelands for future generations.
    I ask the Committee to advance the Technical Correction so that we 
can fully accomplish these goals. Thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today.
History of Land Tenure of the Leech Lake Reservation
    Before contact with European Nations, Indian tribes were 
independent self-governing entities vested with full authority and 
control over their lands, citizens, and visitors to Indian lands. The 
Nations of England, France, and Spain all acknowledged tribes as 
sovereigns and entered into treaties to establish commerce and trade 
agreements, form alliances, and preserve the peace.
    Upon its formation, the United States also acknowledged the 
sovereign authority of Indian tribes and entered into hundreds of 
treaties. Through these treaties, Tribes ceded hundreds of millions of 
acres of their homelands to help build this great Nation. In return, 
the United States promised that the reserved lands would be the Tribe's 
permanent home. Treaties also promised to provide for the education, 
health, public safety, and general welfare of Indian people. The U.S. 
Constitution specifically acknowledges these treaties and the sovereign 
authority of Indian tribes as separate governments. \3\ Tribal 
government land bases are the very foundation of tribal sovereignty and 
strong economies. However, federal policies implemented throughout the 
1800s and revisited in the mid-1900s resulted in the takings and 
significant loss of Tribal government lands. The legacy and impacts of 
these taking continues to impact Tribal governments today. Many tribes 
have an insufficient land base upon which to address the housing needs 
of their citizens, develop their economies to generate revenue to 
provide essential Tribal governmental services, or to access places of 
cultural importance to maintain their way of life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ The Commerce Clause provides that ``Congress shall have power 
to. . .regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several 
states, and with the Indian tribes.'' Tribal citizens are referred to 
in the Apportionment Clause (``Indians not taxed'') and excluded from 
enumeration for congressional representation. The 14th Amendment 
repeats the original reference to ``Indians not taxed'' and 
acknowledges that tribal citizens were not subject to the jurisdiction 
of the United States. By its very text, the Constitution establishes 
the framework for the federal government-to-government relationship 
with Indian tribes. The Constitution finally acknowledges that Indian 
treaties, and the promises made, are the supreme law of the land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Every federally recognized Indian tribe suffers from this tragic 
legacy. The loss of land from the Leech Lake Reservation was massive, 
intentional, targeted, and--like other Tribes--continues to blunt the 
progress of our people to this day.
    The Leech Lake Indian Reservation was established through a series 
of treaties and executive orders from 1855 to 1874. \4\ These treaties 
and executive order established the Leech Lake Reservation, provided 
that the Reservation consisted of 588,684 acres of land and nearly 
300,000 acres of our sacred lakes. \5\ Article 2 of the 1855 Treaty 
promises that ``There shall be, and hereby is, reserved and set apart, 
a sufficient quantity of land for the permanent homes of the said 
Indians.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ See Treaty with the Chippewa of February 22, 1855 (10 Stat. 
1165); Treaty with the Chippewa, Mississippi, Pillager, and Lake 
Winnibigoshish Bands of 1863 (12 Stat. 1249); Treaty with the Chippewa, 
Mississippi, Pillager, and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands of 1864 (13 Stat. 
693); Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi of March 19, 1867 (16 
Stat. 719); and Executive Orders Oct. 29, 1873, Nov. 4, 1873, and May 
26, 1874.
    \5\ See https://www.leechlakenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/
1855-Treaty.pdf; Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. Herbst, 334 F. 
Supp. 1001, 1002 n.1 (D. Minn. 1971)(providing a detailed description 
of the boundaries of the initial Leech Lake Indian Reservation, and 
upholding the Tribe's continued right to exercise treaty hunting and 
fishing rights on lands throughout the Reservation).
    \6\ Annual reports of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs from the 
mid- to late-1800s referred to the bands that occupied the territory at 
the headwaters of the Mississippi around Cass Lake, Lake 
Winnibigoshish, and Leech Lake as the Chippewa of the Mississippi, the 
Pillager Chippewas, the Lake Winnibigoshish Band, the Cass Lake Band, 
the Leech Lake Band, the White Oak Point Band, and the Mississippi 
Band. These bands are now known as the ``Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, as noted above, shortly after the last executive order 
regarding the Leech Lake Reservation was signed, Congress enacted a 
series of laws designed to weaken our governments, take our lands--and 
more directly, our resources, and destroy our way of life.
Nelson Act of 1889
    The first, and possibly the most damaging Act of Congress to 
adversely impact the Leech Lake Reservation was the Nelson Act of 1889.
    The timber industry has a long history in Minnesota. Many lakes and 
rivers were dammed in order to facilitate the transportation of timber. 
By the late 1800s the logging industry had reached the borders of the 
Leech Lake Indian Reservation but could not access the large expanses 
of virgin white and red pine forests that it contained as the entire 
Leech Lake Reservation was protected by Treaty as our permanent home.
    Minnesota's timber industry saw the General Allotment Act (Dawes 
Act) of 1887 as a blueprint to access Ojibwe Reservation lands. They 
successfully lobbied Congress, and in the 50th Congress, Minnesota 
Congressman Knute Nelson sponsored a bill formally titled, ``An Act for 
the relief and civilization of the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota.'' 
Congress passed the bill and President Cleveland signed ``the Nelson 
Act'' into law on January 14, 1889. The Nelson Act was specific to 
Ojibwe Reservations in Minnesota, affecting the Grand Portage, Mille 
Lacs, Leech Lake, Boise Forte, Fond du Lac and White Earth Bands.
    The Act opened the door to the Leech Lake Reservation and began the 
shift in ownership from communally held Tribal Government-owned land to 
the mixed ownership of Tribal, public, and private lands that we have 
today.
    The United States--through the Nelson Act--sought to destroy the 
governing structures of the Minnesota bands, parcel out tribal 
governmental lands to individual Indians, and open ``surplus'' 
reservation lands to settlers and private companies in clear violation 
of existing treaties. A primary goal of the Nelson Act was to open the 
northern white pine forests to timber companies for logging.
    Under the Nelson Act, the Allotment process on the Leech Lake 
Reservation spanned twenty-one years from approximately 1896 to 1917. 
By the end of the process, Leech Lake tribal citizens were allotted 
approximately 90,000 acres, while more than 500,000 acres were 
``deemed'' surplus lands that were opened for settlement. \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ See Leah J. Carpenter, Tracking the Land: Ojibwe Land Tenure 
and Acquisition at Grand Portage and Leech Lake, pages 172-76 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Burke Act of 1906 authorized the Interior Secretary to issue 
fee patents to Tribal Allottees if they were deemed by the government 
to be ``competent and capable.'' Because of the Burke Act, allotted 
Indian lands were often taken out of trust without the knowledge of the 
individual Indian, and were subjected to forced fee patents, and thus, 
state taxation. These lands were seized by the state due to an 
individual's inability or failure to pay taxes. As a result, ``[b]y 
1937, only 45,684 acres of allotted Leech Lake remained in trust 
status.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Id. at 177, citing Consolidated Chippewa Agency Annual 
Statistical Reports on Leech Lake Reservation, White Oak Point 
Reservation, Cass and Winnibigoshish Reservation (1936). NARA, 
Washington, D.C., RG75, Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
Records of the Statistics Division, Reports and other Records, 1933-
1948, Box 15, PI-163, Entry 963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishment of the Minnesota Forest Reserve and the Chippewa National 
        Forest
    Problems were rampant with implementation of the Nelson Act, which 
led to a push to preserve the forest lands on the Leech Lake 
Reservation. The primary groups involved in this debate were the timber 
industry, which wanted greater access to Reservation lands for logging, 
and the Minnesota Federation of Women's Club, who sought to preserve 
the forest. Of course, the voice of the key stakeholder in this debate, 
the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, was largely ignored. At the time, Native 
Americans were not United States citizens and had no right to vote in 
federal or state elections.
    These efforts led to enactment of the Morris Act of 1902. The Act 
amended the Nelson Act by setting aside approximately 200,000 acres of 
``surplus lands'' within the Leech Lake Reservation for use as the 
``Minnesota Forest Reserve''. This was the first national forest 
reserve created by congressional act. The Morris Act also reserved ten 
sections of land within the Leech Lake Reservation for the Tribe, while 
at the same time opening 25,000 acres of ``agricultural land'' to 
settlement. However, the timber industry also benefited from the Act, 
which authorized the sale of pine lands and timber within the forest 
reserve.
    The continued push to preserve the forest led to the official 
establishment of the Minnesota National Forest in 1908 (eventually 
renamed the Chippewa National Forest). These lands were carved out of 
the Leech Lake Reservation for that purpose and the boundaries of the 
forest were essentially superimposed upon the boundaries of the Leech 
Lake Reservation. While the size of the Chippewa National Forest has 
increased over the past century, to this day, the Leech Lake Indian 
Reservation makes up 75 percent of the Forest.
Secretarial Transfers/Non-Consents: the ``Termination Era''
    The loss of Leech Lake Reservation lands slowed during the era of 
``Indian Reorganization.'' Congress enacted the Indian Reorganization 
Act (IRA) in 1934 to halt the federal policy of allotment and 
assimilation and to secure for all Indian tribes a land base on which 
to engage in economic development and self-determination. The IRA 
expressly authorized the Interior Secretary to extend indefinitely the 
trust status of Indian lands ``and any restriction on alienation 
thereof'' (See 25 U.S.C. 5102); restore to tribal ownership the 
remaining surplus lands of any Indian reservation ``heretofore opened'' 
(See 25 U.S.C. 5103); and to take additional lands into trust for the 
benefit of tribal governments (See 25 U.S.C. 5108). Under the BIA's 
brief ``tribal land restoration project'', approximately 5,600 acres 
were restored to the Leech Lake Reservation. \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ See Leah Carpenter, Tracking the Land at 214-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, this brief period of positive federal policy towards 
Tribal Governments was short-lived. Congress formally changed federal 
Indian policy in 1953 through enactment of House Concurrent Resolution 
No. 108. The stated purpose of the Resolution was to terminate, via 
legislation, the federal-tribal relationship, eliminate tribal land 
holdings, and relocate Native Americans from Indian lands to urban 
areas.
    Under ``Termination Era'' policies, Congress ended the federal-
tribal government-to-government relationship with 109 tribes and sold 
off the lands of these tribes. In addition, in 1952, the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs implemented what it called the ``Voluntary Relocation 
Program'', which encouraged Native Americans to move to urban areas 
throughout the United States by providing a one-way bus ticket and 
moving expenses. Congress formalized this policy through enactment of 
the Indian Relocation Act of 1956.
    While Leech Lake was not a direct target for termination 
legislation in Congress, the Termination Era served as another means of 
dispossessing the Tribe of its Treaty-promised Reservation lands.
    In the run-up to the Termination policy, Interior Department 
officials sought opportunities to reduce its ``burden'' of 
administering Indian trust land. To reach this goal, beginning in the 
late 1940s, the BIA began a process that prioritized ``supervised 
sales'' of allotted Indian lands.
    However, allotted lands were highly fractionated--ownership in the 
original allotments had passed on to numerous heirs over the 
generations. Heirs of an original allottee own undivided interests in 
the allotment. Some allotments have hundreds and even thousands of 
individual owners. In addition, the Indian Reorganization Act made it 
more difficult for the BIA to implement its new priority. The IRA 
requires the government to obtain the consent of all Indian landowners 
prior to approving a sale.
    The BIA targeted Leech Lake allottees for the supervised land 
sales, in part because of their lands' ties to the Chippewa National 
Forest. The Bureau ``began to advocate that the United States 
Department of Agriculture should be considered the primary purchaser of 
the fractionated allotted lands.'' \10\ The administrative process of 
transferring ownership of allotted Indian lands from the Interior 
Department to another federal agency became known as ``Secretarial 
Transfers''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Id. at 245.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While these administrative policies impacted reservations 
nationwide, the impact was particularly severe at Leech Lake, again, 
because of its connection to the Chippewa National Forest. More than 
25,000 acres of allotted Leech Lake land were sold by the Secretary of 
the Interior, without the full consent of the Indian owners, the bulk 
of which was transferred to the United States Forest Service, for 
inclusion in the Chippewa National Forest. \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Id. at 250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1979, the Interior Solicitor, in a Memorandum interpreting the 
Act of May 14, 1948, determined that all Secretarial Transfers required 
the ``unanimous consent [of all heirs] before all interests in those 
IRA reservation allotments can be conveyed.'' \12\ The Department 
acknowledged that many of the Secretarial Transfers of allotted Indian 
lands were sold without the consent of all the rightful, legal heirs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Id. at 248 citing Memorandum from the Solicitor, Leo M. 
Krulitz, to All Regional Solicitors (August 20, 1979). The Memorandum 
is regarding ``28 U.S.C. 2415 claims: conveyances of inherited 
allotments pursuant to the Act of May 14, 1948, 25 U.S.C.  483 (August 
20, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The history of the Secretarial Transfers was a focus of the 
Minnesota Chippewa Tribe's (MCT) Section 2415 Land Claims Project. The 
Project's research revealed that the BIA's notification process 
violated federal law. The Bureau made a policy assumption to the 
detriment of the Indian owners/heir. If the Bureau did not receive a 
written response from an individual heir after an official notice to 
transfer the land had been sent to the heir, then it was assumed by the 
Bureau that it had obtained the consent. Often, however, the Bureau's 
notice was never received by the heir, which left that heir without a 
legal opportunity to respond or disapprove the proposed land sale. \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Id. at 249-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Just days after the Interior Solicitor's 1979 Memorandum admitted 
that many of the Secretarial Transfers were illegal, a Minneapolis 
Field Solicitor notified the Minneapolis Area Director that they would 
not litigate the Secretarial Transfers on behalf of the allottees, 
promising instead to advance legislative proposals that never came. 
\14\ This resulted in the decades long effort of Leech Lake, working 
with our congressional delegation, to develop and pass the Leech Lake 
Reservation Restoration Act and now the Technical Correction to the 
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Id. at 251, citing Letter from Elmer T. Nitzschke, Field 
Solicitor, to Edwin L. Demery, Minneapolis Area Director, August 24, 
1979, accompanied by Solicitor's Memorandum of August 20, 1979 
regarding 2415 land claims (August 24, 1979).

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    President Nygren, please proceed with your testimony.

