[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 7 (Thursday, January 21, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H272-H279]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TAOS PUEBLO INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1017, I call up
the bill (H.R. 3254) to approve the Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights
Settlement Agreement, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). Pursuant to House Resolution
1017, the bill is considered read.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill is
adopted.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 3254
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Taos
Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purpose.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Pueblo rights.
Sec. 5. Pueblo water infrastructure and watershed enhancement.
Sec. 6. Taos Pueblo Water Development Fund.
Sec. 7. Marketing.
Sec. 8. Mutual-Benefit Projects.
Sec. 9. San Juan-Chama Project contracts.
Sec. 10. Authorizations, ratifications, confirmations, and conditions
precedent.
Sec. 11. Waivers and releases.
Sec. 12. Interpretation and enforcement.
Sec. 13. Disclaimer.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to approve, ratify, and confirm the Taos Pueblo Indian
Water Rights Settlement Agreement;
(2) to authorize and direct the Secretary to execute the
Settlement Agreement and to perform all obligations of the
Secretary under the Settlement Agreement and this Act; and
(3) to authorize all actions and appropriations necessary
for the United States to meet its obligations under the
Settlement Agreement and this Act.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Eligible non-pueblo entities.--The term ``Eligible Non-
Pueblo Entities'' means the Town of Taos, El Prado Water and
Sanitation District (``EPWSD''), and the New Mexico
Department of Finance and Administration Local Government
Division on behalf of the Acequia Madre del Rio Lucero y del
Arroyo Seco, the Acequia Madre del Prado, the Acequia del
Monte, the Acequia Madre del Rio Chiquito, the Upper
Ranchitos Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association, the
Upper Arroyo Hondo Mutual Domestic Water Consumers
Association, and the Llano Quemado Mutual Domestic Water
Consumers Association.
(2) Enforcement date.--The term ``Enforcement Date'' means
the date upon which the Secretary publishes the notice
required by section 10(f)(1).
(3) Mutual-benefit projects.--The term ``Mutual-Benefit
Projects'' means the projects described and identified in
articles 6 and 10.1 of the Settlement Agreement.
(4) Partial final decree.--The term ``Partial Final
Decree'' means the Decree entered in New Mexico v. Abeyta and
New Mexico v. Arellano, Civil Nos. 7896-BB (U.S.6 D.N.M.) and
7939-BB (U.S. D.N.M) (consolidated), for the resolution of
the Pueblo's water right claims and which is substantially in
the form agreed to by the Parties and attached to the
Settlement Agreement as Attachment 5.
[[Page H273]]
(5) Parties.--The term ``Parties'' means the Parties to the
Settlement Agreement, as identified in article 1 of the
Settlement Agreement.
(6) Pueblo.--The term ``Pueblo'' means the Taos Pueblo, a
sovereign Indian tribe duly recognized by the United States
of America.
(7) Pueblo lands.--The term ``Pueblo lands'' means those
lands located within the Taos Valley to which the Pueblo, or
the United States in its capacity as trustee for the Pueblo,
holds title subject to Federal law limitations on alienation.
Such lands include Tracts A, B, and C, the Pueblo's land
grant, the Blue Lake Wilderness Area, and the Tenorio and
Karavas Tracts and are generally depicted in Attachment 2 to
the Settlement Agreement.
(8) San juan-chama project.--The term ``San Juan-Chama
Project'' means the Project authorized by section 8 of the
Act of June 13, 1962 (76 Stat. 96, 97), and the Act of April
11, 1956 (70 Stat. 105).
(9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(10) Settlement agreement.--The term ``Settlement
Agreement'' means the contract dated March 31, 2006, between
and among--
(A) the United States, acting solely in its capacity as
trustee for Taos Pueblo;
(B) the Taos Pueblo, on its own behalf;
(C) the State of New Mexico;
(D) the Taos Valley Acequia Association and its 55 member
ditches (``TVAA'');
(E) the Town of Taos;
(F) EPWSD; and
(G) the 12 Taos area Mutual Domestic Water Consumers
Associations (``MDWCAs''), as amended to conform with this
Act.
(11) State engineer.--The term ``State Engineer'' means the
New Mexico State Engineer.
(12) Taos valley.--The term ``Taos Valley'' means the
geographic area depicted in Attachment 4 of the Settlement
Agreement.
SEC. 4. PUEBLO RIGHTS.
(a) In General.--Those rights to which the Pueblo is
entitled under the Partial Final Decree shall be held in
trust by the United States on behalf of the Pueblo and shall
not be subject to forfeiture, abandonment, or permanent
alienation.
(b) Subsequent Act of Congress.--The Pueblo shall not be
denied all or any part of its rights held in trust absent its
consent unless such rights are explicitly abrogated by an Act
of Congress hereafter enacted.
SEC. 5. PUEBLO WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND WATERSHED
ENHANCEMENT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the
Commissioner of Reclamation, shall provide grants and
technical assistance to the Pueblo on a nonreimbursable basis
to--
(1) plan, permit, design, engineer, construct, reconstruct,
replace, or rehabilitate water production, treatment, and
delivery infrastructure;
(2) restore, preserve, and protect the environment
associated with the Buffalo Pasture area; and
(3) protect and enhance watershed conditions.
(b) Availability of Grants.--Upon the Enforcement Date, all
amounts appropriated pursuant to section 10(c)(1) or made
available from other authorized sources, shall be available
in grants to the Pueblo after the requirements of subsection
(c) have been met.
(c) Plan.--The Secretary shall provide financial assistance
pursuant to subsection (a) upon the Pueblo's submittal of a
plan that identifies the projects to be implemented
consistent with the purposes of this section and describes
how such projects are consistent with the Settlement
Agreement.
(d) Early Funds.--Notwithstanding subsection (b),
$10,000,000 of the monies authorized to be appropriated
pursuant to section 10(c)(1)--
(1) shall be made available in grants to the Pueblo by the
Secretary upon appropriation or availability of the funds
from other authorized sources; and
(2) shall be distributed by the Secretary to the Pueblo on
receipt by the Secretary from the Pueblo of a written notice,
a Tribal Council resolution that describes the purposes under
subsection (a) for which the monies will be used, and a plan
under subsection (c) for this portion of the funding.
SEC. 6. TAOS PUEBLO WATER DEVELOPMENT FUND.
