[House Report 114-747]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
114th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 114-747
======================================================================
AMENDING THE SAN LUIS REY INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT TO CLARIFY
CERTAIN SETTLEMENT TERMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
_______
September 15, 2016.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bishop of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted
the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 1296]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 1296) to amend the San Luis Rey Indian Water
Rights Settlement Act to clarify certain settlement terms, and
for other purposes, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill
do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of H.R. 1296 is to amend the San Luis Rey
Indian Water Rights settlement Act to clarify certain
settlement terms.
Background and Need for Legislation
H.R. 1296 helps bring closure to the decades-old San Luis
Rey Water Settlement and related litigation and uncertainty in
southern California.
Beginning in 1969, the La Jolla, Rincon, San Pasqual,
Pauma, and Pala Bands of Mission Indians (the Bands) sued the
City of Escondido, California and the Vista Irrigation district
(Local Entities) on the grounds that the federal government
improperly signed over the Bands' water rights to the Local
Entities. Decades of litigation surrounding the Bands' water
rights claims ensued until 1988, when Congress enacted the San
Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Act (the 1988
Settlement Act, Public Law 100-675). It is one of 29 Indian
water rights settlements that have been approved by Congress.
The 1988 Settlement Act, among other things, directed the
Secretary of the Interior to provide 16,000 acre-feet of water
annually to the Bands. An acre foot of water is equivalent to
approximately 326,000 gallons or enough to cover a football
field with a foot of water. The 1988 Settlement Act becomes
effective only when the United States, the Bands and the Local
Entities enter into ``a settlement agreement providing for the
complete resolution of all claims, controversies, and issues
involved in all the pending proceedings among the parties''.
Public Law 100-675 also established the San Luis Rey Tribal
Development Fund that authorized up to $30 million in federal
appropriations.
One of the main hurdles to resolution of a settlement
agreement was whether the 16,000 acre-feet of water would be
deemed supplemental water or would be classified as water
reserved under the Winters Doctrine, which holds that the
federal government implicitly reserved water rights sufficient
to fulfill the purposes of an Indian reservation (based on the
1908 Supreme Court decision in Winters v. United States). In
January 2015, the parties signed a settlement agreement that
stipulated that the 16,000 acre-feet of water would be deemed
supplemental. This designation kept the Bands' Winters Doctrine
rights intact, allowing them the ability to pursue those rights
at a later time if necessary. However, the settlement agreement
also relieved the federal government as a future supporting
party to the Bands' Winters Doctrine rights, effectively
resolving some future federal liability. H.R. 1296 approves and
ratifies this settlement agreement, which provides that
Congressional approval is required for the agreement, and thus
the settlement, to take effect. The Departments of the Interior
and Justice submitted a letter and testimony to the House
Natural Resources Committee conveying support for the January
2015 settlement agreement and this legislation.
Following Committee consideration of H.R. 1296, it was
discovered that the trust fund established for the San Luis Rey
Indian Water Rights Settlement under Public Law 100-675 was
still considered part of the federal budget. Therefore, to
avoid scoring issues associated with the distributions from
that trust fund already funded by the Congress, the Committee
will need to further modify the reported text before it can be
considered by the House of Representatives.
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Bill
Section 1. Section 1 amends Public Law 100-675 by approving
and ratifying all provisions of the January 30, 2015,
Settlement Agreement entered into by the parties and the United
States. The Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney General
are authorized to execute and implement the agreement and any
amendments approved by the parties that are necessary to make
it consistent with this Act (and such execution shall not
constitute a major Federal action under the National
Environmental Policy Act). The Bands will continue to possess
federally reserved rights and other rights held in trust by the
United States. However, the United States shall not be a
required party and any decision by the United States regarding
participation in any such proceeding shall not be subject to
judicial review or give rise to any claim for relief against
the United States in these water rights claims.
Committee Action
H.R. 1296 was introduced on March 4, 2015, by Congressman
Duncan Hunter (R-CA). The bill was referred to the Committee on
Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee
on Water, Power and Oceans. On October 28, 2015, the
Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On February 2, 2016,
the Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The
Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent. No amendments
were offered, and the bill was ordered favorably reported to
the House of Representatives by unanimous consent on February
3, 2016.
Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
Compliance With House Rule XIII
1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act.
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, the Committee has received the enclosed cost estimate for
the bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
H.R. 1296--A bill to amend the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights
Settlement Act to clarify certain settlement terms, and for
other purposes
Summary: H.R. 1296 would amend current law and ratify a
settlement agreement negotiated in 2014 between the United
States and other parties in southern California including the
La Jolla, Rincon, San Pasqual, Pauma, and Pala Bands of Mission
Indians (collectively known as the Bands), the City of
Escondido, the San Luis Rey Indian Water Authority (the
Authority), and the Vista Irrigation District. The 2014
settlement clarifies certain issues regarding the Bands' water
rights and the federal govermnent's legal responsibilities and
if ratified would transfer control and ownership of the funds
in the San Luis Rey Indian Trust Fund from the federal
government to the Authority.
Based on information from the Department of the Interior
(DOI), CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would
increase net direct spending by $18 million over the 2017-2026
period; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. Enacting
H.R. 1296 would not affect revenues.
CBO estimates that enacting the bill would not increase net
direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027.