     STATEMENT OF HON. BUU NYGREN, PRESIDENT, NAVAJO NATION

    Mr. Nygren. Ya'at'eeh, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman 
Murkowski, Senator Lujan, and members of the Committee. My name 
is Buu Nygren and I am the President of the Navajo Nation 
representing the voices and aspirations of the Navajo people. 
Thank you for the opportunity and for hearing my testimony 
today on the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project Amendments Act 
of 2023, S. 1898.
    Thank you also again to Senator Lujan and Senator Heinrich 
for this critical legislation, which will ensure that thousands 
of Navajo people have a safe, reliable drinking water supply.
    The Navajo Nation provides governmental services to more 
than 400,000 members. Our on-reservation population accounts 
for over one-third of all Natives living in Indian Country. Our 
reservation encompasses more than 17.5 million acres, spans 
portions of 11 counties across the States of Arizona, New 
Mexico and Utah.
    Unfortunately, ensuring adequate drinking water for our 
members continues to be a struggle. About 30 percent of Navajo 
households continue to lack running water. They rely on hauling 
water to meet their daily needs.
    To address this dire situation, in 2005 the nation entered 
into the San Juan Settlement with the State of New Mexico. In 
exchange for water development projects, including the Navajo-
Gallup Water Supply Project, the nation agreed to quantify its 
water rights and release claims to the water in the San Juan 
River Basin.
    In 2009, Congress approved the San Juan Settlement and 
authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to construct the Navajo-
Gallup Water Supply. The Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project is 
an essential initiative to address the critical needs of the 
Navajo Nation and surrounding communities in western New 
Mexico. This region has long suffered from limited access to 
clean and reliable water, resulting in immense hardship for our 
people.
    The Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project represents a beacon 
of hope, promising a brighter future for our communities. The 
project is designed to serve a quarter million people. The 
areas to be served by the project currently rely on depleting 
groundwater supply that is poor quality and the existing supply 
is inadequate to meet the demands of more than 43 Navajo local 
governments, the City of Gallup, the Teepee Junction at the 
Jicarilla Apache Nation.
    The 2009 Act requires the project's features to be 
completed no later than December 2024 unless the parties agree 
to extend the completion date. The project construction cost 
estimate of $870 million as provided in 2009 was based on an 
appraisal level, designs and cost estimate. A number of 
elements have increased the project's cost beyond what the 2009 
Act anticipated. Among the factors are greater expenses than 
expected for water treatment plans to meet Safe Drinking Water 
Act requirements, engineering challenges in diverting water 
from the San Juan River, and a 40-year high inflation rate.
    Since 2009, Reclamation has developed a project working 
cost estimate based on final detailed design and engineering. 
The current working estimate shows that the revised 
construction ceiling of $2.175 billion will adequately support 
the completion of this critical project.
    This legislation amends the 2009 Act in a number of 
important ways to ensure the Act can be fully implemented. Let 
me highlight some of the most important amendments to this 
legislation.
    First, this bill increase project funding by increasing the 
appropriation ceiling to allow for completion of the project. 
Second, the bill extends the completion deadline for the 
project from 2024 to 2029. Third, the bill allows for deferral 
of construction facilities to save operation and maintenance 
costs associated with the facility. Finally, the bill creates 
operation and maintenance trust funds for the Navajo Nation and 
the Jicarilla Apache.
    The completion of the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project 
will bring transformative changes in the lives of our people. 
If S. 1898 is not enacted, the San Juan Settlement and the 
completion of the project will be threatened. Failure here 
would further increase the costs of the project, worsen the 
drinking water crisis, bring uncertainty to all the water users 
in the San Juan River Basin in Mexico.
    Therefore, I respectfully urge this esteemed Committee to 
support S. 1898 and provide additional funding needed to 
complete this critical initiative. Let us come together to 
create a future in which our people thrive, our culture 
flourishes, and our land is sustained for generations to come.
    [Speaking in Native tongue.]
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Nygren follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Buu Nygren, President, Navajo Nation
    Ya'at'eeh, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairwoman Murkowski and members 
of the Committee. My name is Buu Nygren and I am the President of the 
Navajo Nation (``Nation''). Thank you for the opportunity to testify in 
support of the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project Amendments Act of 
2023, S. 1898. Thank you also to Senators Lujan and Heinrich for 
sponsoring this legislation, which is critical to ensuring 
implementation of the Navajo Nation San Juan River Basin Water Rights 
Settlement in New Mexico (the ``San Juan Settlement'') and the 
completion of the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project (the ``Project''). 
Their leadership will help secure a reliable water supply for the 
Navajo Nation and other water users in the State of New Mexico.
The Navajo Nation and the San Juan Settlement
    The Nation is the largest Native American tribe in the country. We 
provide critical governmental services to more than 400,000 members, 
almost half of whom reside on the Navajo Nation, which encompasses more 
than 27,000 square miles and spans portions of 11 counties across the 
states of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. Unfortunately, ensuring 
adequate drinking water for our members continues to be a struggle with 
approximately 30 percent of Navajo households lacking running water and 
relying on hauling water to meet their daily needs.
    To address this dire need, in 2005, the Nation entered into the San 
Juan Settlement with the State of New Mexico. Specifically, in exchange 
for water development projects, including the Project, the Nation 
agreed, among other things, to quantify its water rights and release 
claims to water in the San Juan River Basin in New Mexico. Ultimately, 
the parties recognized that in the absence of a settlement, final 
resolution of the proceedings in the San Juan River Adjudication would 
take many years, entail great expense, and prolong uncertainty 
concerning the availability of water supplies in the San Juan River 
Basin in New Mexico.
    In 2009, Congress approved and ratified the San Juan Settlement and 
authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to construct, operate and maintain 
the Project in substantial accordance with the preferred alternative 
outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which Reclamation 
completed in July 2009. See, Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 
2009, Title X, Part III (Public Law 111-11) (the ``2009 Act''). 
Consistent with the San Juan Settlement and the 2009 Act, the Nation 
agreed to execute waivers and releases of claims against the United 
States relating to water in the San Juan River Basin in exchange for 
the benefits of the San Juan Settlement and legislation. The waivers 
can be nullified if the Project is not completed under the timeline set 
forth in the legislation.
    On December 17, 2010, the United States, the Nation, and the State 
of New Mexico executed the San Juan Settlement. On November 1, 2013, 
the San Juan River adjudication court entered two Partial Final 
Judgments and Decrees (``decrees'') adjudicating the water rights of 
the Navajo Nation.
The Project
    The Project, once fully constructed, will convey a reliable 
municipal and industrial water supply from the San Juan River to the 
eastern section of the Nation, the southwestern portion of the 
Jicarilla Apache Nation, and the City of Gallup, New Mexico through two 
pipelines approximately totaling 300 miles, nineteen pumping plants, 
and two water treatment plants. The areas currently rely on a rapidly 
depleting groundwater supply that is of poor quality and inadequate to 
meet the current and future demands of more than 43 Navajo chapters, 
the City of Gallup, and the Teepee Junction area of the Jicarilla 
Apache Nation. Of specific concern is that the City of Gallup's 
groundwater levels have dropped over 200 feet over the past decade and, 
as noted, nearly 30 percent of the Nation's households rely on hauling 
water.
    The Project is designed to serve a 2040 population of approximately 
250,000 through the annual delivery of 37,764 acre-feet of water from 
the San Juan Basin. The 2009 Act requires that all project features be 
completed no later than December 31, 2024, unless the Nation, the State 
of New Mexico, and the Department of the Interior agree to extend the 
completion date.
    The Project's Construction Cost Estimate of $870 million as 
provided in the 2009 Act was based on Appraisal-Level designs and cost 
estimates. Appraisal Level studies are typically only conducted at a 
level to determine if there is a Reclamation interest in a proposed 
project and if a viable project alternative may be recommended by 
Reclamation for feasibility level of study. Appraisal Level studies are 
based primarily on existing data and information, and they only include 
designs and cost estimates for major features that can be used to 
compare potential project alternatives.
    A number of elements have created conditions that have increased 
the Project's cost beyond what was anticipated in the 2009 Act. Among 
the factors are greater expenses than expected for compliant water 
treatment plants to meet Safe Drinking Water Act requirements, 
engineering challenges in diverting water from the San Juan River, and 
market volatility that the indexing provided for under the 2009 Act did 
not completely reflect (including a 40-year high in the inflation 
rate). Since 2009, Reclamation has developed a Project Working Cost 
Estimate based on actual contract awards, required Project revisions, 
and final detailed design and engineering. The greatly improved quality 
and accuracy of the design and cost data that has gone into the current 
Working Cost Estimate supports the revised construction ceiling of 
$2,175,000,000 (with indexing), which will adequately support the 
completion of this critical Project.
    In 2012, construction on the Project began and is anticipated to be 
completed in 2029. Reclamation and its partners have made significant 
progress, completing certain portions of the Project. In October 2020, 
the Cutter Lateral, one of the two pipelines, was completed and the 
Navajo Tribal Utility Authority begin making initial water deliveries 
to Nation communities. By May 2021, Project water was being delivered 
to approximately 6,000 people in eight Navajo Chapters. Much work, 
however, is left to be done to serve the remaining population who need 
a reliable water supply. Although progress has been made on the 
Project, Reclamation does not anticipate that construction will be 
completed until 2029. This timeline is problematic because the 2009 Act 
requires the completion of all Project features by no later than 
December 31, 2024.
Amendments to the 2009 Act
    To address the appropriations shortfall and ensure full 
implementation of the 2009 Act, S. 1898 makes the following amendments 
to the 2009 Act:

   increases project funding by increasing the appropriations 
        ceiling to $2,175,000,000 for the Project. It would also update 
        provisions on adjustments to the appropriations ceiling to 
        reflect changes in construction cost and applicable regulatory 
        standards and to accommodate unforeseen market volatility, 
        including repricing for the types of construction and current 
        industry standards involved.

   increases appropriations for conjunctive use wells in the 
        San Juan River Basin to $37,500,000 from $30,000,0000 and 
        allows appropriations for conjunctive use wells in the Little 
        Colorado River and Rio Grande Basins, as well as the San Juan 
        River Basin, to be available through fiscal year 2032.

   extends the completion deadline for the Project from 2024 to 
        2029.

   allows for deferral of construction of facilities to save 
        operation and maintenance costs associated with such 
        facilities. The bill would create a Deferred Construction Fund 
        to provide funding for facilities that have been deferred and 
        allow for alternate project facilities if the relevant parties 
        agree. The fund would consist of amounts that correspond to 
        portions of the Project that have been deferred.

   creates operations and maintenance trust funds for the 
        Navajo Nation and the Jicarilla Apache Nation to use for the 
        Project's operations, maintenance, and replacement costs. These 
        trust funds are created as a substitute for language in the 
        2009 Act allowing the Secretary to waive operation, 
        maintenance, and replacement costs for the Nation for up to 10 
        years after they would otherwise be required under the Nation's 
        contract. Trust funds would be used to lower customers' 
        operations and maintenance charges and will help develop 
        adequate customer bases for the water projects in their early 
        stages.

   authorizes the expansion of the service area beyond the San 
        Juan River Basin to deliver water supply from the Project to 
        communities within the Rio San Jose Basin in New Mexico. The 
        Nation would also be authorized to expand the service area in 
        Arizona beyond Fort Defiance and Window Rock to deliver water 
        supply from the Project to the Nation community of Lupton, 
        Arizona, within the Little Colorado River Basin, but would 
        still be subject to section 10603(c)(1) of P.L. 111-11 limiting 
        the delivery of water to Arizona until certain conditions are 
        met.

   clarifies which construction activities are subject to state 
        taxation and which ones are subject to tribal taxation, 
        preventing double taxation.

   caps the repayment obligation of the City of Gallup for the 
        Project at $76,000,000.

   takes into trust land on which project facilities are 
        located.

   authorizes the Secretary to expend funds for the development 
        of renewable energy, including hydropower, to provide 
        affordable energy for the Project.

    The passage of S. 1898 is critical to the health and well-being of 
the Navajo Nation and the other communities to be served by the Project 
that are struggling with inadequate groundwater supplies. If S. 1898 is 
not enacted, the San Juan Settlement and the completion of the Project 
will be threatened, which would increase the cost of the Project, 
exacerbate the drinking water crisis on the Navajo Reservation, and 
bring uncertainty to all of the water users in the San Juan River Basin 
in New Mexico. I therefore respectfully urge the Committee to support 
the swift passage of S. 1898.

    The Chairman. Thank you, President Nygren.
    President Stiffarm, please proceed with your testimony.

  STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFREY STIFFARM, PRESIDENT, FORT BELKNAP 
                        INDIAN COMMUNITY

    Mr. Stiffarm. Good afternoon, everyone. I would like to 
thank Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman Murkowski. Also thank you 
to Senator Tester and Senator Daines for working really hard 
with Fort Belknap.
    The Winters doctrine, as said here, Fort Belknap in 1908 
won the settlement before the Supreme Court that says we can't 
have the land without the water. It set the way for Indian 
nations across this Country to get their fair share of water.
    And here we are today, a century later, Fort Belknap is 
going to be able to settle their water. We wish the tribes that 
got us help for all Indian Country across this great Country of 
ours to get their water.
    We are here to testify on behalf of my people back home, 
the chiefs that were before me, that worked hard on this bill 
to get this done. Former President Andrew Werk worked very hard 
on this, my predecessor. I want to thank him for all his hard 
work and you all for helping him get this to where it is today. 
And it landed in my lap to provide testimony on our water that 
we worked hard.
    It is not only going to provide clean drinking water for 
the people of Fort Belknap, the A'aniiih and Nakoda people, but 
up and down the line, from Blackfeet Country all the way down 
to Fort Peck Reservoir. This can provide cleaner and higher 
quality drinking water all the way down to Milk River.
    We have worked hard with the Governor Gianforte and we are 
very proud and honored to have the Lieutenant Governor here to 
sit beside me and testify on behalf of our bill here today to 
get it moving forward for a future where our children and our 
grandchildren, that is what we are all here for, not ourselves.
    The bill is about $1.3 billion, and it is all for 
infrastructure and the St. Mary's project. And it is well-
deserved for our community members back home that have had to 
live in poverty. You have all heard our stories, how we lived 
and we walked, of our ancestors, the lands that we sacrificed, 
the lives that were sacrificed to put us to where we are here 
today, and the hard work that we did. My team sitting behind 
me, my wife and my chiefs came here to support me.
    It has been a long road, very difficult decisions that we 
had to make back home to put us to where we are today. We ceded 
a lot of land that we wanted, which was rightfully ours, that 
was taken from us. Gold was discovered in our [indiscernible] 
mountains.
    But put that aside, we thought water was more important. 
And that is what we decided. That is how we brought the bill up 
to where it is today. We want to thank the Committee members 
back home that gave us the patience and understanding to come 
over here and travel quite a bit to talk to our Senators. I 
respect Senator Daines and the work he did for us, and Senator 
Tester. We did a lot of work.
    We had to do a lot to get our bill here on the table. A lot 
of things that we wanted in this bill are not in here, but we 
are willing to do that to provide this water for our community 
members, our elders, our children. We have a high rate of 
suicides back home. My son was one of them, and it is because 
we don't have the general necessities that you all have here 
today in the city of Washington, D.C. We don't have clean 
drinking water; we don't have homes.
    But what this bill is going to provide for our people is 
hope, something to fight for, something to stand for. I am glad 
that you are here to give me a little bit of your time to tell 
you about the things that we gave up to put us to where we are 
today, the hard work that we provided to get a settlement done.
    I look forward to working with you in the future to get 
this completed. I am here to answer any questions. Again, I 
want to thank you, Mr. Chair, for being here today. [Phrase in 
Native tongue.]
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Stiffarm follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. Jeffrey Stiffarm, President, Fort Belknap 
                            Indian Community
    Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman Murkowski, and Members of the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs, my name is Jeffrey Stiffarm. I serve as 
President of the Fort Belknap Indian Community Council. Thank you for 
the opportunity to testify in support of S. 1987, the ``Fort Belknap 
Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 2023.'' We also want to 
thank our Senators from Montana, Jon Tester and Steve Daines, for 
introducing this bipartisan bill in the Senate, as well as our Montana 
Congressional Representatives, Matt Rosendale and Ryan Zinke, for their 
support. Our bill also enjoys the support of Montana Governor Greg 
Gianforte. We respectfully request that the Committee work to pass S. 
1987 to finally secure our Indian reserved water rights.
    The Fort Belknap Indian Community (FBIC) consists of the Gros 
Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes (Tribes) who fought in 1908 for the right 
to use the water on our Ft. Belknap Reservation (Reservation), 
establishing the ``longstanding reserved water rights doctrine,'' known 
as the Winters doctrine, in which ``the Federal Government's 
reservation of land for an Indian tribe also implicitly reserves the 
right to use water. . .to accomplish the purpose of the reservation.'' 
Arizona v. Navajo Nation case (U.S. Supreme Court, June 22, 2023). \1\ 
Now, more than a century later, it is time for Congress to ratify our 
historic Indian water rights, ratified by the state of Montana in our 
2001 Water Compact, and approve our Water Rights Settlement, which will 
provide us the ability to develop and use our Indian water rights for 
our agricultural lands and to provide clean and safe drinking water for 
our people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Arizona v. Navajo Nation, Case No. 21-1484, 2023 WL 4110231, at 
*3 (S.Ct. June 22, 2023) (internal citation omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In his writings as an Indian law scholar, Department of the 
Interior Solicitor Robert Anderson recognized the importance of 
Congressional action to approve Indian water rights settlements. He 
wrote that:

        The struggle of Indian tribes to maintain their property and 
        survival as distinct communities is revealed by examining the 
        status and treatment of Indian water rights by the federal 
        government. Indian reserved water rights are trust property 
        with legal title held by the United States. They were first 
        recognized in 1908 in Winters v. United States. As such, one 
        might expect to find that by now a trustee would have developed 
        an effective system for defining and protecting the trust 
        corpus. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Robert T. Anderson, Indian Water Rights and the Federal Trust 
Responsibility, 46 Natural Resources Journal, 399-400 (Spring 2006) 
(internal citations omitted) [hereinafter ``2006 Anderson Paper''].