(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of
the United States a fund to be known as the ``Taos Pueblo
Water Development Fund'' (hereinafter, ``Fund'') to be used
to pay or reimburse costs incurred by the Pueblo for--
(1) acquiring water rights;
(2) planning, permitting, designing, engineering,
constructing, reconstructing, replacing, rehabilitating,
operating, or repairing water production, treatment or
delivery infrastructure, on-farm improvements, or wastewater
infrastructure;
(3) restoring, preserving and protecting the Buffalo
Pasture, including planning, permitting, designing,
engineering, constructing, operating, managing and replacing
the Buffalo Pasture Recharge Project;
(4) administering the Pueblo's water rights acquisition
program and water management and administration system; and
(5) for watershed protection and enhancement, support of
agriculture, water-related Pueblo community welfare and
economic development, and costs related to the negotiation,
authorization, and implementation of the Settlement
Agreement.
(b) Management of the Fund.--The Secretary shall manage the
Fund, invest amounts in the Fund, and make monies available
from the Fund for distribution to the Pueblo consistent with
the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994
(25 U.S.C. 4001, et seq.) (hereinafter, ``Trust Fund Reform
Act''), this Act, and the Settlement Agreement.
(c) Investment of the Fund.--Upon the Enforcement Date, the
Secretary shall invest amounts in the Fund in accordance
with--
(1) the Act of April 1, 1880 (21 Stat. 70, ch. 41, 25
U.S.C. 161);
(2) the first section of the Act of June 24, 1938 (52 Stat.
1037, ch. 648, 25 U.S.C. 162a); and
(3) the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of
1994 (25 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.).
(d) Availability of Amounts From the Fund.--Upon the
Enforcement Date, all monies deposited in the Fund pursuant
to section 10(c)(2) or made available from other authorized
sources shall be available to the Pueblo for expenditure or
withdrawal after the requirements of subsection (e) have been
met.
(e) Expenditures and Withdrawal.--
(1) Tribal management plan.--
(A) In general.--The Pueblo may withdraw all or part of the
Fund on approval by the Secretary of a tribal management plan
as described in the Trust Fund Reform Act.
(B) Requirements.--In addition to the requirements under
the Trust Fund Reform Act, the tribal management plan shall
require that the Pueblo spend any funds in accordance with
the purposes described in subsection (a).
(2) Enforcement.--The Secretary may take judicial or
administrative action to enforce the requirement that monies
withdrawn from the Fund are used for the purposes specified
in subsection (a).
(3) Liability.--If the Pueblo exercises the right to
withdraw monies from the Fund, neither the Secretary nor the
Secretary of the Treasury shall retain any liability for the
expenditure or investment of the monies withdrawn.
(4) Expenditure plan.--
(A) In general.--The Pueblo shall submit to the Secretary
for approval an expenditure plan for any portions of the
funds made available under this Act that the Pueblo does not
withdraw under paragraph (1)(A).
(B) Description.--The expenditure plan shall describe the
manner in which, and the purposes for which, amounts
remaining in the Fund will be used.
(C) Approval.--On receipt of an expenditure plan under
subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall approve the plan if the
Secretary determines that the plan is reasonable and
consistent with this Act.
(5) Annual report.--The Pueblo shall submit to the
Secretary an annual report that describes all expenditures
from the Fund during the year covered by the report.
(f) Funds Available Upon Appropriation.--Notwithstanding
subsection (d), $15,000,000 of the monies authorized to be
appropriated pursuant to section 10(c)(2)--
(1) shall be available upon appropriation or made available
from other authorized sources for the Pueblo's acquisition of
water rights pursuant to Article 5.1.1.2.3 of the Settlement
Agreement, the Buffalo Pasture Recharge Project,
implementation of the Pueblo's water rights acquisition
program and water management and administration system, the
design, planning, and permitting of water or wastewater
infrastructure eligible for funding under sections 5 or 6, or
costs related to the negotiation, authorization, and
implementation of the Settlement Agreement; and
(2) shall be distributed by the Secretary to the Pueblo on
receipt by the Secretary from the Pueblo of a written notice
and a Tribal Council resolution that describes the purposes
under paragraph (1) for which the monies will be used.
(g) No Per Capita Distributions.--No part of the Fund shall
be distributed on a per capita basis to members of the
Pueblo.
SEC. 7. MARKETING.
(a) Pueblo Water Rights.--Subject to the approval of the
Secretary in accordance with subsection (e), the Pueblo may
market water rights secured to it under the Settlement
Agreement and Partial Final Decree, provided that such
marketing is in accordance with this section.
(b) Pueblo Contract Rights to San Juan-chama Project
Water.--Subject to the approval of the Secretary in
accordance with subsection (e), the Pueblo may subcontract
water made available to the Pueblo under the contract
authorized under section 9(b)(1)(A) to third parties to
supply water for use within or without the Taos Valley,
provided that the delivery obligations under such subcontract
are not inconsistent with the Secretary's existing San Juan-
Chama Project obligations and such subcontract is in
accordance with this section.
(c) Limitation.--
(1) In general.--Diversion or use of water off Pueblo lands
pursuant to Pueblo water rights or Pueblo contract rights to
San Juan-Chama Project water shall be subject to and not
inconsistent with the same requirements and conditions of
State law, any applicable Federal law, and any applicable
interstate compact as apply to the exercise of water rights
or contract rights to San Juan-Chama Project water held by
non-Federal, non-Indian entities, including all applicable
State Engineer permitting and reporting requirements.
(2) Effect on water rights.--Such diversion or use off
Pueblo lands under paragraph (1) shall not impair water
rights or increase surface water depletions within the Taos
Valley.
(d) Maximum Term.--
(1) In general.--The maximum term of any water use lease or
subcontract, including all renewals, shall not exceed 99
years in duration.
(2) Alienation of rights.--The Pueblo shall not permanently
alienate any rights it has under the Settlement Agreement,
the Partial Final Decree, and this Act.
(e) Approval of Secretary.--The Secretary shall approve or
disapprove any lease or subcontract submitted by the Pueblo
for approval not later than--
(1) 180 days after submission; or
(2) 60 days after compliance, if required, with section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental
[[Page H274]]
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)), or any other
requirement of Federal law, whichever is later, provided that
no Secretarial approval shall be required for any water use
lease with a term of less than 7 years.
(f) No Forfeiture or Abandonment.--The nonuse by a lessee
or subcontractor of the Pueblo of any right to which the
Pueblo is entitled under the Partial Final Decree shall in no
event result in a forfeiture, abandonment, relinquishment, or
other loss of all or any part of those rights.