    Increasing the availability of water on our Reservation through 
funding for critical infrastructure that will support the FBIC's 
development of its Indian water rights will give the Tribes the kind of 
economic opportunity that can improve the social and economic well-
being of our people. In a partnership with the Federal government, we 
can construct, develop, restore, operate, and maintain the 
infrastructure required to secure the settlement promise of ``wet 
water,'' develop a sustainable agricultural economy, and provide 
economic self-sufficiency for our permanent homeland.
    Our Indian Water Rights Settlement is structured to promote 
economic efficiency on our Reservation and our Tribal self-sufficiency. 
\3\ It is an agricultural infrastructure development plan and includes 
infrastructure to develop and ensure clean and safe drinking water to 
end water insecurity on our Reservation; it provides for the FBIC to 
develop, administer, use, manage, and enforce our reserved water rights 
and improve the poor economic condition of our members on the 
Reservation. This is an Indian water settlement--where 97 percent of 
our Reservation lands are trust lands, held by the United States for 
the benefit of the FBIC and our allottees. \4\ Our Fort Belknap Indian 
Irrigation Project and other Reservation irrigated lands serves 
primarily the trust lands of Indian people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ See 1990 Criteria and Procedures for Participation of Federal 
Government in Negotiating for Settlement of Indian Water Rights Claims, 
55 Fed. Reg. 9223-9225 (Mar. 12, 1990) [hereinafter ``1990 Criteria''].
    \4\ Montana Budget & Policy Center, Policy Basics: Taxes in Indian 
Country Part 2: Tribal Governments (November 2017), (citing Tribal 
Nations in Montana: A Handbook for Legislators, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brief History of the Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes and the 
        Reservation
    Our Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribal members are resilient 
people. But certain stark facts about our lives when compared to our 
non-Indian neighbors support the conclusion that the United States has 
failed as our trustee to establish our permanent homeland as a self-
sufficient, economically vibrant, and sustainable Reservation with 
healthy and thriving people.
    We have 8,150 enrolled members and a large land base of 625,000 
acres (nearly the size of Rhode Island), with half of the population 
living on the Reservation. \5\ Due to a lack of adequate housing, many 
of our members live in nearby towns or rural areas and drive to the 
Fort Belknap Reservation each day or throughout the week. \6\ The FBIC 
Council is responsible for providing services to these members the same 
as to any other member. \7\ Poverty has become the norm fueled by 
economic depression and high jobless rates, lack of infrastructure, and 
substandard housing. The Fort Belknap Reservation economic hardship can 
be broken down as follows: 40 percent poverty rate; 34 percent 
unemployment rate; $29,566 median household income and $10,896 per 
capita income. \8\ Our very high unemployment rate can be compared to 
the much lower unemployment rate in the State of Montana (2.3 percent). 
\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ President Andrew Werk, Jr., President, Fort Belknap Indian 
Community, letter to Janet Yellen, U.S. Department of Treasury, 
Washington, D.C. (March 9, 2021) [hereinafter ``Werk 2021 Letter to 
Yellen''].
    \6\ Werk 2021 Letter to Yellen.
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ Werk 2021 Letter to Yellen, (citing the Bureau of Business and 
Economic Research, University of Montana, Oct. 2019, and Center for 
Indian Country Development, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis).
    \9\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://data.bls.gov/
timeseries/LASST300000000000003 (last visited June 28, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Agriculture remains the mainstay of our Reservation economy and 
virtually our sole industry. Farms located on the Reservation are 
largely operated by Tribal members. \10\ However, the low level of 
agricultural productivity, due largely to inadequate infrastructure, is 
reflected in the low family incomes and standard of living currently 
experienced by our members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ FORT BELKNAP RESERVATION: DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC INFORMATION 
(Oct. 2013); see also https://www.montana.edu/extension/aboutus/
documents/2018programhighlights/Fort%20Belknap%202018%20AR-ADA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The first tract of land set aside by the United States with the 
major purpose of creating a self-supporting, agrarian homeland was 
under the Treaty of the Blackfoot Nation in 1855. \11\ At that time, 
our Gros Ventre Tribe was part of the Blackfoot Nation. The federal 
government's policy included the expectation that the tribes would be 
confined to and settle permanently within their territorial boundaries 
where they would abide in permanent houses and obtain their sustenance 
by agricultural pursuits and stock raising.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Treaty of October 17, 1855, 11 Stat. 657.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Through a series of treaties and agreements with the United States, 
Congress established our current, permanent homeland in 1888, the Fort 
Belknap Reservation for the Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes. \12\ 
The 1888 Agreement required the relinquishment of most of our Tribes' 
ancestral territory and resulted in a significant reduction in the 
lands that the Tribes could occupy and use. The federal purpose of the 
1888 Agreement continued the policy of establishing an agricultural 
economy for the Tribes. The Agreement expressly stated that the Tribes 
would ``obtain the means to enable them to become self-supporting, as a 
pastoral and agricultural people[,]''--creating an agricultural 
Reservation economy. Funds were provided for the purchase of cows, 
bulls, and other stock, and agricultural implements, among other 
purchases, and for ``undertak[ing] the cultivation of the soil.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Agreement of May 1, 1888, 25 Stat. 113 [hereinafter ``1888 
Agreement''].
    \13\ 1888 Agreement at Articles III, V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In these negotiations we ceded millions of acres of our ancestral 
lands and resources. In return, through the Treaty of 1855, the 1888 
Congressional Act, and other agreements, the United States promised to 
provide and support an agricultural economy that would sustain our 
Tribes on our reserved homelands. Irrigation began on our Reservation 
in 1889. By 1898, the Tribal members were irrigating about 30,000 acres 
on the Milk River, which forms the northern boundary of our 
Reservation, for grain, grass, and vegetables. Congress authorized the 
construction of irrigation systems on the Reservation, now known as the 
Fort Belknap Indian Irrigation Project.
    Soon, non-Indian, upstream irrigators were depleting our main water 
supply, the Milk River. The United States, our trustee, protected a 
portion of our Indian water supplies and went to court to defend our 
right to water for our Reservation. In 1908, the U.S. Supreme Court 
concluded that the lands of the Fort Belknap Reservation were 
``practically valueless without irrigation--a barren waste[,]'' Winters 
v. United States, \14\ and established the ``Winters Doctrine.'' The 
Indian reserved water rights began with our Reservation, and we are the 
``Winters Tribes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564, 576 (1908).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Over the next 100 plus years, the United States failed to fulfill 
many of its promises and commitments, including protecting and 
preserving our waters, and we now have the highest poverty rate of any 
tribal reservation in Montana. \15\ Because of a failure by the Federal 
Government to maintain and complete construction of our federal Indian 
Irrigation Project, we are currently irrigating only about 10,000 acres 
of our irrigable lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ U.S. Census Bureau, My Tribal Area, https://www.census.gov/
tribal/?aianihh-1150 (last visited June 27, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
History of Settlement Negotiations
    We spent many years negotiating with the United States through our 
assigned Department of the Interior, Federal Negotiations Team and the 
Secretary's Indian Water Rights Office (SIWRO). We came to the 
bargaining table in good faith that our Federal Negotiations Team was 
fully participating as the trustee over what is our most valuable 
natural resource--water. We are not a wealthy Tribal government nor 
wealthy people; we do not have fancy casinos or vast energy resources. 
A settlement of our Indian water rights will bring long overdue 
investments in infrastructure on our Reservation. In the 1980s, we 
chose settlement over litigation with the State and Federal governments 
when we initiated negotiations with the Montana Reserved Water Rights 
Compact Commission and an assigned Federal Negotiations Team. President 
George H. Bush established the Secretary's Office of Indian Water 
Rights Settlements in 1989, and the Department adopted federal 
regulations promoting Indian water settlements in 1990. \16\ This 
provided the structure and guidance for the negotiations and settlement 
of claims concerning Indian water resources over litigation, offering a 
promise to tribes that their right to water would be developed at long 
last with the support of its trustee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ 1990 Criteria; see also Tracy Goodluck, former Deputy Director 
of the Secretary's Indian Water Rights Office, Presentation at the 
April 11, 2019, Federal Bar Association Indian Law Conference, 
Albuquerque, New Mexico. [Hereinafter ``Goodluck 2019 FBA 
Presentation'']
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We adopted the court-approved principles of practicably irrigable 
acreage (PIA) to quantify the volume of our Indian reserved water 
rights, \17\ and negotiated the administration of our water. Many hours 
of negotiations, extensive studies, dozens of public meetings across 
northcentral Montana, and Tribal community meetings took place to reach 
an agreement, not only on the quantity and administration of our water 
rights, but also for the mitigation of the impact on non-Indian state 
water users as we development of our agreed-upon reserved water rights. 
After more than 10 years of negotiations, we reached an agreement with 
the State and Federal governments, and entered into the 2001 Fort 
Belknap-Montana Compact (``Water Compact''). \18\ Our Water Compact 
passed the Montana Legislature with a large, bipartisan majority vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963), decree entered, 
376 U.S. 340 (1964) (quantifying the tribes' Winters water rights on 
the basis of practicably irrigable acreage (PIA), holding that PIA is 
the only fair and feasible way to determine the measure of an Indian 
reservation water right.); See also, e.g., 2006 Anderson Paper at 429 
(``Most important is the fact that in the era of negotiated Indian 
water settlements, PIA is the one component that can be objectively 
evaluated and thus serves as a cornerstone for the settlement 
framework.''; Greely v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, 219 
Mont. 76, 712 P.2d 754 (1985); and In re General Adjudication of All 
Rights to Use Water in Big Horn River System, 753 P.2d 76 (Wyo. 1988); 
aff'd by equally divided court per curium, Wyoming v. United States, 
492 U.S. 406 (1989), cert. denied, Shoshone Tribe v. Wyoming, 109 S.C. 
3265 (1989).
    \18\ Mont. Code Ann.   85-20-1001 through 85-20-1008 (ratified on 
April 16, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Our Water Rights Settlement is based on long-standing, historical 
principles of federal policy on the reserved water rights of Indian 
people that ensure we will receive the full benefit of the water rights 
promised to us in treaties and agreements with the United States. These 
principles include (1) recognition of a reservation of water for 
reservation homelands and the promise of assistance in establishing an 
agricultural economy when valuable tribal lands were ceded to the 
United States; (2) a method of quantifying our Indian water rights 
based on the practicably irrigable acreage (PIA) of the reservation; 
and (3) the importance and obligation of the United States to honor its 
treaty promises and keep its word to assist us with the establishment 
of a viable agricultural economy in order to create a permanent 
homeland.
    A final settlement of our Indian reserved water rights with the 
United States will allow us to protect this critical natural resource 
and will reaffirm the Winters rights for all tribes. Additionally, as 
Department Solicitor Robert Anderson has stated:

        Most important is the fact that in the era of negotiated Indian 
        water settlements, PIA is the one component that can be 
        objectively evaluated and thus serves as a cornerstone for the 
        settlement framework. \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ 2006 Anderson Paper at 429.

    Under Congressional leadership, and after 30 years of negotiations 
with the federal government and the State, the Indian water rights and 
claims of the Fort Belknap Indian Community can now be approved. 
Passage of our Water Rights Settlement reflects the U.S. Supreme Court 
reasoning that ``Congress and the President exercise the `sovereign 
function' of organizing and managing `the Indian trust relationship.''' 
\20\ It is long overdue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Navajo Nation, 2023 WL 4110231, at *5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress has a long history of honoring and recognizing its 
responsibilities and obligations to Indian tribes. In 1956, Congress 
enacted the Colorado River Storage Project Act and made an affirming 
statement of its recognition of fiduciary responsibility in the 
following provision for the Navajo Nation's participation in water 
infrastructure development:

        [T]he costs allocated to irrigation of Indian-owned tribal or 
        restricted lands within, under, or served by such project, and 
        beyond the capability of such lands to repay, shall be 
        determined, and, in recognition of the fact that assistance to 
        the Navajo Indians is the responsibility of the entire nation, 
        such costs shall be nonreimbursable. \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ 70 Stat. 109, 43 U.S.C.  620e (Apr. 11, 1956) (Cost 
allocations, Indian lands; report to Congress) (emphasis added).

    Assistance to the Navajo Indians, of course, was representative of 
the Government's responsibility to Indian people, generally. But 
progress in funding the federal support for Indian water rights 
development has been exceedingly slow while the United States focused 
on and built western water infrastructure projects for the non-Indians. 
\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ See, e.g., James P. Merchant & David M. Dornbusch, The 
Importance of Water Supply to Indian Economic Development (1977), 
stating that in 1968, 370,000 acres of Indian were irrigated (1 percent 
of all Indian agricultural lands), contrasted with 5.1 percent of all 
irrigated agricultural lands in the seventeen western states; Hearing 
on S. 2969, Central Utah Completion Act Before the Senate Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources, 101st Cong. 161 (Sept. 18, 1990), 
(Testimony of Dennis B. Underwood, Commissioner of the Bureau of 
Reclamation): ``The ceiling for CUP increased in 1972 and 1988. In 
1990, the total cost of the Colorado River Storage Project, meaning all 
components, as authorized, is currently $2,938,059,000.''; At the 2019 
Federal Bar Association Indian Law Conference, Tracy Goodluck, Deputy 
Director of the Secretary's Indian Water Rights Office, acknowledged 
what everyone knows, that ``in the decades'' since the 1908 Winters 
decision, ``Federal policy and expenditures supported extensive 
development of water resources to benefit non-Indian communities across 
the West.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After Arizona v. California adopted and reinforced the Winters 
doctrine for the recognition of Indian water rights in 1963, and 
created the practicably irrigable acreage standard for quantifying a 
tribe's water rights, \23\ Congress passed the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975. \24\ President 
Nixon signed and introduced it as the ``dawn of the self-determination 
age,'' and described the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ 373 U.S. 546 (1963).
    \24\ Pub. L. No. 93-638 (1975) (codified at 25 U.S.C.  5301 et 
seq.).

        ``[t]he special relationship between Indians and the Federal 
        government is the result of solemn obligations which have been 
        entered into by the United States Government. . .[T]he special 
        relationship. . .continues to carry immense moral and legal 
        force.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Secretary of the Interior, Order No. 3335, Reaffirmation of 
the Federal Trust Responsibility to Federally Recognized Indian Tribes 
and Individual Indian Beneficiaries (Aug. 20, 2014) (quoting Public 
Papers of the President: Richard M. Nixon, Special Message on Indian 
Affairs (July 8, 1970)).

    This was followed by President Jimmy Carter's adoption of the 
Federal Water Policy initiative in 1978 to promote Indian water rights 
settlements over litigation. \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ ``Federal Water Policy, Message to the Congress,'' Public 
Papers of the Presidents: Jimmy Carter, 1044-47 (June 6, 1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congressional frustration over the slow pace of Indian water 
settlements by the Department of the Interior was evident in 1989 when 
Senators Mark Hatfield (OR) and James McClure (ID) drilled Interior 
Secretary Manuel Lujan and asked: ``Why can't the administration agree 
that these settlements are a national obligation now to be funded?'' 
\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ Michael J. Clinton, Dealing with the Federal Sovereign, Ch. 
16, Thomas R. McGuire, William B. Lord, and Mary G. Wallace (Eds.), 
Indian Water in the New West 220 (University of Arizona Press 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We urge Congress to also consider this historic trend away from the 
United States' trust responsibilities to tribes as it relates to Indian 
water rights and development, in particular, through judicial decisions 
that seem counter to the historical Congressional positions, and 
provide the leadership to reverse such a trend in the federal 
government's policies.
    The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, in McGirt v. Oklahoma, \28\ 
should inform the Federal government's understanding of the importance 
of the early Treaty promises and obligations the United States made to 
tribes and the importance of the Government ``keeping its word.'' The 
McGirt decision was followed by President Biden's promise of a renewed 
``commitment to fulfilling Federal trust and treaty responsibilities. . 
.[,]'' \29\ and the current Administration has declared a policy that 
will reverse the slide away from the federal obligations promised to 
tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020).
    \29\ Memorandum on Tribal Consultation and Strengthening Nation-to-
Nation Relationships, 86 Fed. Reg. 7491 (Jan. 29, 2021), https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/29/2021-02075/tribal-
consultation-and-strengthening-nation-to--nation-relationships.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The promise of a true commitment to tribal sovereignty with 
economically viable homelands can become our reality. The promise of 
our early agreements with the United States, when we ceded millions of 
acres of land, was a permanent, livable homeland and assistance in the 
development and use of our reserved water rights. The United States has 
a continuing trust obligation and responsibility to provide the Fort 
Belknap Indian Community a permanent and economically sustainable 
homeland. Congressional approval of our Water Rights Settlement will be 
the fulfillment of the United States' Treaty promises to the Gros 
Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes.
The Winters Doctrine and the United States' Agricultural Promise
    When the United States Supreme Court analyzed our 1888 Agreement 
with the United States, creating the Fort Belknap Reservation, it 
concluded that certain elements of the agreement were ``prominent and 
significant.'' \30\ In particular, the Court found that the purpose and 
intent of this smaller reservation of land was to ``enable [the Tribes] 
to become self-supporting, as a pastoral and agricultural people.'' The 
high Court reasoned that ``[i]f they should become such,. . .a smaller 
tract [of land] would be inadequate without a change of conditions. The 
lands were arid and, without irrigation, were practically valueless.'' 
\31\ The Court specifically rejected the argument that the Indians 
deliberately gave up the means of irrigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Winters, 207 U.S. at 575-76.
    \31\ Id. at 576.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Court explained that ``[t]he Indians had command of the lands 
and the waters--command of all their beneficial use, whether kept for. 
. .grazing . or turned to agriculture and the arts of civilization.'' 
\32\ The Winters Court applied ``a rule of interpretation of agreements 
and treaties with the Indians, ambiguities occurring will be resolved 
from the standpoint of the Indians.'' \33\ Therefore, under the Winters 
doctrine, the Court held that the establishment of the Reservation 
impliedly reserved the amount of water necessary to irrigate its lands 
and to provide water for other purposes. \34\ Finally, the Court also 
held that these reserved water rights are exempted from appropriation 
under state law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id. at 576-77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Winters Doctrine has stood the test of time and for over a 
century has been applied to recognize tribal, Indian reserved water 
rights. In summary, the Winters Court created federal, Indian reserved 
water rights law with the following characteristics: (1) a reservation 
of water is to be implied when it is required to accomplish the 
purposes of a Treaty, Congressional Act, or Agreement between the 
United States and tribes establishing a tribe's reservation of lands 
with the expressed right to exclusive tribal possession of the land; 
\35\ (2) the amount of water must be sufficient for all their 
beneficial use when the purpose is to allow the Indians to become a 
``pastoral and civilized people,'' including the development of an 
agriculture economy; and (3) Indian reserved water rights are exempted 
from appropriation under state law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ Id. at 575-76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Arizona v. California, \36\ the United States Supreme Court 
adjudicated, in part, the water rights of five reservation tribes on 
the Colorado River mainstream in the Lower Colorado River Basin to 
determine the quantity of each tribes' reserved water rights. The Court 
affirmed the validity of federally reserved Indian water rights under 
the Winters decision when reservations are created, explaining that 
such rights also include those reservations established by an Act of 
Congress or by Executive Order. The Court held that when the reserved 
water rights are necessary to fulfill the purposes for which it was 
created, with a new water use that did not exist prior to creation of 
the Indian reservation, the priority date is the date of establishment 
of the reservation. \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ 373 U.S. 546 (1963).
    \37\ Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546, 595-601 (1963).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Court concluded that Indians are entitled to sufficient water 
to develop, preserve, produce, or sustain food and other resources of 
the reservation to make it livable. \38\ The Court found that when the 
United States created the five reservations included in this 
adjudication, ``it reserved not only land but also the use of enough 
water from the Colorado to irrigate the irrigable portions of the 
reserved lands.'' \39\ This is now referred to as ``practicably 
irrigable acreage'' or PIA-the standard by which Indian water rights 
are quantified where the purpose of the reservation includes 
agricultural pursuits. Under this standard, if land within a 
reservation can be cultivated through irrigation and if such irrigation 
is practicable when applying relevant economic measures, then the tribe 
is entitled to the amount of water necessary for such irrigation. The 
Court reasoned that ``[m]ost of the land in these reservations is and 
always has been arid, if the water necessary to sustain life is to be 
had, it must come from the Colorado River.'' \40\ The United States was 
aware ``that most of the lands were of the desert kind-hot, scorching 
sands-and that water from the river would be essential to the life of 
the Indian people and to the animals they hunted and the crops they 
raised.'' \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ Id. at 599-600.
    \39\ Id. at 596.
    \40\ Id. at 598.
    \41\ Id. at 598-99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, the Court rejected Arizona's urging that the amount of 
water be measured by ``the reasonably foreseeable needs of the Indians 
living on the reservation rather than by the number of irrigable 
acres.'' \42\ The Court reasoned that the quantity of ``water was 
intended to satisfy the future as well as the present needs of the 
Indian reservations and'' [agreed with the Special Master who] ``ruled 
that enough water was reserved to irrigate all the practicably 
irrigable acreage on the reservations.'' \43\ Rejecting the position 
urged by the State of Arizona, the Court explained that if the quantity 
of water reserved ``is measured by the Indians' `reasonably foreseeable 
needs,''' it really means that quantification would be based on the 
number of Indians-and the number of Indians that there will be in the 
future ``can only be guessed.'' \44\ The Court also rejected the 
application of the equitable apportionment doctrine, explaining that it 
is ``a method of resolving water disputes between States.'' \45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ Id. at 596.
    \43\ Id. at 600.
    \44\ Id. at 600-01.
    \45\ Id. at 596-97, affirmed in Navajo Nation, 2023 WL 4110231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FBIC Water Rights Settlement is an Infrastructure Bill
    After ceding millions of acres of ancestral territory, the Gros 
Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes reserved the Fort Belknap Reservation in 
what is now northcentral Montana. These lands were reserved and set 
apart ``as an Indian reservation as and for a permanent home and 
abiding place.'' \46\ Our Reservation lands have never been broken 
apart and lost to non-Indians. Our Fort Belknap Indian Irrigation 
Project and irrigable lands are and remain a federal Indian irrigation 
project. The quantification of our Indian reserved water rights is 
based on the well-respected and legally adopted principles of 
Practicably Irrigable Acreage (PIA). \47\ During the negotiations of 
our rights, we successfully demonstrated that we have an adequate water 
supply with arable soils to support irrigation system infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ Winters, 207 U.S. at 565.
    \47\ 2006 Anderson Paper at 429 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the United States ``has 
charged itself with moral obligations of the highest responsibility and 
trust.'' \48\ We ask Congress to consider our historical circumstances, 
the United States' moral obligation, and the responsibility of the 
entire nation \49\ in providing the costs necessary to develop the 
projects identified in our bill that are designed to allow us to put 
our Indian water rights to use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286, 297 (1941).
    \49\ 43 U.S.C.  620e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaniiih Nakoda Settlement Trust Fund
    Funding in our Water Rights Settlement Bill will go toward 
supporting and developing long overdue traditional infrastructure 
investments, including the development of both agricultural and 
domestic water supplies, that the United States promised to the Gros 
Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes. The Aaniiih Nakoda Settlement Trust Fund 
in our Water Rights Settlement Bill, S. 1987, includes three accounts 
and their uses, described below.
FBIC Tribal Irrigation and Other Water Resources Development Account #1 
        ($119,524,134)

   Restore the Southern Tributary Irrigation Project (STIP) and 
        Peoples Creek Irrigation Project, including construction of the 
        Upper Peoples Creek Dam and Reservoir, on the southern portion 
        of the Reservation.

   Develop infrastructure for stock-watering across the 
        Reservation.

   Provide on-farm development support.

   Repair, restore, and develop wetlands across the 
        Reservation.

   Conduct all environmental compliance activities.

   Conduct planning, studies, and design work for all 
        activities.

    The FBIC Tribal Irrigation and Other Water Resources Development 
account will provide funding to restore the Southern Tributary 
Irrigation Project, which was abandoned by the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
in the 1960-70s in disrepair, preventing tribal members from an 
irrigation resource, and the Peoples Creek Irrigation Project. This 
funding includes construction of the Upper Peoples Creek Dam and 
Reservoir on the southern portion of the Reservation, which will 
provide mitigation for the FBIC due to its agreement to subordinate its 
priority Indian water rights on the Upper Peoples Creek to upstream 
state irrigators on family farms. Funding would also be provided to 
develop infrastructure for stock-watering across the Reservation, 
provide on-farm development support, and restore and develop wetlands 
across the Reservation.
FBIC Water Resources and Water Rights Administration, Operations and 
        Maintenance Account #2 ($66,628,407)

   Establish, operate, and provide capital expenditures to 
        establish a Tribal water resources and water rights department 
        for administration, management, and regulation of the Tribal 
        water rights, including development of a Tribal Water Code.

   Create a Tribal trust fund to provide investment earnings 
        for the long-term support of the Tribal water resources and 
        water rights department to administer and manage the FBIC's 
        water rights.

   Create a Tribal trust fund to provide investment earnings to 
        pay a portion of the annual operation and maintenance 
        assessment costs for Tribal irrigators to ensure long-term 
        repair and upkeep of the irrigation projects.

    FBIC Water Resources and Water Rights Administration, Operations 
and Maintenance account supports the traditional Indian water 
settlement activities crucial to the establishment of a Tribal water 
resources and water rights department. A Tribal trust fund will be 
established that will allow the Tribal department to operate on the 
annual interest earned on the Tribal trust fund and support the costs 
of the regulation, administration, and enforcement of the FBIC water 
rights with the development of a Tribal water code, as well as support 
the cost of capital projects that will provide the necessary 
infrastructure, equipment, and data to support the Tribal department 
activities. Finally, this account provides funds necessary to establish 
an Operation and Maintenance Fund for the Tribal agricultural 
irrigation projects on the Reservation, using annual earned interest to 
support a portion of the annual operation and maintenance costs of 
Tribal irrigators--proven to be important for sustaining the 
agricultural economy on the Reservation.
FBIC Clean and Safe Domestic Water Supply and Wastewater Systems, and 
        Lake Elwell Project, Account #3

   Construct and improve access to and the safety of a clean, 
        domestic water supply and wastewater removal systems on the 
        Reservation.

   Develop two new wells at 300-ft deep, and one new well at 
        480-ft deep to provide water for the communities of the Fort 
        Belknap Agency, Hays, and Lodgepole.

   Develop Homesite wells.

   Construct new water treatment facilities in the Lodge Pole 
        and Hays communities.

   Expand existing tribal domestic water delivery lines.

   Construct a Project to deliver clean and reliable water from 
        Lake Elwell for the southern portion of the Reservation.

   Construct a Tribal wellness center to improve and ensure a 
        healthy workforce that will assume responsibilities related to 
        the Project activities funded under this bill.

    The FBIC Clean and Safe Domestic Water Supply and Wastewater 
Systems, and Lake Elwell Project account supports bringing and storing 
clean drinking water for the Reservation. FBIC has both drinking water 
supply issues and water quality concerns. The cost estimates are 
intended to cover needed improvements to the water facilities at each 
of the Reservation communities, as well as at individual homes within 
the rural areas of the Reservation. Renovation of the existing Fort 
Belknap Agency domestic water system will support the anticipated 
future growth in domestic water demands on the Reservation.
    The Lake Elwell project will bring clean water to the southern 
portion of the Reservation to ensure an adequate water supply to the 
Tribal communities and members in this area of the Reservation, which 
is in need of safe and reliable drinking water. Without the funding 
provided in this account, the FBIC Tribal members will continue to 
experience water insecurity on the Reservation.
    The coronavirus pandemic resulted in an awakening in America of the 
importance of tribal community access to reliable, clean, and drinkable 
water--an essential human need. It is the foundation for healthy 
communities and growing economies. The National Congress of American 
Indians issued a report in 2017 stating that tribes receive only 75 
cents for every $100 needed for drinking water, and estimated an Indian 
Health Service water sanitation facilities' backlog at about $2.5 
billion. \50\ On January 27, 2021, President Biden issued Executive 
Order 14008, \51\ which provides that it is the policy of the Biden 
Administration to secure environmental justice and spur economic 
opportunity for disadvantaged communities that have been historically 
marginalized and overburdened by pollution and underinvestment in 
housing, transportation, water and wastewater infrastructure, and 
health care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ National Congress of American Indians, Tribal Infrastructure: 
Investing in Indian Country for a Stronger America at 6 (2017), https:/
/www.ncai.org/NCAI-InfrastructureReport-FINAL.pdf.
    \51\ 86 Fed. Reg. 7619 (Feb. 1, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The health and wellness of our Tribal members remain a significant 
concern. The median age at death of American Indians residing in 
Montana is 16 years lower than that of white people. \52\ Diabetes is 
prevalent among our Tribal members. A Wellness Center is planned so 
that the health and well-being of our Tribal work force can be 
improved. Wellness Centers are highly effective in combating our 
prevalent tribal health conditions currently resulting in adverse 
health outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\ Mont. Dep't of Public Health and Human Services, Montana Vital 
Statistics 2020 at 23 (2020), https://dphhs.mt.gov/assets/publichealth/
Epidemiology/VSU/VSU2020AnnualReport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Belknap Indian Irrigation Project System Implementation Non-trust 
        Federal Account ($415,832,153)
    The Bill includes funding for the rehabilitation, modernization and 
expansion of the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Fort Belknap Indian 
Irrigation Project (FBIIP) on the Milk River within the Reservation. 
The Bill includes an expansion of the BIA's Milk River unit that will 
consist of an additional 16,465 acres of new irrigable lands, for a 
total of 26,890 acres under irrigation in the FBIIP Milk River Unit. 
The Tribe's Indian water rights from the Milk River is secured under 
the Compact for the new future irrigated lands. This will also include 
construction of a new off-stream water storage reservoir, the Fort 
Belknap Reservoir, on Three Mile Creek with a capacity of about 60,000 
acre-feet, and construction of levees for flood protection of the Milk 
River Unit lands.
    This project was originally authorized for construction in 1895, 
but construction of the full project was never completed. There are 358 
allottee users under the FBIIP and the Tribe's original Winters water 
rights for 10,425 acres of historically irrigated lands will be used by 
the project. This project was constructed over 100 years ago and is in 
desperate need of rehabilitation and modernization. The construction of 
the project is also long past due for being completed. The BIA will be 
the Lead Agency for the FBIIP activities and the FBIC will be able to 
enter into self-determination contracts to conduct all or a portion of 
the activities identified for the FBIIP.
Mitigation for State Water Users
    After our long-time cooperation and compromises with our non-Indian 
neighbors, Congressional support of the agreed-upon mitigation 
activities consistent with our negotiated FBIC-State-Federal Water 
Compact will create harmony at a time when water wars between water 
users are increasing. In fact, Montana has had a severe drought in 
recent years. Mitigation activities will stabilize the water supply, 
conserve water, and improve water use efficiency. Continued cooperation 
among the interested parties through the mitigation activities will 
also respect the sovereignty of the State and FBIC in our respective 
jurisdictions. \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\ 1990 Criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission 
(``Commission'') was created by the State legislature to negotiate 
tribal water settlements with tribes and the federal government. \54\ 
Negotiations among our Parties were conducted in earnest throughout the 
1990s. The Commission conducted no fewer than 20 meetings between 1997-
2000 throughout our region, known as the Hi-Line area of north central 
Montana, for public information and input on the proposed Water 
Compact. The Commission documented over 18 negotiating sessions with 
the FBIC and Federal government between 1990-2000. In addition, 
substantial public information and drafts of the Water Compact were 
distributed through numerous public and FBIC outlets. \55\ This 
extensive public and tribal information effort led to the overwhelming 
approval of our 2001 Water Compact by the State Legislature (94 percent 
approval in the House and 87.5 percent in the Senate). The FBIC Council 
also approved the Water Compact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ Hearing on Addressing the Needs of Native Communities through 
Indian Water Rights Settlements Before the Senate Committee on Indian 
Affairs (May 20, 2015) (Testimony of Jay Weiner, Assistant Attorney 
General of Montana).
    \55\ This information is taken from the Montana Water Rights 
Commission archives, provided by the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As described in the Fort Belknap-Montana Water Compact, the Parties 
plan improvements in the operating capabilities of the Milk River 
Project, where the Milk River is the FBIC's largest source of our 
Indian water rights and forms the northern boundary of our Reservation. 
These improvements will mitigate the impact of the FBIC's future water 
development on the Milk River Project and tributary water users. The 
Water Compact also provides that the FBIC will subordinate its senior 
water rights in the Upper Peoples Creek to upstream non-Indian 
irrigation water users so that they will be able to continue their 
historical irrigation water use.

    Milk River Project Mitigation ($300,000,000)

    The water diverted from the Milk River by the FBIC is the most 
senior water right on the river. All water users in this basin will 
benefit from the mitigation activities, consistent with the Water 
Compact. Water Compact Article VI.B., Mitigation of Impacts on the Milk 
River Project, provides the following:

        The Parties agree that, as a result of development and use of 
        the Tribal Water Rights and protection of water use on 
        tributaries, the Milk River Project and its water users will, 
        at times, be adversely affected if no change is made to the 
        Milk River System.. . .to the level of 35,000 Acre-Feet Per 
        Year.. . .

    Improvements in the water supply of the Milk River for the Milk 
River Project will mitigate the impact of the development and future 
use of our Tribal Water Rights in the Milk River and provide protection 
of water use on upstream tributaries. This is important because in the 
Water Compact, the State reserved the right to withdraw as a party if 
``Congress does not authorize and appropriate the federal share of 
funding for the modification to the Milk River Project or other 
alternatives necessary to mitigate the impact of development on the 
Tribal Water Right.'' \56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\ Fort Belknap-Montana Compact, Mont. Code Ann.  85-20-1001, 
Article VII.A.4.c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Extensive studies have been conducted to analyze the impact of 
FBIC's water development and use on the Milk River. Projects were 
identified that would provide the required mitigation for the Milk 
River Project and tributary water users. The Commissioner is required 
to restore the St. Mary Canal and associated facilities in cooperation 
with the State and FBIC. The Commissioner is also required to 
rehabilitate and enlarge the Dodson South Canal and associated 
facilities in cooperation with the State and FBIC.

    Upper Peoples Creek (included in Trust Fund, Account #1 funding)

    The second mitigation-related agreement of the Parties to the Water 
Compact is provided at Art. VI.C.:

        The Parties agree, that, as a result of the protections 
        provided to the Upper Peoples Creek [non-Indian] water users in 
        the Compact and the variable natural water supply in the 
        Peoples Creek Basin, the water supply available for development 
        of the Tribal Water Right in the Peoples Creek may be limited. 
        The Parties agree that such impacts can and shall be mitigated. 
        . .through the construction of a dam and reservoir. . .and to 
        seek appropriations. . .for the benefit of the Tribes.

    During the Water Compact negotiations, non-Indian, state irrigators 
who have historically farmed on Upper Peoples Creek, upstream of the 
western boundary of the Reservation, sought protection from the FBIC's 
agreed-to Indian water rights quantification, development, and use in 
the Upper Peoples Creek. Additionally, the Peoples Creek Basin has a 
highly variable natural water supply, resulting in limitations in the 
development and use of the Tribal Water Rights in Peoples Creek on the 
Reservation.
    Therefore, the FBIC agreed to allow the current irrigation of lands 
in Upper Peoples Creek by the non-Indian irrigators, subordinating the 
FBIC's senior reserved water rights. In exchange for the FBIC agreement 
with these state water users, the State and Federal governments agreed 
to mitigate the impact on the FBIC water use by constructing a dam and 
reservoir for the benefit of the FBIC in the Upper Peoples Creek. The 
dam and reservoir will significantly improve the reliability, 
availability, and use of the FBIC water rights from Peoples Creek on 
the Reservation.
State and Federal Land Transfers
    The Bill authorizes the transfer of approximately 16,116 acres of 
federal land from the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, including former allotments, and Bureau of Reclamation. The 
Bill also authorizes the Secretary of Interior and Secretary of 
Agriculture, Forest Service, to enter negotiations with the State to 
exchange approximately 21,705 acres of State trust lands for Federal 
lands to be transferred and held in trust for the FBIC. The total 
acreage to be transferred to the Tribe is approximately 37,822 acres. 
No private lands are included in the Federal land transfer and 
customary access to private lands will be retained. The federal lands 
to be transferred will be subject to valid existing rights and 
requirements and be held in trust for the Tribe. The land transfers 
provide for consolidation of Tribal lands both on and off the 
Reservation (including the submarginal land area adjacent to the 
western boundary of the current Reservation) for improved Tribal 
administration, better management of forested lands by our experienced 
land management department and fire response team, and the restoration 
and protection of the FBIC's cultural resources.
Montana Water Court Adjudication
    In the 1970s, the State started a general stream adjudication of 
all water rights through the Montana Water Court. \57\ The Legislature 
set up a process that would allow tribes to negotiate their water 
rights with the State instead of litigating them through the State 
Water Court. The negotiations process was carried out through the 
Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission (``Commission''). In 1981, the 
FBIC Council chose to negotiate and settle its Indian water rights with 
the State and United States. In 1990, the FBIC stipulated to stay 
proceedings in pending lawsuits in the federal court of Montana and the 
pending adjudication in the Montana Water Courts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\ The following historical information is taken from a Briefing 
Paper (June 2000) in the Montana Reserved Water Rights Commission 
archives (author unknown).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, the State Legislature ended the activities of the 
Commission in 2013 and set a deadline for all remaining Indian reserved 
water rights claims to be filed with the Water Court by June 30, 2015. 
The United States, as our trustee, filed the FBIC water claims on 
behalf of the FBIC. Our water rights claims, therefore, are before the 
Montana Water Court, and it is currently uncertain when the Court will 
initiate the adjudication of our claims. However, an adjudication of 
these claims after decades of negotiations, an agreed-upon Water 
Compact, and a proposed Water Rights Settlement Bill before Congress 
would be tragic for all Parties now--resulting only in a ``paper water 
right'' for the FBIC, with no ability to develop and benefit from our 
Indian water. Therefore, time for Congressional approval of our Water 
Rights Settlement is of the essence.
    The FBIC should not be required to litigate its claims after good 
faith bargaining with the Federal government. Yet, our Indian water 
rights claims have been filed, as required under federal and state law, 
with the Montana Water Court and its adjudication could proceed at any 
time. We agree with Master Rifkind who observed in his 1963 Arizona v. 
Colorado report that ``Indian water rights litigation turns into 
sporting matches and endurance contests[,]'' and is followed by dozens 
of years of ``a platoon of lawyers at work, committed to either 
sustaining or destroying its result.'' \58\ The United States is too 
far into our settlement effort, which can now result in fair monetary 
compensation that will support the FBIC's development of its agreed-
upon Indian reserved water rights. The United States should see that 
litigating the FBIC water rights claims is no longer an option and 
should be avoided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\ Teno Roncalio, The Horns of a Dilemma, Ch. 15, Thomas R. 
McGuire, William B. Lord, and Mary G. Wallace (Eds.), Indian Water in 
the New West 211(1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In short, litigation of Indian water rights is a lengthy and costly 
process, with an uncertain outcome-for everyone. We are seeking a 
settlement that provides us with ``wet water,'' with sufficient funding 
to settle our claims and allow for the development and use of our 
Indian water rights. That is the promise of settlement over litigation.
Conclusion
    Congress has an opportunity to address more than 100 years of 
neglect and failure of the United States to fulfill its commitments 
made in treaties and agreements with the Gros Ventre and Assiniboine 
Tribes by passing S.1987. Indian water rights are one ``of the four 
critical elements necessary for tribal sovereignty.'' \59\ Our Water 
Rights Settlement will provide recognition and enforceability of our 
reserved water rights, self-sufficiency, and economic success-and 
supports the permanent, livable homeland for our people that was 
promised to us by the United States. Our Water Rights Settlement will 
ratify our negotiated Indian water rights and provide much-needed 
economic benefits for FBIC and surrounding communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\ City of Albuquerque v. Browner, 97 F. 3d 415, 418 (10th Cir. 
1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ``The federal trust responsibility is a legal obligation of the 
United States dictating that the federal government must protect Indian 
resources and assets and manage them in the Indians' best interest.'' 
\60\ The Settlement will provide funding for the rehabilitation, 
modernization, expansion, and restoration of the irrigation systems 
that will assist us in establishing a viable agricultural economy and 
justifies desperately needed expenditures, including for the federal 
Fort Belknap Indian Irrigation Project and other irrigation projects on 
our Reservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\ Congressional Research Service, Indian Water Rights 
Settlements R44148 at 4 (updated Mar. 28, 2023), https://
crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44148/28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Our Indian water settlement is structured to promote economic 
efficiency on our Reservation and our Tribal self-sufficiency. It is an 
agricultural infrastructure plan; includes the development of clean, 
reliable, and safe drinking water; provides for the FBIC to administer, 
manage, and enforce its reserved water rights, and will improve the 
poor economic condition of our members on the Reservation. In the end, 
perhaps, Charles F. Wilkinson, a renowned scholar on Indian water 
rights, natural resources, and other issues, explained it the most 
eloquently in 1993:

        ``[I]t has been the role of morality that has touched my mind 
        and my heart. It is a morality that comes from a sense of 
        community, a sense of homeland, a sense of history, and a sense 
        of promises. It is fascinating the way an abstraction such as 
        morality can be so intensely practical. Without that morality, 
        there would be no Winters doctrine and no water settlements, 
        because it is a sense of morality that drives Indian policy. 
        Tribal leaders are able to express this morality in an 
        evocative and fair way, explaining the history, the promises, 
        and the period of neglect, explaining the importance of 
        homelands and other values that none of us fully comprehend. 
        This morality has carried these Indian water settlements and 
        other aspects of Indian policy. Morality matters profoundly 
        because it is the backdrop for all the technical matters 
        contained in these settlements.'' \61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\ Charles Wilkinson, Indian Water in the New West 222 (1993).