(g) No Preemption.--
(1) In general.--The approval authority of the Secretary
provided under subsection (e) shall not amend, construe,
supersede, or preempt any State or Federal law, interstate
compact, or international treaty that pertains to the
Colorado River, the Rio Grande, or any of their tributaries,
including the appropriation, use, development, storage,
regulation, allocation, conservation, exportation, or
quantity of those waters.
(2) Applicable law.--The provisions of section 2116 of the
Revised Statutes (25 U.S.C. 177) shall not apply to any water
made available under the Settlement Agreement.
(h) No Prejudice.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed
to establish, address, prejudice, or prevent any party from
litigating whether or to what extent any applicable State
law, Federal law, or interstate compact does or does not
permit, govern, or apply to the use of the Pueblo's water
outside of New Mexico.
SEC. 8. MUTUAL-BENEFIT PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--Upon the Enforcement Date, the Secretary,
acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, shall provide
financial assistance in the form of grants on a
nonreimbursable basis to Eligible Non-Pueblo Entities to
plan, permit, design, engineer, and construct the Mutual-
Benefit Projects in accordance with the Settlement
Agreement--
(1) to minimize adverse impacts on the Pueblo's water
resources by moving future non-Indian ground water pumping
away from the Pueblo's Buffalo Pasture; and
(2) to implement the resolution of a dispute over the
allocation of certain surface water flows between the Pueblo
and non-Indian irrigation water right owners in the community
of Arroyo Seco Arriba.
(b) Cost-sharing.--
(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the total cost of
planning, designing, and constructing the Mutual-Benefit
Projects authorized in subsection (a) shall be 75 percent and
shall be nonreimbursable.
(2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the total
cost of planning, designing, and constructing the Mutual-
Benefit Projects shall be 25 percent and may be in the form
of in-kind contributions, including the contribution of any
valuable asset or service that the Secretary determines would
substantially contribute to completing the Mutual-Benefit
Projects.
SEC. 9. SAN JUAN-CHAMA PROJECT CONTRACTS.
(a) In General.--Contracts issued under this section shall
be in accordance with this Act and the Settlement Agreement.
(b) Contracts for San Juan-chama Project Water.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into 3 repayment
contracts by not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, for the delivery of San Juan-Chama
Project water in the following amounts:
(A) 2,215 acre-feet/annum to the Pueblo.
(B) 366 acre-feet/annum to the Town of Taos.
(C) 40 acre-feet/annum to EPWSD.
(2) Requirements.--Each such contract shall provide that if
the conditions precedent set forth in section 10(f)(2) have
not been fulfilled by December 31, 2016, the contract shall
expire on that date.
(3) Applicable law.--Public Law 87-483 (76 Stat. 97)
applies to the contracts entered into under paragraph (1) and
no preference shall be applied as a result of section 4(a)
with regard to the delivery or distribution of San Juan-Chama
Project water or the management or operation of the San Juan-
Chama Project.
(c) Waiver.--With respect to the contract authorized and
required by subsection (b)(1)(A) and notwithstanding the
provisions of Public Law 87-483 (76 Stat. 96) or any other
provision of law--
(1) the Secretary shall waive the entirety of the Pueblo's
share of the construction costs, both principal and the
interest, for the San Juan-Chama Project and pursuant to that
waiver, the Pueblo's share of all construction costs for the
San Juan-Chama Project, inclusive of both principal and
interest shall be nonreimbursable; and
(2) the Secretary's waiver of the Pueblo's share of the
construction costs for the San Juan-Chama Project will not
result in an increase in the pro rata shares of other San
Juan-Chama Project water contractors, but such costs shall be
absorbed by the United States Treasury or otherwise
appropriated to the Department of the Interior.
SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATIONS, RATIFICATIONS, CONFIRMATIONS, AND
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT.
(a) Ratification.--
(1) In general.--Except to the extent that any provision of
the Settlement Agreement conflicts with any provision of this
Act, the Settlement Agreement is authorized, ratified, and
confirmed.
(2) Amendments.--To the extent amendments are executed to
make the Settlement Agreement consistent with this Act, such
amendments are also authorized, ratified, and confirmed.
(b) Execution of Settlement Agreement.--To the extent that
the Settlement Agreement does not conflict with this Act, the
Secretary shall execute the Settlement Agreement, including
all exhibits to the Settlement Agreement requiring the
signature of the Secretary and any amendments necessary to
make the Settlement Agreement consistent with this Act, after
the Pueblo has executed the Settlement Agreement and any such
amendments.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Taos pueblo infrastructure and watershed fund.--There
is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to provide
grants pursuant to section 5, $30,000,000, as adjusted under
paragraph (4), for the period of fiscal years 2010 through
2016.
(2) Taos pueblo water development fund.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to the Taos Pueblo Water
Development Fund, established at section 6(a), $58,000,000,
as adjusted under paragraph (4), for the period of fiscal
years 2010 through 2016.
(3) Mutual-benefit projects funding.--There is further
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to provide
grants pursuant to section 8, a total of $33,000,000, as
adjusted under paragraph (4), for the period of fiscal years
2010 through 2016.
(4) Adjustments to amounts authorized.--The amounts
authorized to be appropriated under paragraphs (1) through
(3) shall be adjusted by such amounts as may be required by
reason of changes since April 1, 2007, in construction costs,
as indicated by engineering cost indices applicable to the
types of construction or rehabilitation involved.
(5) Deposit in fund.--Except for the funds to be provided
to the Pueblo pursuant to section 5(d), the Secretary shall
deposit the funds made available pursuant to paragraphs (1)
and (3) into a Taos Settlement Fund to be established within
the Treasury of the United States so that such funds may be
made available to the Pueblo and the Eligible Non-Pueblo
Entities upon the Enforcement Date as set forth in sections
5(b) and 8(a).
(d) Authority of the Secretary.--The Secretary is
authorized to enter into such agreements and to take such
measures as the Secretary may deem necessary or appropriate
to fulfill the intent of the Settlement Agreement and this
Act.
(e) Environmental Compliance.--
(1) Effect of execution of settlement agreement.--The
Secretary's execution of the Settlement Agreement shall not
constitute a major Federal action under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
(2) Compliance with environmental laws.--In carrying out
this Act, the Secretary shall comply with each law of the
Federal Government relating to the protection of the
environment, including--
(A) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
(B) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
(f) Conditions Precedent and Secretarial Finding.--
(1) In general.--Upon the fulfillment of the conditions
precedent described in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall
publish in the Federal Register a statement of finding that
the conditions have been fulfilled.
(2) Conditions.--The conditions precedent referred to in
paragraph (1) are the following:
(A) The President has signed into law the Taos Pueblo
Indian Water Rights Settlement Act.
(B) To the extent that the Settlement Agreement conflicts
with this Act, the Settlement Agreement has been revised to
conform with this Act.
(C) The Settlement Agreement, so revised, including waivers
and releases pursuant to section 11, has been executed by the
Parties and the Secretary prior to the Parties' motion for
entry of the Partial Final Decree.
(D) Congress has fully appropriated or the Secretary has
provided from other authorized sources all funds authorized
by paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (c) so that the
entire amounts so authorized have been previously provided to
the Pueblo pursuant to sections 5 and 6, or placed in the
Taos Pueblo Water Development Fund or the Taos Settlement
Fund as directed in subsection (c).
(E) The Legislature of the State of New Mexico has fully
appropriated the funds for the State contributions as
specified in the Settlement Agreement, and those funds have
been deposited in appropriate accounts.
(F) The State of New Mexico has enacted legislation that
amends NMSA 1978, section 72-6-3 to state that a water use
due under a water right secured to the Pueblo under the
Settlement Agreement or the Partial Final Decree may be
leased for a term, including all renewals, not to exceed 99
years, provided that this condition shall not be construed to
require that said amendment state that any State law based
water rights acquired by the Pueblo or by the United States
on behalf of the Pueblo may be leased for said term.
(G) A Partial Final Decree that sets forth the water rights
and contract rights to water to which the Pueblo is entitled
under the Settlement Agreement and this Act and that
substantially conforms to the Settlement Agreement and
Attachment 5 thereto has been approved by the Court and has
become final and nonappealable.
(g) Enforcement Date.--The Settlement Agreement shall
become enforceable, and the waivers and releases executed
pursuant to section 11 and the limited waiver of sovereign
immunity set forth in section 12(a) shall become effective,
as of the date that the Secretary publishes the notice
required by subsection (f)(1).
(h) Expiration Date.--
(1) In general.--If all of the conditions precedent
described in section (f)(2) have not been fulfilled by
December 31, 2016, the Settlement Agreement shall be null and
void, the waivers and releases executed pursuant to section
11 and the sovereign immunity waivers in section
[[Page H275]]
12(a) shall not become effective, and any unexpended Federal
funds, together with any income earned thereon, and title to
any property acquired or constructed with expended Federal
funds, shall be returned to the Federal Government, unless
otherwise agreed to by the Parties in writing and approved by
Congress.
(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding subsection (h)(1) or any
other provision of law, any unexpended Federal funds,
together with any income earned thereon, made available under
sections 5(d) and 6(f) and title to any property acquired or
constructed with expended Federal funds made available under
sections 5(d) and 6(f) shall be retained by the Pueblo.
(3) Right to set-off.--In the event the conditions
precedent set forth in subsection (f)(2) have not been
fulfilled by December 31, 2016, the United States shall be
entitled to set off any funds expended or withdrawn from the
amount appropriated pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of
subsection (c) or made available from other authorized
sources, together with any interest accrued, against any
claims asserted by the Pueblo against the United States
relating to water rights in the Taos Valley.
SEC. 11. WAIVERS AND RELEASES.
(a) Claims by the Pueblo and the United States.--In return
for recognition of the Pueblo's water rights and other
benefits, including but not limited to the commitments by
non-Pueblo parties, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement
and this Act, the Pueblo, on behalf of itself and its
members, and the United States acting in its capacity as
trustee for the Pueblo are authorized to execute a waiver and
release of claims against the parties to New Mexico v. Abeyta
and New Mexico v. Arellano, Civil Nos. 7896-BB (U.S.6 D.N.M.)
and 7939-BB (U.S. D.N.M.) (consolidated) from--
(1) all claims for water rights in the Taos Valley that the
Pueblo, or the United States acting in its capacity as
trustee for the Pueblo, asserted, or could have asserted, in
any proceeding, including but not limited to in New Mexico v.
Abeyta and New Mexico v. Arellano, Civil Nos. 7896-BB (U.S.6
D.N.M.) and 7939-BB (U.S. D.N.M.) (consolidated), up to and
including the Enforcement Date, except to the extent that
such rights are recognized in the Settlement Agreement or
this Act;
(2) all claims for water rights, whether for consumptive or
nonconsumptive use, in the Rio Grande mainstream or its
tributaries that the Pueblo, or the United States acting in
its capacity as trustee for the Pueblo, asserted or could
assert in any water rights adjudication proceedings except
those claims based on Pueblo or United States ownership of
lands or water rights acquired after the Enforcement Date,
provided that nothing in this paragraph shall prevent the
Pueblo or the United States from fully participating in the
inter se phase of any such water rights adjudication
proceedings;
(3) all claims for damages, losses or injuries to water
rights or claims of interference with, diversion or taking of
water (including but not limited to claims for injury to
lands resulting from such damages, losses, injuries,
interference with, diversion, or taking) in the Rio Grande
mainstream or its tributaries or for lands within the Taos
Valley that accrued at any time up to and including the
Enforcement Date; and
(4) all claims against the State of New Mexico, its
agencies, or employees relating to the negotiation or the
adoption of the Settlement Agreement.
(b) Claims by the Pueblo Against the United States.--The
Pueblo, on behalf of itself and its members, is authorized to
execute a waiver and release of--
(1) all claims against the United States, its agencies, or
employees relating to claims for water rights in or water of
the Taos Valley that the United States acting in its capacity
as trustee for the Pueblo asserted, or could have asserted,
in any proceeding, including but not limited to in New Mexico
v. Abeyta and New Mexico v. Arellano, Civil Nos. 7896-BB
(U.S.6 D.N.M.) and 7939-BB (U.S. D.N.M.) (consolidated);
(2) all claims against the United States, its agencies, or
employees relating to damages, losses, or injuries to water,
water rights, land, or natural resources due to loss of water
or water rights (including but not limited to damages, losses
or injuries to hunting, fishing, gathering, or cultural
rights due to loss of water or water rights, claims relating
to interference with, diversion or taking of water or water
rights, or claims relating to failure to protect, acquire,
replace, or develop water, water rights or water
infrastructure) in the Rio Grande mainstream or its
tributaries or within the Taos Valley that first accrued at
any time up to and including the Enforcement Date;
(3) all claims against the United States, its agencies, or
employees for an accounting of funds appropriated by the Act
of March 4, 1929 (45 Stat. 1562), the Act of March 4, 1931
(46 Stat. 1552), the Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1757),
the Act of August 9, 1937 (50 Stat. 564), and the Act of May
9, 1938 (52 Stat. 291), as authorized by the Pueblo Lands Act
of June 7, 1924 (43 Stat. 636), and the Pueblo Lands Act of
May 31, 1933 (48 Stat. 108), and for breach of trust relating
to funds for water replacement appropriated by said Acts that
first accrued before the date of enactment of this Act;
(4) all claims against the United States, its agencies, or
employees relating to the pending litigation of claims
relating to the Pueblo's water rights in New Mexico v. Abeyta
and New Mexico v. Arellano, Civil Nos. 7896-BB (U.S.6 D.N.M.)