    Approval of our Water Rights Settlement is an historic event--we 
are the Winters Tribes with a recognized Indian reserved water right 
since 1908, and we are the last tribes in Montana to achieve our water 
settlement with the United States. We respectfully request that 
Congress work to swiftly pass our Water Rights Settlement, S.1987. It 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
is long overdue.

    The Chairman. Thank you, President Stiffarm.
    Lieutenant Governor Juras, welcome. Please proceed with 
your testimony.

STATEMENT OF HON. KRISTEN JURAS, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, STATE OF 
                            MONTANA

    Mr. Juras. Good afternoon, Chair Schatz, Vice Chair 
Murkowski and Committee members. My name is Kristen Juras, and 
I am the Lieutenant Governor of the State of Montana.
    It is truly a privilege to appear before you on behalf of 
my beloved State and Governor Gianforte in support of Senate 
Bill 1987.
    Water is one of Montana's most valued resources. As Senator 
Tester noted, water is life, not only for our communities, it 
is the lifeblood of our number one industry, agriculture. Like 
many western States, we don't have enough of it, giving rise to 
the adage, whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting.
    But rather than fight, in the 1970s, Montana made the 
commitment to resolve tribal and Federal enclave reserved water 
rights through negotiation rather than litigation. Let me tell 
you, as a water rights attorney, water rights litigation often 
takes far longer than you expect. It is far more expensive than 
you expect. And most unfortunately, it pits neighbors against 
neighbors and even tribes against tribes.
    Montana was the first and only State to form a standing 
water compact commission. Over the past five decades, working 
with our tribal and Federal partners, we have seen remarkable 
success. The Fort Belknap Compact is the final settlement to 
come before Congress for approval in a series of 18 compacts 
that equitably apportion water resources between the State and 
its people and the several Indian tribes and Federal enclaves.
    The Fort Belknap Compact was overwhelmingly approved by the 
Montana legislature in 2001 and signed by then-Governor Judy 
Martz. As Vice Chair Murkowski noted, this is a particularly 
historic settlement given that the Fort Belknap Reservation was 
the site of the dispute that gave rise to the U.S. Supreme 
Court's seminal Indian water rights ruling, Winters v. U.S. 
Yes, President Stiffarm, it is, after a century, time to close 
this circle and grant this tribe the water rights that were 
intended for them.
    Since State ratification of the compact in 2001, it has 
taken a significant amount of time, resources and investments 
from many parties in order to come before you today with a 
negotiated agreement that has achieved broad-based non-partisan 
support. President Stiffarm, thank you and the tribal council 
for your leadership and commitment in reaching this milestone. 
You are a man or courage.
    I also want to thank the State's chief negotiator, Jay 
Weiner, the members of the State and Federal negotiating teams, 
and all of our staff behind each of these teams that provides 
critical support, including behind me, our Director of the 
Department of Natural Resources, Amanda Kaster, and our Natural 
Resource Counsel to the Governor's Office, Rachel Meredith.
    In water circles, we talk about paper water, the tribe's 
water rights as described in the compact, versus wet water, the 
tribe's ability to actually put the water to use on their 
fields and in their homes. Without significant investment in 
water system infrastructure, the tribe's water rights will 
remain paper water rather than wet water.
    That is why Senate Bill 1987 is so critical. Through 
significant investments in water infrastructure and projects, 
this legislation transforms paper water into wet water and 
quite frankly, without it, significant portions of the tribe's 
water rights will remain on paper.
    The Montana legislature has also repeatedly appropriated 
millions of dollars in State support for Indian water rights 
compacts. The State has already fully funded the contemplated 
State contribution in S. 1987, which is intended to support the 
construction of a dam and reservoir on Peoples Creek. It has 
also previously contributed to the repair of the St. Mary's 
Canal and ongoing support to the St. Mary's working group.
    Section 6 of the bill provides for the transfer of 
approximately 22,000 acres of State trust land located within 
and adjacent to the reservation for Federal lands of equal 
value, allowing further consolidation of the tribe's land base 
and reducing jurisdictional conflicts between the tribes and 
the State.
    Montana is proud to stand with its partners in advocating 
the passage of this meaningful water rights settlement, which 
brings an important chapter of Montana history to a close. 
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I stand for any 
questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Lieutenant Governor Juras 
follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Kristen Juras, Lieutenant Governor, State of 
                                Montana
    Chair Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski, and distinguished members of 
the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I thank you for the opportunity 
to provide written testimony today. My name is Kristen Juras, and I am 
the Lieutenant Governor of the State of Montana. I am here to testify 
on behalf of the State of Montana and Governor Greg Gianforte in 
support of Senate Bill 1987, a bill to provide for the settlement of 
the water rights of the Fort Belknap Indian Community, and to urge your 
approval of this legislation.
    The Fort Belknap Indian Community-State of Montana water rights 
compact was approved by the Montana Legislature and signed by then-
Governor Judy Martz in 2001. Mont. Code Ann.  85-20-1001, et seq. It 
is now the last reserved water rights compact in Montana requiring 
congressional ratification, and it is a particularly historic 
settlement given that the Fort Belknap Reservation was the site of the 
dispute that gave rise to the U.S. Supreme Court's seminal Indian water 
rights ruling, Winters v. U.S., 207 U.S. 564 (1908). Montana is very 
pleased to provide its support for S. 1987 and greatly appreciates the 
leadership and commitment demonstrated by the Fort Belknap Indian 
Community, Community Council President Jeffrey Stiffarm, and all tribal 
officials, staff, and members who have worked on this settlement over 
the years. The State is also appreciative of support for the settlement 
from essential stakeholders, such as Phillips County, Hill County, 
Valley County, Blaine County Conservation District, St. Mary 
Rehabilitation Working Group, Milk River Joint Board of Control, and 
the Montana Stockgrowers Association, among others.
    Montana has been remarkably successful in resolving both Indian and 
federal reserved water rights claims through settlement negotiation. In 
1979, the State created the Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact 
Commission (``Commission'') specifically to negotiate, on behalf of the 
Governor, compacts with Indian tribes and federal agencies claiming 
reserved water rights in the state of Montana. The Commission was 
established as an alternative to litigation, as part of Montana's 
statewide water rights adjudication, and was charged with negotiating 
compacts ``for the equitable division and apportionment of waters 
between the state and its people and the several Indian tribes'' and 
the federal government. Mont. Code Ann.  85-2-701 (2021).
    Since the Commission's inception, Montana has successfully 
concluded compacts with each tribe and federal enclave claiming 
reserved water rights within state borders, for a total of 18 different 
compacts that have been enacted into law. See, Mont. Code Ann.   85-
20 Parts 2-19. Between 1992 and 2020, Congress enacted legislation 
ratifying water rights settlements between the State and the Northern 
Cheyenne Tribe, the Chippewa Cree Tribe, the Crow Tribe, the Blackfeet 
Tribe, and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT). With the 
exception of the CSKT compact, which is presently undergoing the 
Montana Water Court decree process, \1\ each of those compacts, along 
with the State's water rights compacts with the Fort Peck Tribes and 
the various federal enclaves in Montana administered by the Bureau of 
Land Management, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, and the U.S. Forest Service, have been finally decreed by the 
Montana Water Court and are being implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ After passage by the Montana Legislature, ratification by 
Congress, and ratification by the tribe or tribes associated with the 
reservation, compacts proceed through the Montana Water Court 
adjudication process as the same is established by the Montana Water 
Use Act, Title 85, Chapter 1, Part 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further, the Montana Legislature, in working alongside political 
leadership and our tribal and federal negotiating partners, has 
repeatedly appropriated millions of dollars in state support for Indian 
water rights compacts. The State has already fully funded the State's 
contributions contemplated by S. 1987, which are intended to support 
the construction of a dam and reservoir on Peoples Creek. Construction 
of this infrastructure effectuates one of the compromises struck in the 
compact, recognizing the Fort Belknap Tribes' legal entitlement to 
water while protecting existing off-reservation water uses that are 
junior in priority. Montana's commitment to such contributions has 
created immeasurable benefits to tribes as well as state water right 
holders, including irrigators, municipalities, and others. Montana's 
compacts frequently involve complicated and contested natural resource 
allocation, and by investing in mutually negotiated outcomes, Montana 
has resolved these disputes in a pragmatic fashion that reduces 
conflict and expense and creates economic drivers for reservation and 
regional economies.
    The Fort Belknap compact is a paradigmatic example of these mutual 
and diverse benefits, and S. 1987 is a critical component in securing 
those benefits. The Tribes speak eloquently about the importance of 
this compact to their ability to provide clean drinking water to their 
members and to use the Fort Belknap Reservation's water resources for 
their benefit. The Milk River is the largest of the four drainages 
addressed in the compact. From its source on the Blackfeet Indian 
Reservation, and as it runs several hundred miles along Montana's Hi-
Line, finally reaching its confluence with the Missouri River, the Milk 
River is the lifeblood of one of the earliest irrigation projects 
developed by the Bureau of Reclamation. The Milk River Project 
(``Project'') irrigates over 120,000 acres and provides water to four 
municipalities, two rural water systems, and two tribal communities. It 
relies on aging infrastructure, particularly the components of the 
trans-basin diversion from the St. Mary River to the Milk River system 
located on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation. S. 1987 provides critical 
funding to ensure the rehabilitation of that diversion and other 
critical Project infrastructure, which is essential to the economic 
vitality of northcentral Montana, including the Fort Belknap and 
Blackfeet Indian Reservations.
    Section 6 of S. 1987 also provides for the transfer of certain 
federal lands to be held in trust for the benefit of the Fort Belknap 
Indian Community and authorizes a federal-state land trade process to 
further augment consolidation of the Tribes' on-reservation land base 
and reduce jurisdictional conflicts between the Tribes and the State. 
The State supports this effort while remaining mindful of its 
constitutional mandate to maximize the value received from State trust 
lands for the benefit of Montana's schools and other public 
institutions. To fulfill its fiduciary obligations as trustee, it is 
essential that Montana have the ability to work with both the U.S. 
Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service to identify 
suitable federal lands to trade for State trust lands identified in 
Section 6. S. 1987 provides that authority, which is an important 
component of our full support for this legislation.
    In closing, I want to reiterate my appreciation for the opportunity 
to provide this testimony. Montana is unique in how it has approached 
reserved water rights within its borders, choosing to negotiate and 
collaborate with its tribal and federal partners, rather than pursue 
protracted, divisive, and expensive litigation. It is through this 
process that all parties can stand before you today, in support of this 
truly historic settlement quantifying the reserved water rights of the 
original Winters-case Tribes. This settlement implements the final 
reserved water rights compact in Montana and reflects the culmination 
of nearly a half-century of dedicated work. It provides essential 
support for the needs of the Fort Belknap Indian Community and its 
members. It ensures the continued vitality of the agricultural economy 
of northcentral Montana. Montana is proud to stand with its partners in 
advocating the passage of this meaningful water right settlement which 
brings a chapter of Montana history to a close.
    On behalf of the State of Montana, I am proud to support the 
passage of S. 1987 and encourage you to do so.

    The Chairman. Thank you to all the testifiers.
    With the Vice Chair's concurrence, we are going to start 
with the introducers of these various pieces of legislation.
    Senator Tester, followed by Senator Daines.
    Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 
courtesy. Senator Daines and I both know this has been a long 
trail, and the fact that we are here, everybody on the same 
page, whether it is Steve and I or the Governor's office or the 
tribe or the folks around the tribe in north central Montana, I 
just can't express my appreciation enough.
    This question is for you, President Stiffarm. As you are 
well aware, the goal of any water settlement is to provide 
water infrastructure as needed, wet water, as the Lieutenant 
Governor said, that takes into effect things like changing 
climates, distance to water sources and a bunch of other 
things.
    The goal is to avoid costly litigation. Lieutenant 
Governor, I did not know you are a water rights attorney. So 
you come at this from a real-life perspective.
    President Stiffarm, can you share your perspective, your 
perspective as a representative of the people of Fort Belknap, 
on why this settlement that we are discussing today is the best 
way to resolve the water rights issue at Fort Belknap that was 
established, as has been said, by the Winters case, and how 
this settlement will secure water access for your tribe for the 
next 100 years?
    Mr. Stiffarm. Thank you for the question, Senator Tester. 
As I stated earlier, it has been said throughout these 
testimonies, water is life. Without that, we are nothing. 
Without the work you all have done to help us secure this water 
settlement, it is going to mean fresh drinking water for the 
Fort Belknap Agency and for the communities in the south of our 
reservation, Hays and Lodgepole.
    We are going to be able to re-do our irrigation district in 
the north end, which is 100 percent operated by Native American 
tribal members and we can have an irrigation system in the 
south end, for our farmers and ranchers out there. Fort 
Belknap's primary income is farming and ranching. So this water 
means a lot to us. This dam that we are going to build is going 
to benefit the communities all the way from Blackfeet Country 
down into the Fort Peck Reservoir, those farmers and ranchers 
that are upriver from us and downriver.
    So we are bringing life to the Hi-Line, is what we are 
doing. I want to thank you for that.
    Senator Tester. Thank you.
    Mr. Juras. as I said before, it is a pleasure to have you 
here today. Thank you for your work and the Administration's 
work on this settlement.
    As you have said, Montana has a strong record of 
collaborating on water settlements. Your work has carried that 
tradition on, thank you.
    You wear many hats as Lieutenant Governor of the State of 
Montana. You serve as co-chair of the St. Mary's Rehabilitation 
Project, in that role, you know how important it is to 
rehabilitating the St. Mary's Canal and how critical it is to 
north central Montana.
    As we learned with the DOI testimony, and Bryan, thank you 
for your testimony, the rehabilitation of St. Mary's will 
provide 35,000 acre-feet of water mitigation required in this 
compact. Could you talk about the overall importance of fixing 
St. Mary's? We have heard the president talk about the tribal 
perspective. I want you to talk about fixing St. Mary's and its 
potential to expand access to water across north central 
Montana.
    Mr. Juras. Yes, Senator Tester. The St. Mary's canal 
system, and we call it the Milk River Project, is critical for 
the Hi-Line communities and agriculture. It irrigates over 
120,000 acres. It provides water for cities and towns and two 
rural communities. Without it, literally people would have to 
leave that area of the State. It would cause great economic 
harm if we do not maintain the viability of the St. Mary's 
system.
    As you know, it was built in the early 1900s. We had the 
collapse of some structures in 2000. Thankfully, this body, 
Congress approved repairs. Montana also contributed to some of 
those repairs.
    But that was just one of many repairs that makes it 
absolutely critical to the Montana economy, as well as the 
communities that that canal serves.
    Senator Tester. For the purview of the Committee, the St. 
Mary's project is an engineering marvel. It was built over 100 
years ago, and has probably been worn out for 40 years. And it 
is just an amazing piece of infrastructure built several 
generations ago.
    I want to thank everybody who has worked on this bill. I 
want to thank the witnesses for their testimony. I would like 
to quickly note for the record that there are a handful of 
drafting errors within this bill. I look forward to correcting 
these errors in a substitute amendment. We will work with the 
agencies here on technical assistance, trying to get this bill 
out the door quickly.
    Lastly, I want to thank President Stiffarm and all the 
folks who have worked on this bill. Your predecessors, you 
mentioned, Andy Werk. But the truth is, it is a long list, 
because this has been going on a long time.
    Today's hearing is a testament to hard work and 
determination getting done if you fight and work for common 
sense solutions. It hasn't been easy. Make no mistake about it, 
we have much work left to do.
    But I remain committed, as you do, as Senator Daines does, 
to getting this done. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Tester.
    Senator Daines?

                STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

    Senator Daines. Chairman Schatz, thank you, as well as Vice 
Chair Murkowski.
    Mr. Juras. welcome. President Stiffarm, thank you. Both of 
you are not only colleagues who work together on important 
issues, I consider both of you friends. It is really good to 
have you here.
    The Lieutenant Governor not only is a water rights 
attorney, she also was born in the same hometown as my grandpa. 
So some of these relationships go back a long way.
    Today is historic, it really is. I sometimes wondered if we 
would ever get to this point, to have this kind of hearing. 
When I was first elected to the House in 2012, over a decade 
ago, this was one of the first issues I heard about. I heard 
about it from the tribe, I heard about it from the county 
commissioners, Phillips County, Blaine County. Both sides 
wanted to set me straight on their strong opinions on this 
compact.
    Less than just a year ago, this settlement still had 
opposition from numerous groups. The truth of the matter is it 
was going nowhere. It was going nowhere. As President Stiffarm 
so well articulated, I think we had to put aside the concerns 
for only ourselves and think about the future generations. It 
has been a century-long battle.
    President Stiffarm, I commend you and your courage, your 
leadership to saying, I want to solve this problem. For 10 
years, the bill got introduced, it was press releases, but it 
wasn't actually going to get an outcome. Through your 
leadership and willingness to figure out a path forward, your 
courage, we are here.
    We buckled down the last six months. The Governor's team, 
as well as the Department of Interior and President Stiffarm's 
team held the first of many intense negotiations. It got 
intense at times. I worked with our county commissioners. They 
got intense at times. Working with Montana's farming and 
ranching communities, as the Lieutenant Governor talked about 
whiskey and water, that is really true in a place that has a 
lot less water than whiskey.
    We came to a compromise, and Senator Tester and I 
introduced a bipartisan bill. I am proud to say today for the 
first time ever we have the support of Montana's entire 
congressional delegation. We have the support from Governor 
Gianforte and his administration. We have the support of the 
tribe. We have the support of every affected county commission. 
We have the support of the agriculture groups and many more for 
this critically important bill.
    It is hard to ever get a group aligned on anything. Yet 
here we are today, and again, President Stiffarm, I commend you 
for your leadership and vision.
    Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask unanimous consent to place 
into the record the following letters of support: Blaine County 
Commission, Phillips County Commission, Hill County Commission, 
Valley County Commission, Governor Greg Gianforte, the Montana 
Stock Board Association, Montana Farm Bureau, and letters from 
elected officials.
    The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
    Senator Daines. Again, this bill is a result of a lot of 
compromise, a century or more of work. It will be a major 
benefit to Montana.
    It fully settles costly water rights litigation. I am 
grateful Lieutenant Governor Juras went to law school. I 
didn't. I am not a lawyer. I went to engineering school, that 
other school a couple hundred miles away from Missoula. It 
fully funds the rehabilitation of the Milk River Project which 
is the lifeblood for our farmers and ranchers both on and off 
the reservation. All you have to do is, if you were to fly over 
that part of the State, you can see where it is green and where 
it is not. It is very, very clear in terms of water being the 
lifeblood.
    We invest in infrastructure to provide clean drinking water 
and irrigation for tribal and non-tribal members. And it 
protects existing easements and leases. The Fort Belknap Water 
Rights Settlement Act is truly a win. It is a win, it is a win, 
it is a win for Montana.
    President Stiffarm, Lieutenant Governor Juras, welcome. 
This bill is critical for both the State and the tribe. 
Lieutenant Governor Juras, you spent considerable time working 
toward a practical solution that benefits Montana. How does the 
current bill protect private property rights, increase 
investment in agriculture, and address the complex land 
ownership issues that we face in Montana?
    Mr. Juras. As I noted in my testimony, it avoids expensive 
and lengthy and unpredictable litigation. In Montana, we follow 
the prior appropriation doctrine, which grants seniority to 
first in time, first in right. So it actually provides 
predictability not only for the tribes, but also for the State 
water rights holders, because the tribe's water rights date 
back prior to almost all stakeholders, and all of those rights 
are junior.
    So until the tribe's water rights are confirmed and 
finalized, junior water right holders cannot finalize that. And 
of course, our water rights are a very important property 
right.
    It also provides for mitigation of the impact of off-
reservation water users through the rehabilitation of the St. 
Mary's Canal and Fresno and other water structures. Without 
Senate Bill 1987, the tribe's water rights will remain paper 
water rights and will continue to have that uncertainty.
    Senator Daines. It is a really important point, because as 
anybody who has dealt with water out west knows, in terms of 
the data, that right determines priority. The point you made 
about the tribe's rights predating a lot of the other rights is 
really important. If we don't settle that, we can never resolve 
this issue. So it is a really important point and why we need 
to get this done.
    President Stiffarm, the tribe has made numerous concessions 
in order to get to where we are today. Thank you for your work. 
Your grandchildren and my grandchildren and our great-
grandchildren will thank you for your work.
    The bill before us is a compromise for the State, the 
tribe, the Federal Government, dozens of local areas and 
groups. There is still work to do from this point forward, but 
this is a really important, monumental step.
    My question for you, President Stiffarm, how does the bill 
enhance the tribe's water resources and ensure that your 
members have access to clean drinking water and sustainable 
irrigation?
    Mr. Stiffarm. Thank you for the question, Senator Daines. 
First, I want to thank you for those words that you shared. You 
keep my humble and grounded. I appreciate this.
    What this water settlement is going to mean for the people 
of Fort Belknap and the surrounding communities is clean 
drinking water, water for the future as we talked about, for 
our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. That is 
what we are all here for, it is why we are all surviving here 
today, is for our children and grandchildren and for their 
lives, for better lives.
    In the south end, we will be pumping water out of the 
Missouri River up into the Hays and Lodgepole communities, 
which doesn't have clean drinking water because of the mining 
devastation that we had from the Zortman and Landusky Mine, 
runoff from the mountains there. So we are going to be able to 
provide some clean drinking water in the south, in the 
communities.
    Also infrastructure, the homes that we plan on building. 
Back home we have two or three generations living in one home. 
With some of the money we are going to be able to dig some 
wells and build homes for the communities. As I said, provide 
better, clean drinking water and irrigation systems for our 
farmers and ranchers up and down the Hi-Line. It is going to 
provide hope where there was no hope before. I want to thank 
you for your help.
    Again, Lieutenant Governor, we are honored to be sitting 
next to you and listening to your testimony. [Phrase in Native 
tongue.]
    Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. President.
    I know I am well over time. I have a question for Mr. 
Newland, Chairman Schatz.
    The Chairman. Go ahead.
    Senator Daines. Thank you.
    It is a century in the making here, but this will be quick. 
I would appreciate a brief answer. The stars of the panel are 
here right now, but you have a really important of this, 
because we don't go anywhere without your assistance going 
forward.
    First of all, thank you for all your help on this. A lot of 
the work now will go into working together, moving this 
forward. The cooperation has been noted and appreciated.
    How important is it to finalize this last remaining water 
settlement in the State of Montana and have a bill that could 
be implemented at the State, Federal, and local level?
    Mr. Newland. Thank you, Senator, for that question. Your 
comment hit the nail on the head: it is a century in the making 
since the Winters case that the United States brought as 
trustee. I think getting this done will, in large measure, 
fulfill a big part of our trust obligation to the tribes and 
the people who live in their communities back home on the 
reservation, to get them actual wet water.
    Senator Daines. Thanks for the brief answer, and thanks for 
all your help.
    Mr. Chairman, thanks.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Smith?
    Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Secretary-Treasurer Fineday, miigwech, and thank you again 
for being here with our Committee. I very much appreciated your 
testimony, as you reviewed some of the history of the illegal 
land transfers which is, of course, as you pointed out, part of 
the long legacy of taking land from the Ojibwe people in this 
place that is now known as Minnesota and across the Country.
    Your testimony was excellent. I am wondering if there was 
anything in your testimony regarding that history that you 
would like an opportunity to highlight before I ask you one 
other question?
    Mr. Fineday. Thank you, Senator, for that question. Of 
course, I could speak on the history here for a very long time 
and I am sure bore the Committee to death. I won't do that 
today, other than to point out very specifically these 
transfers that are subject to the Restoration Act and to this 
technical correction really arose from the termination era. 
Even thought Leech Lake wasn't specifically targeted as a 
termination tribe, it was still the mindset of the Federal 
Government at that time in order to eliminate the burden of 
administering the land on our reservation.
    So Congress passed an amendment to the Indian 
Reorganization Act on May 14th, 1948 that authorized the 
Secretary of Interior to issue fee patents to Indian allotments 
to prepare them for sale. Under the new law, the BIA also began 
to administratively transfer ownership of allotments to other 
governmental agencies, such as the United States Department of 
Agriculture. These administrative transfers were known as 
secretarial transfers.
    The problem at Leech Lake and why this was specific to 
Leech Lake is because we have the Chippewa National Forest that 
is basically superimposed within the boundaries of our 
reservation. So the fact that the forest and the reservation 
are one and the same really made the administration of these 
transfers especially enticing to BIA officials in the 1940s and 
1950s.
    However, it wasn't until 1979 that the Department of 
Interior formally acknowledged that these transfers were 
illegal. The Interior Solicitor interpreted the Act of May 
14th, 1948 to require ``unanimous consent of all heirs before 
the interests in those allotments could be conveyed.'' And that 
didn't happen in this situation.
    So while we can look at the overall consequences of the 
Termination Act and the allotment period on Indian Country, 
correcting this specific wrong for the illegal taking of land 
at Leech Lake is a much more straightforward task, just return 
the land.
    Senator Smith. Thank you very much.
    And for the unfortunate people who have never had a chance 
to visit northern Minnesota and the home of Leech Lake Band, 
can you explain what the land is like? Particularly I am 
thinking about, I was just looking at a map of the tribal 
nation land. We have big lakes, lots of water. Not meaning to 
be disrespectful to our friends from Montana, or the Navajo 
Nation.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Fineday. Thank you for that question, Senator. Very 
importantly, the Leech Lake Reservation is an extremely 
resource-rich reservation. We are actually the first 
reservation, federally recognized reservation that the 
Mississippi River flows through, from its headwaters at Lake 
Itasca. We have several large lakes, as you mentioned, we have 
Lake Winnibigoshish, we have Leech Lake and we have Cass Lake 
as well as many other lakes. For those of you who may know one 
of the mottoes of Minnesota, it is that we are the land of 
10,000 lakes. We have over 1,000 of those lakes within the 
boundaries of the Leech Lake Reservation.
    We have a lot of forest land, which is very specifically 
unique to us as Ojibwe People as well, with our migration 
story, starting out in the east coast, many, many, many 
generations ago and receiving a prophecy to go west to the 
place where food grows on water. A lot of the resources on our 
reservation include that food that grows on water, what we call 
manoomin, or the good berry, or what is also known as wild 
rice. We protect that wild rice.
    That is where this bill specifically, even though it deals 
with land, the lands that we are working with the Forest 
Service to identify will help us ensure that we are protecting 
wild rice beds within the lakes and rivers of the reservation. 
So it is a very resource-rich place. We are doing our part to 
do all we can to protect and preserve it for generations to 
come, not just for the Leech Lake people, but for everybody to 
enjoy.
    Senator Smith. Thank you very much. The home of manoomin, 
and also the need because of so much surface water, the need 
for buildable land for the reservation, so that you have a 
place to address the severe housing shortage that you were 
experiencing as well.
    Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Smith.
    Senator Lujan?
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Assistant Secretary Newland, I have a series of yes or no 
questions. Yes or no, does the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply 
Project Amendment Act of 2023 integrate all recommendations 
from the Interior Working Group on Indian Water Settlements 
provided last November?
    Mr. Newland. Yes.
    Senator Lujan. So this bill has the Interior's support?
    Mr. Newland. Yes.
    Senator Lujan. Much of the project is already complete with 
water deliveries from the Cutter Lateral having begun in 2020 
and 2021. More than 50 percent of the remaining pipeline, the 
San Juan Lateral, is also complete. But the project needs more 
time and resources to get the job done.
    Assistant Secretary, absent Congress' authorization to 
provide additional time and resources, what will happen after 
December 31st, 2024?
    Mr. Newland. The work would stop on the construction 
programs and the funding would run out.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that.
    Groundwater levels for the City of Gallup have dropped 
approximately 200 feet over the past 10 years. I also was proud 
to work with colleagues and secure congressionally directed 
spending in Fiscal Year 2022 for the City of Gallup to drill a 
new well to help meet its needs until the project can deliver 
water to the city. In the meantime, thousands on the Navajo 
Nation rely on hauling water to meet their daily needs.
    Mr. President, how many Navajo households currently do not 
have running water?
    Mr. Nygren. Thank you, Senator. The percentages that we 
have been using for households across Navajo is about 30 
percent. So I think in terms of New Mexico, if I were to 
assume, it would be in the thousands, maybe anywhere between 
10,000 to 15,000 on the New Mexico side.
    I know across Navajo, it is probably 50,000 to 60,000. But 
just on the New Mexico side, I know it is in the thousands. But 
I can definitely get you a more accurate number.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that, Mr. President. I look 
forward to working with you and NTUA to get those numbers as 
well for the Committee. I appreciate that.
    Mr. President, how has inadequate water supply affected the 
Navajo Nation?
    Mr. Nygren. Thank you, Senator. Having grown up without 
running water, hauling water myself, heating water on the stove 
with a propane tank, and even to the point where in the winter, 
being able to chip the waters, because the 55-gallon barrels 
get frozen.
    And in summers, using a hose to suck out the water out of 
the gallons, or even at times when we didn't have a big enough 
vehicle, we would haul water from the city, whether it was 
Farmington or Gallup or Cortez in five-gallon buckets from 
outside the gas stations. They usually had a spigot. Filling 
those buckets up takes a lot of work and effort to bring it 
home.
    So I do truly understand the struggles of not growing up 
with running water or electricity. I know that if those were 
there, life would be a little easier. You would have a lot more 
time to focus on school, you would have a lot more time to 
focus on spending time with your family.
    The quality of life and the quality of your health would go 
up dramatically, because when you don't have enough water and 
you are constantly thinking about, how can I conserve, how can 
I use less, how can I make sure that we have enough to bathe, 
how can I make sure we have enough to cook with, it is a tough 
decision. Because Farmington, from my home community, was about 
70 miles. I know a lot of my constituents still today on the 
reservation travel long distances.
    Then there are times when, as you mentioned earlier, the 
groundwater levels and things like that are very low, and the 
quality is poor. Still to this day we have Navajo people that 
are, just like myself, even though I am only 36 years old, 
hauled water, windmill water that is supposed to be for 
livestock. I know a lot of our people are still doing that as 
of today.
    So I think that it has really made it tough for people to 
stop worrying about the basic essentials of life. If we can 
cover those basic necessities, we can start moving forward into 
building ourselves up even stronger. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Lujan. It means a lot that you are here, Mr. 
President. I think the power of your testimony and stories that 
have been shared already, I think what is best is just to let 
that sink in, to understand where so many across the Country 
can turn on a spigot in the comfort of their home, and there is 
water. We have to do better.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Lujan.
    Vice Chair Murkowski?
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all 
for the testimony today. As Senator Lujan has just mentioned, 
when you are talking about something as basic as water, we know 
that we have room to improve and hopefully the measures in 
front of us will allow for that.
    A couple of questions. I am going to start with you, 
Secretary Newland, and Mr. Crockett. With regard to the Leech 
Lake bill, the Interior Department, I think we are agreeing on 
the facts here in terms of what happened. Interior illegally 
sold off land that belonged to members of the Leech Lake Band. 
It shouldn't have happened. The tribe needs to be made whole. I 
think we are absolutely in agreement there.
    You state that the bill, S. 616, would also authorize an 
acre-for-acre substitution of lands within the Chippewa 
National Forest if the Band identifies certain parcels as 
unsuitable for future use.
    So I am just trying to wrap my head around how this 
actually works in terms of a process. Would the tribe have the 
ability to turn back their entitlement lands that were 
identified as wrongly transferred and then pick other National 
Forest system land if they view that their entitlement parcels 
are unsuitable for future use?
    I guess what I am trying to figure out is, who determines 
what is unsuitable? Is that the tribe? What does that mean 
within DOI's view?
    Then Mr. Crockett, I am going to ask you a similar 
question.
    Mr. Newland. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. I don't want to 
misspeak on that, as I think that would be a legal conclusion 
about that term. If it is okay with you, I would like to 
provide a written answer as a follow-up.
    Senator Murkowski. That is good. What I am also trying to 
understand is not only the definition, but who determines. Is 
it DOI or is the tribe that determines if it is unsuitable?
    Mr. Newland. Again, Madam Vice Chairman, I am not prepared 
to answer that question. I would be happy to follow up.
    Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you then, Associate Deputy 
Chief for State, Private, and Tribal Forestry, you have a big, 
long title there, but it is USDA, it is Forestry. I am trying 
to understand whether or not Forest Service has specific views 
on this new authority that we have within this legislation that 
allows the Department to substitute alternative National Forest 
system lands for the acres that the tribe is entitled to.
    Again, if you have a better handle on how the process 
works, I am eager to hear that as well.
    Mr. Crockett. Sure, thank you for the question.
    I will share my understanding of it. So my understanding is 
the tribe and the Forest Service work together to 
collaboratively determine the suitability for the acres that 
are identified. I don't think they are going back and saying, 
all right, we already had this acre, and want to exchange it 
for a different acre. They are looking at the acres that were 
identified under the original legislation, the 11,000 acres. 
And as they are adding to the 4,000-plus acres under the 
proposed legislation, they work hand in hand to determine 
suitability.
    As you heard Mr. Fineday talk about the cultural, economic 
and residential needs, those are going to be some of the 
driving factors that they are going to be looking at. Then the 
Forest Service will look at those and make sure that they are 
in alignment with the Forest Service plan for the Chippewa 
National Forest. That process helps to determine the 
suitability.
    Senator Murkowski. So have there been discussions yet 
between Forest Service and the tribe on which lands we might be 
talking about, whether there are maps or surveys or appraisals 
that would be transferred to Interior?
    Mr. Crockett. There have been conversations. I also think 
it is important to make sure that we are connecting the 11,000 
acres in the legislation from a few years ago with the 4,000 
acres that are being proposed under the technical amendments. 
So for the 11,000 acres, yes, they have maps they have 
identified, they are about 95 percent complete through that 
process and ready to go public. So they have had a conversation 
around that.
    For the acres that are being proposed, no map exists for 
it. They are in conversations around it. They haven't 
identified the acre-for-acre opportunity there. So that part 
would still have to happen.
    Senator Murkowski. Just recognizing that things around here 
don't necessarily move very quickly, it seems to me that if 
there were identified areas or maps that we are talking about, 
the process moves forward a little bit more quickly, rather 
than, it seems a bit open-ended, I guess, as I am looking at 
the process that has been laid out.
    I am a little bit over time, but I wanted to ask the 
Lieutenant Governor a question. This is something that I could 
ask anyone on the panel here this afternoon. But I think we 
have recognized that when we are talking about any of these 
water projects, we have seen costs escalate considerably due to 
inflation.
    It is my understanding that the original cost, the original 
amount authorized under the 2009 Act was $870 million. Congress 
needs to provide another $750 million to build additional water 
treatment plants. Inflation added on, I guess the question I 
would ask you, as the Lieutenant Governor here, is we are 
looking at a settlement that authorizes repair for the canals. 
The bill says that the Secretary's obligation to complete the 
project will be deemed fulfilled even if they can't complete 
the project due to insufficient appropriations.
    So the worry that I have in the back of my head is that 
reclamation cost estimates or inflation could potentially force 
the settlement parties to come back to Congress for more 
funding to complete the project. Is this a concern? Is this a 
worry? Can you give some assurance here today on whether or not 
the estimates are going to hold and we are not going to be in a 
situation where you are having to come back here after all of 
this great work with a negotiated process?
    Mr. Juras. Vice Chair Murkowski, in Section 14 under 
Funding, there is also a clause that relates to fluctuations in 
cost that provides that the amounts authorized to be 
appropriated will be increased or decreased by the cost of 
inflation. So that should help address some of those concerns.
    With regard to the Fresno and the St. Mary's units of the 
Milk River Project, the Bureau of Reclamation has done, this 
has been in the works for several years, projecting those 
costs. We feel good about the cost for those particular 
projects. I am not as familiar with the Lake Elwell.
    But I do know this is a somewhat unique approach in that 
plans are going to be submitted to the Secretary of Interior as 
these projects are proposed to go forward. There will be an 
opportunity to address costs within the appropriations.
    But of course, to the extent they exceed that and the cost 
of inflation built in, the tribes will be required to come back 
and request additional funding. Or else scale down the 
projects, or perhaps not fill one of the projects.
    Senator Murkowski. So you raise an issue that I would like 
to finish off my question back to you, Secretary Newland. This 
relates to the fact that it is kind of unusual that the tribe 
is designated as lead agency for repairing and expanding the 
BIA irrigation system that is going to serve the tribe. I guess 
the question is, how unusual is this? Is this the first time we 
have seen it? It is usually the Bureau of Rec that leads these 
projects. Is this a good thing, bad thing?
    Mr. Newland. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.
    The more recent settlements typically designate the Bureau 
of Reclamation as the lead agency for that work. As we 
highlighted in our submitted testimony, that remains our 
suggestion to the Committee, is to designate Bureau of 
Reclamation for that work.
    Their expertise and experience of doing this work under 
many of the recent settlements, their ability to bring them to 
completion I think demonstrates that that will be a better 
course.
    Senator Murkowski. Good. I appreciate that. I thank you for 
the willingness to again, we are trying to figure out how we 
find resolution not to throw more roadblocks in. I appreciate 
that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Lujan?
    Senator Lujan. Just to follow up on the Vice Chair's 
comments, I very much appreciate that line of questioning. With 
the water settlement I was proud to carry in the House back in 
2009 for the Aamodt Water Settlement for Four Pueblos in the 
community where I live, later on the Bureau of Reclamation came 
back and said they were going to smart-size the project. I 
thought, well, that sounds pretty good. Well, smart-sizing 
means cutting. It is a horrible term.
    But because of the authorities inherently given them, they 
look at the scope of the project that was needed, as Congress 
passed, and then they go in and they smart-size it, they chop 
the project, there is not enough water, not enough lateral as 
opposed to coming back and trying to find more funding.
    So I very much appreciate what you were just asking there. 
If there is a chance to pursue it, Mr. Chairman, to look into 
that more, I would very much be interested in that.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Lujan.
    I do not have any questions. I will submit a couple for the 
record, but I really want to thank this esteemed panel, 
especially our tribal leaders and our State leaders. I know it 
is a long journey, and none of you seem intimidated, but it can 
be an intimidating process.
    So we really appreciate your coming before the Committee. 
We are going to try to get these bills marked up and enacted as 
expeditiously as possible.
    If there are no more questions for our witnesses, members 
may also submit follow-up written questions for the record. The 
hearing record will remain open for two weeks.
    I want to thank all the witnesses for their time and their 
testimony. This hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:04 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