and 7939-BB (U.S. D.N.M.) (consolidated); and
(5) all claims against the United States, its agencies, or
employees relating to the negotiation, Execution or the
adoption of the Settlement Agreement, exhibits thereto, the
Final Decree, or this Act.
(c) Reservation of Rights and Retention of Claims.--
Notwithstanding the waivers and releases authorized in this
Act, the Pueblo on behalf of itself and its members and the
United States acting in its capacity as trustee for the
Pueblo retain--
(1) all claims for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement,
the Final Decree, including the Partial Final Decree, the San
Juan-Chama Project contract between the Pueblo and the United
States, or this Act;
(2) all claims against persons other than the Parties to
the Settlement Agreement for damages, losses or injuries to
water rights or claims of interference with, diversion or
taking of water rights (including but not limited to claims
for injury to lands resulting from such damages, losses,
injuries, interference with, diversion, or taking of water
rights) within the Taos Valley arising out of activities
occurring outside the Taos Valley or the Taos Valley Stream
System;
(3) all rights to use and protect water rights acquired
after the date of enactment of this Act;
(4) all rights to use and protect water rights acquired
pursuant to State law, to the extent not inconsistent with
the Partial Final Decree and the Settlement Agreement
(including water rights for the land the Pueblo owns in
Questa, New Mexico);
(5) all claims relating to activities affecting the quality
of water including but not limited to any claims the Pueblo
might have under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et
seq.) (including but not limited to claims for damages to
natural resources), the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C.
300f et seq.), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and the regulations implementing those
Acts;
(6) all claims relating to damages, losses, or injuries to
land or natural resources not due to loss of water or water
rights (including but not limited to hunting, fishing,
gathering, or cultural rights); and
(7) all rights, remedies, privileges, immunities, powers,
and claims not specifically waived and released pursuant to
this Act and the Settlement Agreement.
(d) Effect of Section.--Nothing in the Settlement Agreement
or this Act--
(1) affects the ability of the United States acting in its
sovereign capacity to take actions authorized by law,
including but not limited to any laws relating to health,
safety, or the environment, including but not limited to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.),
the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.), the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), and the
regulations implementing such Acts;
(2) affects the ability of the United States to take
actions acting in its capacity as trustee for any other
Indian tribe or allottee;
(3) confers jurisdiction on any State court to--
(A) interpret Federal law regarding health, safety, or the
environment or determine the duties of the United States or
other parties pursuant to such Federal law; or
(B) conduct judicial review of Federal agency action; or
(4) waives any claim of a member of the Pueblo in an
individual capacity that does not derive from a right of the
Pueblo.
(e) Tolling of Claims.--
(1) In general.--Each applicable period of limitation and
time-based equitable defense relating to a claim described in
this section shall be tolled for the period beginning on the
date of enactment of this Act and ending on the earlier of--
(A) December 31, 2016; or
(B) the Enforcement Date.
(2) Effect of subsection.--Nothing in this subsection
revives any claim or tolls any period of limitation or time-
based equitable defense that expired before the date of
enactment of this Act.
(3) Limitation.--Nothing in this subsection precludes the
tolling of any period of limitations or any time-based
equitable defense under any other applicable law.
SEC. 12. INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Limited Waiver of Sovereign Immunity.--Upon and after
the Enforcement Date, if any Party to the Settlement
Agreement brings an action in any court of competent
jurisdiction over the subject matter relating only and
directly to the interpretation or enforcement of the
Settlement Agreement or this Act, and names the United States
or the Pueblo as a party, then the United States, the Pueblo,
or both may be added as a party to any such action, and any
claim by the United States or the Pueblo to sovereign
immunity from the action is waived, but only for the limited
and sole purpose of such interpretation or enforcement, and
no waiver of sovereign immunity is made for any action
against the United States or the Pueblo that seeks money
damages.
(b) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Not Affected.--Nothing in
this Act shall be deemed as conferring, restricting,
enlarging, or determining the subject matter jurisdiction of
any court, including the jurisdiction of the court that
enters the Partial Final Decree adjudicating the Pueblo's
water rights.
(c) Regulatory Authority Not Affected.--Nothing in this Act
shall be deemed to determine or limit any authority of the
State or the Pueblo to regulate or administer waters or water
rights now or in the future.
SEC. 13. DISCLAIMER.
Nothing in the Settlement Agreement or this Act shall be
construed in any way to quantify or otherwise adversely
affect the land and water rights, claims, or entitlements to
water of any other Indian tribe.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as
amended,
[[Page H276]]
it shall be in order to consider the amendment printed in part A of
House Report 111-399 if offered by the gentleman from California (Mr.
McClintock) or his designee, which shall be considered read, and shall
be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent.
The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Hastings) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
General Leave
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous material on H.R. 3254.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from West Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today, the Committee on Natural Resources is bringing before this
body for consideration three bills which would provide for the
settlement of the legitimate water claims of several Indian tribes.
Many Americans rarely give a thought to having clean, potable water
in their homes. We turn on the taps in our kitchens, and we take it for
granted that water will flow forth. But that, unfortunately, is not the
case in all places.
There is no scarcity of water in my home State of West Virginia. We
are rich in water. It flows freely.
Yet, today we continue to work to ensure that all of our citizens
have access to clean, potable water, as well as to be served by
sanitary wastewater systems; and I have and will continue to fight this
fight every day of my tenure in this body. So it is with understanding
and with compassion that I bring these three measures to the floor
today.
The pending measure, and I give him full credit for his leadership
and bringing it to our attention, sponsored by the gentleman from New
Mexico, Ben Ray Lujan, would adjudicate the water rights of the Pueblo
of Taos and end 40 years of active litigation by ratifying a settlement
agreement.
Forty years, my colleagues, 40 years of litigation: that is what the
pending legislation would end. And I cannot commend enough Mr. Lujan
and Mr. Heinrich, the other gentleman from New Mexico and member of our
Committee on Natural Resources, for their efforts in this matter.
Similarly, I commend the chairwoman on the Subcommittee on Water and
Power, the gentlewoman from California, Grace Napolitano, for the
hearings and all of her hard work on the measures that we are
considering today.
This legislation implements a settlement agreement that was signed in
May of 2006 by the Pueblo of Taos, the State of New Mexico, 55
community ditch associations, the town of Taos, El Prado Water and
Sanitation District, and the 12 Taos-area Mutual Domestic Water
Consumer Associations. Collectively, the parties to the agreement
represent the majority of water users in the Taos Valley.
Let me emphasize that point. This settlement provides water certainty
to both tribal and non-tribal communities.
Under this settlement agreement, funds would be authorized for the
Taos Settlement Fund, the Taos Infrastructure and Watershed Fund, and
for various projects that are mutually beneficial to the pueblo and
non-pueblo parties.
I would note that the Taos Pueblo has settled for a water right that
is far less than what the claims asserted in litigation by the United
States and the pueblo. This potential value is much more than the
amount that is authorized to be appropriated in H.R. 3254, a clear
financial benefit to all taxpayers.
Yet we will hear from some on the other side of the aisle that they
are just not sure whether or not this settlement agreement is a good
deal. They just do not know, they will say.
Well, all the parties which finally came together to settle 40 years
of litigation, I remind you, believe that this is a good settlement.
The gentleman from New Mexico who represents these people in this body
believes it is a good deal. The gentlewoman from California, Grace
Napolitano, who held hearings on this bill and worked with all the
concerned parties, believes it is a good settlement. And the Committee
on Natural Resources, which approved a pending measure, thought it was
a good enough settlement to send to the full House.
Let me be clear: Both the Departments of the Interior and Justice
were involved in this settlement agreement. Rather than engage in
protracted litigation, both Republican and Democrat administrations for
over the last 20 years believe that negotiated Indian water rights
settlements are the preferred course of action.
In testimony before the Water and Power Subcommittee, the
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation stated: ``Settlements improve
water management by providing certainty not just as to the
quantification of a tribe's water rights but also as to the rights of
all water users.''
He added further: ``Indian water rights settlements are consistent
with the Federal trust responsibility to Native Americans and with a
policy of promoting Indian self-determination and economic self-
sufficiency.''
We do indeed have a trust responsibility to Indian country, and
fulfilling that responsibility is at the heart of what we are doing
today. The Taos Pueblo has had to fight for its water rights against
Spanish settlers, with Mexico, and then as part of the United States.
Let us today end this long fight and provide certainty to all the water
users in the Taos Valley.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reluctantly oppose this and the two
other claimed settlement bills that are being considered on the House
floor today.
As a Member from the western part of the United States, I am well
aware of how important these settlements can be to tribal and non-
tribal communities. In general, Indian water rights settlements are
instruments to reduce litigation and bring water supply certainty to
communities in the western part of the United States. When done right,
they provide not only certainty to all parties, but they also benefit
the American taxpayer, who could end up paying much more if the
litigation went forward.
It is indeed Congress' statutory role to consider and approve these
settlements when these settlements are complete. The Congress should
have all the information it needs to conduct a proper review and pass
judgment on the merits of approving these settlements. Yet we do not
have all such information on these three bills today. The most critical
missing element is a clear, direct answer from the Department of
Justice, through the Attorney General, on whether these settlements
represent a fair resolution to the taxpayer.
As I mentioned during committee consideration of these bills, it is
appropriate that these agreements are largely worked out by the people
at the local level, but taxpayers from across the country have to pay
for such agreements.
So, Mr. Speaker, in that context, while I applaud the idea that local
groups are working it out in their best interests, which I think is a
positive statement, these do have to be paid for by the American
taxpayers. So we must be able to answer this question: Is this the best
deal that can be reached and is it in the interest of the parties to
the settlement, as well as to the taxpayers of this country?
The three bills that the House will consider today total over $500
million in potential Federal expenditure. Before Congress spends over
one-half billion dollars, we certainly should know whether the
taxpayers are getting fair treatment.
{time} 1045
The American people are highly concerned about the spending that's
gone on in this Congress. Whether it's the stimulus spending that has
failed to create the promised jobs or the government takeover of health
care with a price tag of well over a trillion dollars, the spending in
this Congress is out of control. Congress needs to get serious about
the record debt being run up during President Obama's first year in
office. This means not only stopping the
[[Page H277]]
megaspending bills, but also taking a hard look at the smaller bills,
such as the $500 million bills that are represented under these three
bills. We need the Attorney General to provide us with a clear, direct
answer.
The ranking Republican of the Water and Power Subcommittee, Mr.
McClintock of California, has been working to elicit such answers.
Months ago, in September and October of last year, he wrote to the
Attorney General asking direct questions. No response was received
until 2 days ago, just as these bills were headed to the floor of this
House for a vote. Regrettably, this bill does not provide the direct
answer to the questions asked. They finally replied at the 11th hour
with ambiguity and generalities, but not with a clear answer that this
Congress and the American taxpayers deserve.
So, Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again, while I support the concept of
the settlement bills because, by definition, these are people, local
people on the ground making decisions in their best interest, and the
possibility that these three bills merit passage by the House, without
a clear answer, as I talked about earlier, from the Department of
Justice on whether taxpayers are getting a fair deal, I cannot support
this legislation. So, therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose all
three of these bills.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
lead sponsor of this bill, whom I referenced in my opening remarks, the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).
Mr. LUJAN. I rise today in support of H.R. 3254, the Taos Pueblo
Water Rights Settlement Act. Before I begin, I would like to thank
Chairman Rahall and Chairwoman Napolitano for the stewardship of all
three settlement bills we are considering on the House floor today,
which are such an important part in meeting the water needs of the
people in my district.