                                BLAINE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
                                                      June 28, 2023

RE: Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes of the Fort Belknap 
      Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 2023 
                                           (Settlement Act)

President Stiffarm and Council Members,

    First, we would like to thank you for meeting with the 
Commissioners numerous times over the past years to discuss the Fort 
Belknap Water Settlement. We appreciate all the work you have put into 
completing the project. Next, thank you for removing the private leases 
from S. 1987. Also, clarification that the State Lands exchange will 
come from Federal Lands throughout Montana eases our concern about the 
financial impact on Blaine County related to PILT payments. Lastly, the 
addition of funds to help with the St. Mary Rehabilitation Project is 
invaluable to the hi-line communities and counties.
    Your continued work to preserve the source of a water supply to 
communities, and the irrigation and recreational rights of county 
residents along the Milk River is appreciated, and we offer our support 
on S. 1987--The Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes of the Fort Belknap 
Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act.

        Sincerely,
                Shane Fox; Miles G. Hutton; Dolores Plumage
                                 ______
                                 
                   OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR--STATE OF MONTANA
                                                      June 14, 2023

Hon. Steve Daines;
Hon. Jon Tester,
U.S. Senators,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

Senators Daines and Tester:

    I write today to offer my support for the Fort Belknap Indian 
Community (FBIC) Water Rights Settlement Act as presently drafted. As 
you both know, work to federally ratify the FBIC's water compact has 
been in process for decades. The State of Montana firmly supports 
bringing finality to this matter for the benefit of the FBIC as well as 
Montana water users.
    The product before you is the result of extensive coordination 
between the federal government, the FBIC, and the State of Montana, 
with valuable input from local leaders, farmers, ranchers, and other 
water users. I urge for the passage of this version of the bill, 
without further modification.
    It is essential that the State of Montana continues to have a seat 
at the table as this bill moves through the legislative process. I ask 
that you advocate to the Chairman and Vice Chairman for a witness to 
appear on behalf of the State of Montana once a hearing is scheduled 
before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.
    Thank you for your partnership to bring certainty to water users in 
northcentral Montana.

        Sincerely,
                                   Greg Gianforte, Governor
                                 ______
                                 
                     COUNTY OF HILL--Hill County Courthouse
                                                      June 14, 2023

 RE: Letter of Support: Ft. Belknap Indian Community Water 
                                      Rights Settlement Act

To Whom It May Concern,

    The Board of Hill County Commissioners are writing this letter in 
support of the Ft. Belknap Indian Community Water Rights Settlement 
Act. We have been meeting with Kristal HawleyFox and her team for over 
a year now discussing the importance of this critical infrastructure as 
well as the economic resources this would provide to the Hi-Line.
    We, as a Commission, are very much in full support of this project 
for this will be vital to the growth of Hill County and our dear 
neighbors in Ft. Belknap now and for future generations.
    Please let us know if we can provide more infonnation. Thank you 
for your consideration.

        Sincerely,
                                       Mark Peterson, Chair
                                Jake Strissel, Commissioner
                               Sheri Williams, Commissioner
                                 ______
                                 
                                       MONTANA STATE SENATE

Dear Senator Daines, Senator Tester, Representative Rosendale, and 
Representative Zinke:

    I support the Montana federal delegation introduction of the Fort 
Belknap Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 2023 (S. 1987).
    As a Montana legislator representing Senate District 17, which 
partially encumbrances the St. Mary system in northern Montana, I 
strongly indorse the legislation.
    Finally, there is a solid plan to update the 100 year old system, 
fulfill water compact authorities and bring consensus to provide many 
resources, which are driven by the availability of water, to the water 
users and the communities of northern Montana.

        Gratefully,
                                          Senator Mike Lang
                                 ______
                                 
                             MONTANA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
                                                      July 10, 2023

Hon. Jon Tester,
U.S. Senate,
Hart Office Building,
Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Tester,

    The Montana Farm Bureau Federation (MFBF) thanks and applauds you 
for your leadership and persistence on developing the Fort Belknap 
Indian Community (FBIC) Water Settlement Act of 2023 (S. 1987). After 
more than twenty years of negotiating and bringing parties together to 
work toward this critical settlement, achievement of this task should 
be celebrated!
    As previously mentioned, negotiating agreements on this scale is no 
simple task, but finalizing this last Indian Water Rights Settlement in 
Montana is of utmost importance to farmers and ranchers in the state as 
we move toward final adjudication. Furthermore, passage of your 
legislation will avoid costly litigation which would otherwise occur 
between FBIC, the federal government, and water users such as 
irrigators. As the state's largest general agriculture organization 
representing farmers and ranchers from all over the state including the 
hi-line, it is incredibly important to us that farmers have long term 
certainty about one of their most important resources; water. This 
legislation provides them with just that.
    Additionally, this legislation will provide $300 million for Milk 
River Project infrastructure repairs and to restore the St. Mary's 
canal, which our members have been asking for since 2004. This project 
provides irrigation to hundreds of individual farms and more than 
100,000 acres of farmland. In recent years, it has become apparent that 
repairs and maintenance are absolutely imperative but the funds 
necessary to make them a reality have been difficult to secure. 
Improving the project will not only benefit farmers and citizens living 
in the area, but also the economy of the entire state.
    Again, MFBF appreciates your efforts to settle this agreement. 
Agriculture is still Montana's number one economic driver and as a 
semi-arid state, access to irrigation water is critical for our 
continued success. Thank you for sponsoring the Fort Belknap Indian 
Community Water Settlement Act of 2023. We hope to see it cross the 
finish line in Congress as soon as possible, so that we are one step 
closer to a final decree and ultimate protection of all Montana water 
rights.

        Sincerely,
                                 Cynthia Johnson, President
                                 ______
                                 
                           Montana Stockgrowers Association
                                                      June 23, 2023

Hon. Jon Tester,
U.S. Senate,
Hart Office Building,
Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Tester,

    The Montana Stockgrowers Association (MSGA) would like to thank you 
for your leadership and perseverance in negotiating a framework for the 
Fort Belknap Indian Community (FBIC) Water Settlement Act of 2023 in 
Congress. Fort Belknap Indian Community will be the last settlement in 
Montana to ensure that historical water use by all water users on and 
off the reservation are protected. The success of Montana's agriculture 
industry is dependent upon water and water right certainty. It is 
easily the single most important resource for people across Montana, 
which is why MSGA supports this agreement.
    The long-term economic impact and improved critical infrastructure 
this water settlement will provide will make significant improvements 
to irrigation systems, as well as provide certainty to tribal, 
agricultural, residential and business water users. Specifically, the 
$275 million to fully rehabilitate and restore the St. Mary Canal to 
its full capacity will have a positive impact on ranchers across the 
Hi-Line and will create a sustainable water supply for the Milk River.
    Additionally, the Act affirms Montanans' Constitutional protection 
that the water of the State of Montana belongs to all the people for 
their common benefit (Article IX, Section 3), it will prevent years of 
costly litigation for Montana water users, and provide much needed 
certainty for all parties involved. MSGA applauds the bi-partisan 
effort and we look forward to the passage and implementation of this 
Act.

        Sincerely,
              Raylee A. Honeycutt, Executive Vice President
                                 ______
                                 
                                            PHILLIPS COUNTY
                                                     April 10, 2023

President Stiffarm,

    Thank you for inviting our Commission to meet with you on Tuesday, 
March 21, 2023 in Fort Belknap to discuss the Fort Belknap Water 
Compact. We appreciate the work you have done on this compact and want 
to thank you for removing the Grinnell Land from your proposed 
legislative draft. By removing the proposed acquisition of the Grinnell 
Land and adding that the State Lands exchange would be from Federal 
Lands throughout Montana not just in Phillips County, we may now 
support the revised legislative draft of the Fort Belknap Water 
Compact. We appreciate your continued work to preserve the irrigation 
and recreational rights of Phillips and Blaine County residents.

        Sincerely,
                                          John F. Carnahan;
                                      Bruce Christofferson;
                              Richard Dunbar, Commissioners
                                 ______
                                 
                                   Valley County Commission
                                                        May 3, 2023

Hon. Jon Tester,
U.S. Senate,
Hart Office Building,
Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Tester,

    We support the ``Gros Venture and Assiniboine Tribes of the Fort 
Belknap Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 2023'' 
(Settlement Act) that will provide very important infrastructure 
funding that will benefit the Milk River Project and state water users 
across the Hi-Line.
    We understand that the FBIC leadership has made a difficult 
decision to remove the transfer of the Grihnell Lands from the 
Settlement Bill, which had created a barrier to the Settlement Act's 
approval. Now, the Settlement Act includes significant funding that 
supports the restoration of the St. Mary Canal infrastructure vital to 
improving the water supply in the Milk River in support of Milk River 
irrigators. This project will provide protection for our current Milk 
River water users as the FBIC obtains funds under the Settlement Act 
for its water infrastructure projects that will allow the development 
and use of FBIC's Indian water rights secured by a decade of 
negotiations resulting in the 2001 F. Belknap-Montana Water Compact.
    The Settlement Act is a win-win for the State and water users along 
the Hi-Line and for the FBIC. It will provide critical support for our 
agricultural economy and have long-term economic benefits throughout 
our region. It will at long last provide certainty to our irrigators 
related to their water rights. We support the 2023 Water settlement 
Bill and encourage your support in ensuring its passage in Congress.

        Sincerely,
                                      Mary Armstrong, Chair
                                 ______
                                 
                           Bear Paw Development Corporation
                                                      July 10, 2023

Members of Montana's Congressional Delegation:

    On behalf of Bear Paw Development Corporation, I am pleased to 
provide you with this letter of support for S. 1987, or the Fort 
Belknap Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 2023. This 
legislation is the culmination of decades of work by many and provides 
certainty for both tribal and non-tribal entities in the Milk River 
Basin concerning water from the Milk River for purposes of irrigation, 
municipal use, economic development and recreation.
    Importantly, S. 1987 will provide $300 million of non-reimbursable 
funds for critically important infrastructure repairs to the St. Mary/
Milk River Project to assure that water from this source continues to 
flow along the Hi-Line, assuring the viability of these areas in 
northern Montana for the foreseeable future. Knowing the Milk River 
would run dry without water from the St. Mary System in seven of every 
ten years, the absolute importance of this rehabilitation effort cannot 
be overstated.
    It is clear the benefits of this legislation are significant, both 
for the Gros Ventre and Assiniboine people at Fort Belknap, but also 
for the Hi-Line and the communities of northern Montana that are 
reliant upon an intact, up-to-date water delivery system that will 
benefit the economy of our region for generations.
    Without hesitation or reservation, our organization strongly 
supports S. 1987 and urges its passage.

        Best regards,
                              Paul Tuss, Executive Director
                                 ______
                                 
                        Blaine County Conservation District
                                                     April 28, 2023

RE: Fort Belknap Community Water Rights Settlement Act 2023

Dear President Stiffarm:

    By unanimous vote, the Blaine County Conservation District Board of 
Supervisors wish to go on record in support of your language of the 
``Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes of the Fort Belknap Indian 
Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 2023''. Congressional passage 
of this Act, containing Federal ratification of the 2001 Water Compact 
between the State of Montana and the Fort Belknap Indian Community, 
will help assure the physical and legal availability of water for 
agricultural, residential, and business users throughout the Milk River 
watershed.
    That assurance will better enable our District to work with the 
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation and the U.S. 
Natural Resources and Conservation Service on projects that enhance 
water conservation, quality, and infrastructure, both on and off the 
reservation. We urge the Montana Congressional Delegation to speed 
passage of this bill through the current session of Congress so that 
the important work of implementing this act can begin soon.

        Sincerely,
                                Bruce Anderson, Board Chair
                                 ______
                                 
                          Milk River Joint Board of Control
                                                      April 3, 2023

RE: Fort Belknap Community Water Rights Settlement Act 2023

Dear President Stiffarm:

    On behalf of the Milk River Joint Board of Control (MRJBOC), I 
write to fully support your 2023 language of the ``Gros Ventre and 
Assiniboine Tribes of the Fort Belknap Indian Community Water Rights 
Settlement Act of 2023''. This bill would provide certainty for 
irrigators, support the development and rehabilitation of important 
water infrastructure and result in long-term economic benefits 
throughout our region on and off the reservation.
    Without Congressional passage of this settlement, the Montana Water 
Court may soon begin adjudicating water rights in the Milk River Basin. 
This would undo the agreements and solutions that your team has been 
working so hard on and we have supported since the 2001 Water Compact 
between the State of Montana and the Fort Belknap Indian Community. 
Litigation would not only be costly for the stakeholders, but it would 
also waste resources and jeopardize existing water uses and businesses 
in the basin.
    We are long-standing neighbors of the Fort Belknap Indian Community 
and commend your teams' efforts to work tirelessly to settle the water 
rights. Settlement will spur economic development on the reservation 
and allow the hi-line and surrounding areas to continue operations with 
the full rehabilitation of the St. Mary canal. We praise your 
negotiation efforts and support them fully. If we can help any further, 
please do not hesitate to reach out to Jennifer Patrick or myself.

        Sincerely,
                              Wade I. Jones, Board Chairman
                                 ______
                                 
                      Rocky Mountain Tribal Leaders Council
                                                      June 30, 2023

Hon. Steve Daines;
Hon. Jon Tester,
U.S. Senators,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

Senators Daines and Tester:

    We are writing to inform you that the Rocky Mountain Tribal Leaders 
Council is giving its full-throated endorsement to the Fort Belknap 
Indian Community Water Rights Settlement. This formal Letter of Support 
affirms our sacred commitment to the Fort Belknap Community's 
protection of the Milk River Watershed, as well as the settlement's 
guarantees that our native brothers and sisters will have access with 
certainty.
    We urge the U.S. Senate to quickly ratify the Fort Belknap Indian 
Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 2023 to allow investment in 
and maintenance of this crucial water supply, assuring us that this 
critical lifeline is maintained well into the future. The Fort Belknap 
Indian Community Water Rights Settlement will create an ongoing 
economic boom for the region once infrastructure projects funded by the 
Act commence on waterways, irrigation and drinking water systems in the 
Milk River Watershed.
    The Ft. Belknap Indian Community Water Rights Settlement marks the 
far too long-awaited achievement of ensuring every federally recognized 
tribe in Montana is protected by a formal water rights agreement. It 
stands as an example of what can be accomplished when hope and history 
rhyme and the first people of this land finally have negotiating 
partners, who informed by history, seek to heal the scars of this 
nations and our state's soul.