Mr. Speaker, it's taken nearly three decades of work by so many New
Mexicans for me to be able to stand here today and address this body
about the critical issue of water management and water security in my
State. I'd like to thank all the tribal leaders and community members
who have repeatedly traveled from Taos to Washington, across New
Mexico, to work on this legislation throughout the years. Generation
after generation, Mr. Speaker, people have been coming together to try
to find resolution to benefit the community, to save taxpayers money,
to prevent costly litigation from moving forward through the Federal
court system.
As we consider these water settlements today, we should remember that
behind this legislative language, the procedural necessities, and the
committee reports, these bills are about the basic human need and
water. These settlements are the fulfillment of a promise made by the
United States. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. These settlements are
the fulfillment of a promise made by the United States to its people,
tribal and nontribal alike, that their water needs would be met. The
preservation of the ancient culture of the Taos Pueblo as well as the
future of the modern Taos community depend upon the passage of this
legislation.
Let me give you a little history about this settlement and why it's
so important to pass this legislation today. The legal proceedings that
led to the Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement, also known by my
constituents as the Abeyta settlement, began in 1969 by the New Mexico
State Engineer. The State Engineer's office in New Mexico is charged
with the distribution and management of water resources in our State.
The litigation continued until 1989, when the negotiations of the
Abeyta settlement began. It has taken until today for these
negotiations to reach a point where it could be possible to enact this
settlement into law to resolve the water allocation between tribal and
nontribal community members in the Taos area.
This legislation will bring to a close decades of litigation and
uncertainty with regard to water resources for the people of my
district. The passage of this legislation will bring security to water
users in Taos by making water available for future generations and
ensure that this valuable resource is protected. H.R. 3254 quantifies
and protects Taos Pueblo's water and provides further security for
water users of the town of Taos and many other non-Indian water users,
including existing individual domestic wells. They are all provided
safeguards for their use of water under this agreement.
The work that has been done between all the settlement parties and
the Federal Government is truly a testament to the necessity of passing
this legislation and the willingness of people to come together to
protect the water resources that are so valuable to this community.
Without this settlement, the future water availability for the people
of Taos and Taos Pueblo will be uncertain and possibly disastrous.
Mr. Speaker, as we come today and we hear some of the concerns about
moving this legislation forward, the uncertainty that will exist with
Federal litigation and the possible costs and problems that could be
passed on to taxpayers is something that this litigation will not only
add to, but that this settlement will help resolve. I certainly hope
that my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, that Members of this
Chamber truly see the importance of us working together and making sure
that we support people coming together to prevent costly and expensive
litigation from moving forward, to do what is right, especially when it
comes to the basic necessity and the valuable resource of water.
I urge you to support this bill, and I ask that we help protect the
water resources of the people of the Third Congressional District.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such
time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr.
McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
As has been pointed out, this and the two bills that follow ratify
out-of-court settlements that arise from decades-old litigation filed
by various Indian tribes against the United States Government. They
apportion water rights, among the three of them, to over 110,000 acre
feet of water, and they draw more than half a billion dollars from the
taxpayers of the United States, mainly for the development of those
water resources.
From the outset, I believe that the controlling issue in approving
any of these claims is simply this: Is it cheaper to settle out of
court or to go to trial? To answer that question, we must turn to the
Attorney General.
The Attorney General is presumably involved in these negotiations. He
commands the legal expertise to judge the soundness or weakness of the
government's case, and he is the official of our government directly
responsible for representing the people of the United States in this
litigation. Yet, when these bills were brought to us last fall, the
Attorney General's office was completely silent on that question. In
fact, the administration expressed many reservations about the
technical aspects of these bills, which leads me to believe that these
are not settlements negotiated by the Attorney General with the tribes
and then presented to Congress, but rather they're settlements written
by Congress itself, which Congress is neither designed nor is competent
to do.
Most importantly, we were absolutely unable to get a straight answer
to the most important question at issue, and that is: Do these
settlements exceed the likely liability of the government if these
claims went to trial? If we were a corporate board of directors making
a decision on an out-of-court settlement and we agreed to that
settlement without consulting with our legal counsel, we'd be guilty of
breaching our fiduciary responsibility to our stockholders. How can we
do any less as the Congress of the United States?
I'm new around here, but I spent 22 years in the California
Legislature, many of them on the relevant committees that heard
settlement bills. The central testimony in all of these settlements was
from the attorney general's office as the State's legal counsel. They'd
appear before us and they'd testify that in their professional legal
judgment the settlements were justified under current law and that the
State's liability and legal costs would likely exceed the settlement if
the matter went to trial.
[[Page H278]]
I'm told that's the way it used to work around here. The Attorney
General would negotiate the best possible settlement on behalf of the
United States and then submit that settlement to Congress. Congress
would then approve or reject it. Now it seems to be working in
precisely the opposite manner. Congress now does the negotiating and
then presents the bill to the Attorney General. Mr. Speaker, that is
not going to end well.
I wrote to the Attorney General's office in September and again in
October asking for their legal assessment of the cases involved. This
is hardly unprecedented. For example, in 1994, the Department of
Justice testified before Congress on a similar water settlement in the
Colville case. There, Peter Steenland, a Clinton Justice Department
official, testified, ``The Federal Government is not that well postured
for a victory on this claim which has been pending for over 40 years.
Absent the settlement, we could well litigate it for another 10 years
and the outcome could easily be a significant cost to the taxpayers and
the public.'' Well, if the Clinton administration could give Congress a
straight answer on an Indian water settlement bill, then I felt there
was no reason why the current one shouldn't also be straight with the
Congress.
There's a simple word for this. It's called ``transparency.'' We've
been assured that's a guiding principle of this administration. We
truly need some transparency in these cases if we're to do our job
competently and to do justice to both sides in these claims, yet the
administration remained completely untransparent on this issue. That's
why I submitted a simple amendment to all three bills. The amendment
would require that before the settlements take effect, the Department
of Justice has to certify that settling out of court would be
preferable to going to court.
I'd like to thank the members of the Rules Committee who granted the
rule allowing these amendments to be presented today. But as the
gentleman from Washington has said, a funny thing happened after the
Rules Committee voted that rule out on Tuesday night. Two hours after
the Rules Committee, 7:45 in the evening, our office received a letter
from the administration responding to my requests made way back in
September and October of last year, and in it the Departments of
Justice and Interior finally are prepared to state, although somewhat
ambiguously and circuitously, that ``settlement would be preferable to
litigation of these claims.''
I certainly hope this is not going to be their pattern. We have many
more Indian water settlements pending for substantial amounts of money,
and the Congress should not have to wait for months to get a straight
answer out of the administration for each settlement. The Congress
should not be forced to choose a funding amount in the dark and without
an informed legal opinion from our Attorney General at the outset.
These matters should not have to wait until the eve of a congressional
vote.
Mr. Speaker, since the administration has responded to the question
raised by the amendments that I'm prepared to offer, I'm not going to
introduce them to these bills today. But it is hard to square their
assurances of this week with the Department of the Interior's letter to
the subcommittee chairman of November 10 with respect to the White
Mountain Apache settlement, that says: ``Given the benefits being
obtained by the tribe under this settlement, the administration would
consider the approximately $109 million of additional funding for a
development fund authorized under this bill to be excessive if it were
viewed as settlement consideration.''
I'd also point to concerns raised by the administration--again, this
is unique to the White Mountain Apache settlement upcoming in the same
letter--objecting to language ``which waives the sovereign immunity of
the United States.'' They warn, ``This provision will engender
additional litigation--and likely in competing State and Federal
forums--rather than resolving the water rights disputes underlying
adjudication.''
Obviously, this administration has a lot of work to do before future
water settlements are considered. I believe Congress needs to demand
that the administration be candid and forthcoming in all future water
settlements and that Congress insist that before it begins deliberating
on a settlement, that the Attorney General has conducted and completed
the negotiations, has determined all of the details, has certified that
the settlement is within the legal liability of the government, and
only then submit that settlement for consideration and approval by the
Congress.
{time} 1100
We need to make this happen in committee, not the night before a bill
is sent to the House floor. And I believe that a growing number of us
will have a problem agreeing to the advancement of future water
settlements without these reforms. Anything less is breaching the
fiduciary responsibility that we hold to the people of the United
States. And I want to dwell on that term for just a moment. Congress'
fiduciary responsibility, that sounds laughable today, but to the
Framers of our Constitution, the term ``Congress' fiduciary
responsibility'' wasn't a punch line. It was a bedrock principle. It's
high time we restored and respected that principle.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, it's my honor to now yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico, Martin Heinrich, another
cosponsor of this legislation and a valued member of our Committee on
Natural Resources.
Mr. HEINRICH. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act is
critically important to the Taos Pueblo and all of northern New Mexico.
I want to thank my colleague Ben Ray Lujan for his leadership on this
important issue. I also want to thank Chairman Rahall and Chairwoman
Napolitano for their support of this bill during the committee process.
This bill is the result of many, many long years of negotiation among
the parties to find a fair and equitable resolution to this conflict.
Like the other longstanding water rights cases, this case has been in
Federal court for 40 years. More than a decade ago, community leaders
realized that litigation would not solve this problem but negotiation
might. I want to commend the hard work and cooperation of all the
stakeholders. This outcome demonstrates a real compromise by all the
parties involved.
Taos Pueblo is the only living Native American community registered
as a National Historic Landmark, and it has been continuously inhabited
for over 1,000 years. Under New Mexico State law, that long history
gives Taos Pueblo senior water rights and reinforces our duty to help
protect their water resources while providing certainty to both Indian
and non-Indian water users in the Taos Valley. This settlement also
protects one of the pueblo's most sacred sites, the buffalo pasture.
The pueblo has agreed to give up some of its water rights in exchange
for protecting the groundwater that feeds the buffalo pasture.
A settlement agreement was signed in May of 2006 by Taos Pueblo, the
State of New Mexico, and many affected non-Indian water users and
acequia associations in the Taos Valley. But this settlement still
needs ratification and approval by the United States Government, and
that's what this bill will do. This settlement will bring much-needed
certainty to the Taos Valley and New Mexico water users.
As anyone from a Western State knows, water is the lifeblood of our
communities. Whether you live in downtown Albuquerque, on a ranch, or
at a pueblo, every New Mexican depends on their community's right to
clean, reliable water. This settlement is a historic step in ensuring
that New Mexico communities have clear and reliable water rights to the
water that they need.
I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of my friend,
the distinguished chairman, if he has any more speakers on this bill?
Mr. RAHALL. I am prepared to close, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If that's the case then, Mr. Speaker, I
know that Mr. McClintock is not going to offer his amendment. So with
that, I yield myself the balance of my time.
[[Page H279]]
Mr. Speaker, hopefully we've made it very clear in this debate that
the agreement and the settlement of the claims is preferable to
litigation when fair resolutions are met. I think most people would
agree with that. We certainly do on this side of the aisle. That it is
better for those to be worked out at the local level, rather than
resorting to expensive lawyer fees and years of fighting. And these
bills have had a long time of years of fighting, we know that.
Yet we, as Representatives, owe it to our constituents to make
certain that settlements are not being made that overly compensate or
benefit one community or locality while ultimately being paid out of
the pockets of the taxpayers. Settlements must be fair to claimants,
the effected community and to taxpayers. Despite several months of
efforts to get a clear, direct answer from the Attorney General on the
question of whether these settlements are in the interest of taxpayers,
they responded, unfortunately, at the very last minute with a short and
vague letter that leaves the question largely unanswered.
These three bills, as I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, spend over $500
million. Taxpayers deserve a transparent and straightforward reply.
Because that has not been forthcoming, as I mentioned, I must oppose
all three bills. But, Mr. Speaker, in the future, I would hope that the
Democrat majority would be put on notice that we expect to hear
directly from the Justice Department on the merits of the proposed
settlements while this is being considered in the Natural Resources
Committee. With hundreds of millions of dollars being spent, these
settlements need to be fully vetted and explained in a fully
transparent manner with clear answers from the Justice Department.
Until that happens, these types of bills should not be advanced to the
House floor, as these three bills were advanced to the House floor.
So with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me conclude by noting that in a letter dated January 19 from the
Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice, they noted,
``Both rancor and uncertainty can have substantial economic
consequences. The existence of unquantified water rights claims casts a
shadow over all water users in a water basin, as no other water user in
the basin can ever be certain when these rights may be used and how
this will impact other users.'' The pending bill solves this problem.
It provides badly needed certainty.
And before finally concluding, I would note to my colleagues, and I
did not really want to do this for fear of scaring off support from my
side of the aisle, but I will note that a third of these bills have a
cosponsorship of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), not an
individual known around here for his prolific spending habits. So I do
that, again, with the trepidation of scaring off support from my side
of the aisle for the pending measure. I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, by
asking all Members to support this measure.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.
The Chair understands that the amendment will not be offered.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1017, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________