        Sincerely,
                                      Gerald Gray, Chairman
                                 ______
                                 
                      St. Mary Rehabilitation Working Group
                                                     April 25, 2023

Dear Senator Tester, Senator Daines, Representative Rosendale, and 
Representative Zinke:

    St. Mary Rehabilitation Working Group strongly supports 
Congressional passage of the Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes of the 
Fort Belknap Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 2023. The 
Ft. Belknap Indian Community (FBIC) will be the last tribe in Montana 
to secure a Congressionally approved water rights settlement. This is a 
significant achievement for the State of Montana and provides the 
certainty we all need to manage our water supply into the future.
    The Act will ratify the 2001 Ft. Belknap-Montana Water Compact, 
which was approved by the Montana Legislature with an overwhelming 
majority of 95 percent in support. The Act will also provide critical 
water infrastructure funding that will support FBIC' s development of 
their water supply and make significant improvements to their 
irrigation and domestic water systems, and support important mitigation 
activities that protect non-tribal, state-based water users across the 
Hi-Line.
    Specifically, the Act will provide $275 million for the Bureau of 
Reclamation to fully rehabilitate and restore the St. Mary Canal to its 
full capacity of 850 cubic feet/second, providing a sustainable water 
supply for the Milk River. This crucial component of the Settlement Act 
will address a major problem for water users across the Hi-Line. The 
additional water supply will provide protection for Milk River Project 
users and communities who may be impacted from the FBIC's Indian water 
rights development and ensure the overdue restoration of the St. Mary 
Canal.
    Finally, the Act will generate significant long-term economic 
benefits for both the Tribes and our local businesses as critical 
project infrastructure funds are implemented. This will give an 
economic boost to our communities across the region. We need your 
leadership in the United States Congress and strong support for the 
passage of this important Act.

        Sincerely,
                                 Dave Peterson, Coordinator
                                 ______
                                 
                           MONTANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
                                                      July 10, 2023

Senators Tester and Daines:

    I am pleased to add my support for the Fort Belknap Indian 
Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 2023 (S. 1987) and thank you 
for your work to champion its passage during this session of Congress.
    S. 1987 not only affirms the senior water rights of the Fort 
Belknap Indian Community for the Gros Ventre and Assiniboine people, 
but it also significantly and importantly invests hundreds of millions 
of dollars into updating and modernizing the infrastructure that is 
needed along the Hi-Line to deliver water through the St. Mary/Milk 
River System to communities that include Havre, Chinook, Harlem and 
Fort Belknap. This water is critical for the drinking water supplies 
for these communities and helps to irrigate more than 120,000 acres in 
northern Montana.
    The Milk River would run dry in seven out of every ten years were 
it not for water from the St. Mary/Milk River System. Thus, it is of 
paramount importance that the funds included in S. 1987 for the repair 
and rehabilitation of this System be expeditiously appropriated for 
this cause. To indicate that the economy of northern Montana would be 
devastated without the proper functioning of this System is not 
overstating the case.
    Thank you for your strong advocacy for the passage of S. 1987. 
Please add my equally strong support and let me know if there is 
anything I can assist with to advance this important legislation.

        Sincerely,
                          Rep. Paul Tuss, House District 28
                                 ______
                                 
                                               Wild Montana

Hon. Brian Schatz, Chairman;
Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Vice Chairman,
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Schatz and Vice Chairman Murkoski,

    On behalf of Wild Montana and our more than 3,400 members, thank 
you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony in support of 
S. 1987, the Fort Belknap Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act 
of 2023.
    In 2019, Wild Montana was honored to visit the Fort Belknap 
Reservation and discuss water rights settlement with members of the 
Council and with other tribal leaders. With the help of the Fort 
Belknap Indian Community, we gained a deeper understanding of the 
importance of protecting the headwaters that are a key part of the 
water rights settlement and essential to the communities within the 
Fort Belknap Reservation.
    The FBIC Water Settlement will ratify the FBIC Water Rights Compact 
with the State of Montana as well as provide critical investment and 
resources for water infrastructure development. Wild Montana 
enthusiastically supports S. 1987, and it is our sincere hope that the 
committee and its members will take the necessary steps to move the 
bill through the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to the floor for a 
full Senate vote.
    Wild Montana appreciates the time and consideration of the members 
and staff of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and we welcome your 
communication.

        Sincerely,
                              John Todd, Executive Director

        Sincerely,
                              John Todd, Executive Director
                                 ______
                                 
                                     The Wilderness Society
                                                      July 10, 2023

Hon. Brian Schatz, Chairman;
Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Vice Chairman,
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Schatz and Vice Chairman Murkoski,

    On behalf of our more than one million members and supporters, The 
Wilderness Society (TWS) writes to express our support for the Fort 
Belknap Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 2023 as 
sponsored by Senator Jon Tester on his and Senator Steve Daines behalf.
    This bill is the result of close to 40 years of negotiations 
between the Fort Belknap Indian Community (FBIC), the State of Montana, 
local governments, non-Indian water users, and the federal government. 
It settles the FBIC's water rights established in the 1908 Supreme 
Court case Winters v. United States.
    In 2001, FBIC entered a water rights compact approved by an 
overwhelmingly bipartisan margin in the Montana State Legislature. 
Recently, the FBIC negotiated updates to the settlement with the 
federal government and local communities. The result of these 
negotiations is the widely supported Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes 
of the Fort Belknap Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 
2023.
    The bipartisan settlement proposed in this legislation is a great 
example of the work we like to support, work that provides the tribes 
and the communities with the certainty they need.

        Sincerely,
                         Bill Hodge, Montana State Director
                                 ______
                                 
                                             City of Gallup
                                                       June 5, 2023

Hon. Martin Heinrich;
Hon. Ben Ray Lujan,
U.S. Senate,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

Dear Senators Heinrich and Lujan:

    In March of 2009, Congress passed the Omnibus Public Land 
Management Act of 2009 (PL. 111-11) authorizing construction and 
operation and maintenance of the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, as 
part of a settlement to resolve the Navajo Nation's water rights claims 
in the San Juan Basin in New Mexico. Currently, the City's 23,350 
customers, consisting of roughly 50 percent Native American 
(predominantly Navajo) rely completely on groundwater for water supply. 
When Navajo Gallup Water Supply project is completed, it will replace 
the groundwater with renewable surface water. Due to a significant 
change needed in the scope of this project, and urgent needs brought to 
light by the COVID-19 pandemic, additional time and resources are 
needed to complete the Project.
    The City of Gallup fully supports the Legislative Amendments to PL 
111-11. If the amendments are not approved with an extension to 2029 
and an increase in appropriations, then the City and its surrounding 
communities will continue to rely on a diminishing groundwater supply. 
This will require the city to further draw down the groundwater making 
it more difficult and significantly more expensive to pump water from 
very deep wells and with potential damage to underground aquifers. The 
City looked forward to the original delivery of surface water on 
December 31, 2024, to relieve its reliance on groundwater. Given 
current circumstances, the new surface water delivery date of 2029 is 
more important than ever.
    The City has reviewed the draft of the Navajo Gallup Water Supply 
Project Amendments Act of 2023, which will address the challenges we 
describe in this letter, and we strongly support its introduction. The 
City looks forward to working with you and the other Project 
Participants in advancing this critical legislation.

        Sincerely,
                                     Louis Bonaguidi, Mayor
                                 ______
                                 
                                    Jicarilla Apache Nation
                                                       May 26, 2023

Hon. Martin Heinrich;
Hon. Ben Ray Lujan,
U.S. Senate,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

Dear Senators Heinrich and Lujan:

    As part of the Navajo Nation's water settlement, Congress passed 
the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-11) 
authorizing construction, operation and maintenance of the Navajo 
Gallup Water Supply Project (``Project''). When the Project is 
complete, it will serve not only Navajo Nation communities, but also 
the southern portion of the Jicarilla Apache Nation and the City of 
Gallup. Due to circumstances that were not foreseen in 2009, additional 
time and resources are needed to complete the Project as authorized by 
Congress.
    The participants in the Project are the Navajo Nation, the 
Jicarilla Apache Nation, the City of Gallup, and the State of New 
Mexico through the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission. The 
Jicarilla Apache Nation has reviewed the draft of the Navajo-Gallup 
Water Supply Project Amendments Act of 2023 in substantially the same 
form as the current bill and supports its introduction by the 
delegation and advancing forward to enacting it into law.
    The Jicarilla Apache Nation thanks you for your work and for your 
support of projects important to the Nation and its people.

        Sincerely,
                                  Edward Velarde, President
                                 ______
                                 
                                          THE NAVAJO NATION
                                                       May 31, 2023

Hon. Martin Heinrich;
Hon. Ben Ray Lujan,
U.S. Senate,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

Dear Senators Heinrich and Lujan:

    In March of 2009, Congress passed the Omnibus Public Land 
Management Act of 2009 (PL. 111-11), which included an authorization to 
construct the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project (``Project'') as part 
of a settlement to resolve the Navajo Nation's water rights claims in 
the San Juan Basin in New Mexico. Once constructed, the Project will 
convey a desperately needed reliable municipal and industrial water 
supply from the San Juan River to the eastern section of the Navajo 
Nation, southwestern portion of the Jicarilla Apache Nation, and the 
city of Gallup, New Mexico. These communities rely on a depleting 
groundwater supply that is of poor quality and inadequate to meet the 
current and future demands of more than 40 Navajo chapters, the city of 
Gallup, and the Teepee Junction area of the Jicarilla Apache Nation.
    The Project Participants are the Navajo Nation, the Jicarilla 
Apache Nation, and the City of Gallup, New Mexico. The State of New 
Mexico, through the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, is a 
member of the Project Construction Committee with the other Project 
Participants.
    Due to unforeseen circumstances, additional time and resources are 
needed to complete the Project.
    The Navajo Nation has reviewed the draft of the Navajo-Gallup Water 
Supply Project Amendments Act of 2023, which will address these 
outstanding issues, and supports its introduction. The Navajo Nation 
looks forward to working with you and the other Project Participants in 
advancing this critical legislation.

        Sincerely,
                                  Dr. Buu Nygren, President
                                 ______
                                 
                    NEW MEXICO INTERSTATE STREAM COMMISSION
                                                       May 16, 2023

Hon. Martin Heinrich;
Hon. Ben Ray Lujan,
U.S. Senate,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

Dear Senators Heinrich and Lujan:

    In March 2009, Congress passed the Omnibus Public Land Management 
Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-11). This Act included an authorization to 
construct, operate and maintain the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project 
(``Project''), as part of a settlement to resolve the Navajo Nation's 
water rights claims in the San Juan River Basin in New Mexico.
    Due to circumstances that were not foreseen in 2009, additional 
time and resources are needed to complete the Project as authorized by 
Congress.
    The participants in the Projects are the Navajo Nation, the 
Jicarilla Apache Nation, the City of Gallup, and the State of New 
Mexico through the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission (NMISC). The 
State of New Mexico, through the NMISC, is a member of the Project 
Construction Committee with the other Project Participants.
    The NMISC has reviewed the draft of the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply 
Project Amendments Act of 2023 in substantially the same form as the 
current bill, and supports \1\ its introduction by the delegation and 
advancing forward to enacting it into law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The State of New Mexico, through the NMISC, does not have the 
authority to support section 10610 of the proposed amendments, but does 
support all other provisions in the proposed Act.

        Sincerely,
                                        Mark Sanchez, Chair
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tina Smith to 
                             John Crockett
    Question 1. Can you describe the Department of Agriculture's role 
in the determination of which parcels of land to transfer to the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs to be taken into trust for the Leech Lake Band 
pursuant to the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Reservation Restoration Act, 
P.L. 116-255?
    Answer. Serving under the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
Forest Service, the Chippewa National Forest (Forest) is committed to 
working in partnership with the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (Band) to 
implement the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Reservation Restoration Act 
(Act), P.L. 116-255. Engagement with the Band has included regularly 
scheduled meetings of key Forest staff and Band staff; discussions 
during monthly consultation and collaboration meetings; and numerous 
additional online and in-person meetings. Further, the Forest worked 
closely with key USDA Forest Service Eastern Regional Office and 
Washington Office staff throughout the process of selecting proposed 
parcels.
    Together, the Forest and the Band explored and identified the 
benefits of transferring larger contiguous parcels to consolidate 
ownership, along with enabling the Band to invest in future generations 
through economic and residential development. Fewer miles of 
fragmentated ownership boundaries will be most beneficial to the Band, 
the Forest Service, and private landowners. Collaboration related to 
the proposed parcels for transfer took into consideration legislative 
language that made provisions for honoring any existing private 
property rights such as easements, permits, or other encumbrances.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tina Smith to 
                          Hon. Leonard Fineday
    Question 1. Can you describe the process under P.L. 116-255 between 
the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior and the Leech Lake Band 
to determine which parcels of land to transfer into trust for the Band?
    Answer. The Leech Lake Reservation Restoration Act (``LLRRA'' or 
``Act''), Public Law 116-255, was signed into law on December 20, 2020. 
The purpose of the Act was to restore ``approximately 11,760 acres'' of 
lands illegally transferred from the Interior Department to the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture--Chippewa National Forest (``CNF'') in the 
1940s and 1950s. The lands to be restored are limited to lands that 
remain under control of CNF and are located within Cass County, 
Minnesota.
    The LLRRA did not include a map of the parcels that were illegally 
transferred. Instead, under the Act, the Secretary of Agriculture was 
directed to complete a plan of survey ``not later than 180 days after 
the date of enactment.''
    The Act further provides that ``as soon as practicable after the 
date of enactment of this Act, [the Secretary will] submit a map and 
legal description of the Federal land to the Committee on Natural 
Resources of the House of Representatives; and the Committee on Indian 
Affairs of the Senate.'' This provision contemplates that a map of 
parcels to be restored to the Reservation would be developed in 
partnership between the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (``Leech Lake'' or 
``Band'') and the Chippewa National Forest.
    Finally, the Act defines the term ``Federal land'' to mean ``the 
approximately 11,760 acres of Federal land located in the Chippewa 
National Forest in Cass County, Minnesota, the boundaries of which 
shall be depicted on the map, and described in the legal description, 
submitted'' to Congress. The Act used the term ``approximately'', 
because the number of acres of illegal transfers that took place in the 
1940s and 1950s was merely an estimate that would be confirmed through 
implementation of the Act. This is further evidence of Congress' intent 
that the final map would be developed by the federal land agencies in 
coordination with the Band. These provisions also make clear that it 
was not the intent of Congress to restore the exact parcels that were 
illegally transferred in the mid-1900s.
    In June of 2021, the Band and the Chippewa National Forest signed a 
Plan of Survey that outlined next steps to implement the Act's 
requirements, which include identifying eligible parcels for transfer, 
researching parcel history, preparing legal descriptions, identifying 
title encumbrances, and finalizing the map.
    As noted in our testimony, the need for the Technical Correction 
arose during implementation of the Restoration Act. As the agencies 
worked to identify parcels for restoration pursuant to the Plan of 
Survey, the BLM Indian Land Surveyor completed an audit of all Chippewa 
National Forest land holdings within Cass County. He discovered that 
the illegal Secretarial Transfers were more widespread than initially 
estimated. Instead of the ``approximately 11,760 acres'' listed in the 
Restoration Act, the surveyor found 16,122 acres were acquired by the 
Forest Service through Secretarial Transfers. The injustice that took 
place more than a half century ago was clearly underestimated.
    Over the past two years since signing the Play of Survey, the Tribe 
has worked with the relevant federal land management agencies to 
jointly identify the proposed parcels to be transferred back to the 
Interior Department to held in trust as part of the Leech Lake 
Reservation. On August 11, 2023, the Chippewa National Forest released 
the map of parcels for public review.
    The parcels identified for restoration to the Reservation depicted 
on the map reflect Congress' intent that the Band receive consolidated 
parcels of land close to or adjacent to its existing trust lands. 
Additionally, the parcels identified follow the general policy of the 
Federal Land Policy Management Act and the U.S. Forest Service's policy 
manual on landownership, which clearly states that the Forest Service 
should ``give priority to consolidation of National Forest System lands 
within existing National Forest units.'' U.S. Forest Service Manual 
5400, Landownership: Zero Code, Section 5403.1, ``National Forest 
System.''
    The lands identified on the map will: enable the Band to address 
the longstanding and severe housing shortage on the Reservation; 
provide the Band and its citizens better access to places of cultural 
importance and areas to exercise solemn treaty rights; and will permit 
the Band to invest in future generations.

    Question 2. Would this process change under S. 616?
    Answer. No. The process for restoring the additional lands to the 
Leech Lake Reservation under S. 616 would be the same. The text of the 
LLRRA included the needed flexibility to enable the Band to work in 
partnership with the federal land management agencies. The language 
included in Section 2(b)(2) of S. 616 clarifies this same intent and 
ensures that land identified for restoration under the Technical 
Correction will follow the process that was conducted during 
implementation of the initial Restoration Act.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tina Smith to 
                           Hon. Bryan Newland
    Question 1. Can you describe the Department of the Interior's work 
to determine which parcels of land will be transferred into trust for 
the Leech Lake Band pursuant to the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe 
Reservation Restoration Act, P.L. 116-255?
    Answer. The Department's Midwest Regional Office and Minnesota 
Agency are supportive of the United States Forest Service (USPS), 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe's 
efforts to ensure the implementation of the Leech Lake Reservation 
Restoration Act is seamless and quick. The selection of the parcels 
that will ultimately be transferred has been accomplished through a 
collaborative process between the USPS and the Leech Lake Band of 
Ojibwe. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has not been involved in the 
selection process. The BLM has reviewed the legal descriptions of the 
parcels and has led the partition and survey of the parcels pursuant to 
the Plan of Survey outlined in P.L. 116-255.

    Question 2. The Department of the Interior's Solicitor Memorandum, 
dated August 20, 1979, states that the allotments sold through 
Secretarial Transfers were sold illegally, without the ``unanimous 
consent [of all heirs].'' S. 616 mistakenly refers to the ``majority of 
rightful landowners.'' I intend to correct this drafting error in the 
future. With this change, does the Department support the bill?
    Answer. The Department supports the recommended change.