H.R. 1296 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would benefit the La Jolla, Rincon, San Pasqual, Pauma, and
Pala Bands of Mission Indians. Any costs to local and tribal
governments would be incurred voluntarily as a result of
entering into the settlement agreement ratified in the bill.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary effect of H.R. 1296 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 450
(community and regional development).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2017-2021 2017-2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INCREASE OR DECREASE (-) IN DIRECT SPENDING
Transfer Ownership of San Luis Rey Trust Fund balances
Estimated Budget Authority.............................. 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 55
Estimated Outlays....................................... 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 55
Changes in Interest Disbursements from the trust fund
Estimated Budget Authority.............................. -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -19 -37
Estimated Outlays....................................... -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -19 -37
Total Changes
Estimated Budget Authority.......................... 51 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 37 18
Estimated Outlays................................... 51 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 37 18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R.
1296 will be enacted at the end of fiscal year 2016. Based on
information from the Department of the Interior (DOI), CBO
estimates that implementing the legislation would increase net
direct spending by $18 million over the 2017-2026 period.
In 1990, $30 million was appropriated to capitalize the San
Luis Rey Indian Trust Fund, which was established by Public Law
100-675, the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Act
(1988 Settlement Act). The San Luis Rey Indian Water Authority
was also established by the Bands as an intertribal entity
pursuant to that Settlement. The Authority negotiates on behalf
of the Bands regarding water supply and use in the San Luis Rey
River Basin. Under current law, the federal government retains
ownership of and fiduciary responsibility for the San Luis Rey
Indian Trust Fund until all parties reach agreement under the
1988 Settlement Act at which time the fund will be transferred
to the Authority. Until ownership of the Fund is transferred,
the U.S. Treasury is authorized to disburse a portion of
interest credited to the fund to the Authority for annual
expenses related to facilitating and negotiating a final
agreement. In the last few years, those disbursements have
averaged $3.7 million annually and CBO expects that under
current law those disbursements will continue.
The parties have been unable to reach agreement under the
1988 Settlement Act because of differing interpretations of the
Bands' future claims to federally reserved water in the San
Luis Rey River Basin. Enacting H.R. 1296 would amend the 1988
Settlement Act to clarify that the Bands' right to federally
reserved water in the basin would remain intact; the
legislation also would waive certain legal claims against the
federal government and ratify a settlement agreement entered
into by all these parties in 2014.
Based on information from the DOI, CBO expects that upon
enactment of H.R. 1296, which we assume would occur in fiscal
year 2017, ownership of the balance in the trust fund would be
transferred to the Authority that year. CBO estimates that the
amount transferred would total $55 million and would include
$30 million of principle and $25 million in accrued interest.
Following enactment of the bill, the Treasury would discontinue
annual disbursements of interest to the Authority, thus
reducing federal spending by $37 million over the 2017-2026
period. In total, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1296 would
increase net direct spending by $18 million over the 2017-2026
period.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or
revenues. The net changes in outlays that are subject to those
pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following table.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2016-2021 2016-2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (-) IN THE DEFICIT
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact....................... 0 51 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 37 18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase in long term direct spending and deficits: CBO
estimates that enacting the legislation would not increase net
direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1296
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would benefit the La Jolla, Rincon, San
Pasqual, Pauma, and Pala Bands of Mission Indians. Any costs to
local and tribal governments would be incurred voluntarily as a
result of entering into the settlement agreement as ratified in
the bill.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Aurora Swanson; Impact
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Rachel Austin; Impact
on the Private Sector: Amy Petz.
Estimate approved by: Samuel H. Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this bill is to amend the San Luis Rey Indian
Water Rights settlement Act to clarify certain settlement
terms.
Earmark Statement
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
Compliance With Public Law 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
Compliance With H. Res. 5
Directed Rule Making. The Chairman does not believe that
this bill directs any executive branch official to conduct any
specific rule-making proceedings.
Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was
not included in any report from the Government Accountability
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law
98-169) as relating to other programs.
Preemption of State, Local or Tribal Law
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is
printed in italics and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
SAN LUIS REY INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT
TITLE I--SAN LUIS REY INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``San Luis Rey Indian Water
Rights Settlement Act''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 112. IMPLEMENTATION OF SETTLEMENT.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds and recognizes as follows:
(1) The City of Escondido, California, the Vista
Irrigation District, the San Luis Rey River Indian
Water Authority, and the Bands have approved an
agreement, dated December 5, 2014, resolving their
disputes over the use of certain land and water rights
in or near the San Luis Rey River watershed, the terms
of which are consistent with this Act.
(2) The Bands, the San Luis Rey River Indian Water
Authority, the City of Escondido, California, the Vista
Irrigation District, and the United States have
approved a Settlement Agreement dated January 30, 2015
(hereafter in this section referred to as the
``Settlement Agreement'') that conforms to the
requirements of this Act.
(b) Approval and Ratification.--All provisions of the
Settlement Agreement, including the waivers and releases of the
liability of the United States, the provisions regarding
allottees, and the provision entitled ``Effect of Settlement
Agreement and Act,'' are hereby approved and ratified.
(c) Authorizations.--The Secretary and the Attorney General
are authorized to execute, on behalf of the United States, the
Settlement Agreement and any amendments approved by the parties
as necessary to make the Settlement Agreement consistent with
this Act. Such execution shall not constitute a major Federal
action under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The Secretary is further authorized and
directed to take all steps that the Secretary may deem
necessary or appropriate to implement the Settlement Agreement
and this Act.
(d) Continued Federally Reserved and Other Water Rights.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, including any provisions in this Act, the Bands
had, have, and continue to possess federally reserved
rights and other water rights held in trust by the
United States.
(2) Future proceedings.--In any proceeding involving
the assertion, enforcement, or defense of the rights
described in this subsection, the United States, in its
capacity as trustee for any Band, shall not be a
required party and any decision by the United States
regarding participation in any such proceeding shall
not be subject to judicial review or give rise to any
claim for relief against the United States.
(e) Allottees.--Congress finds and confirms that the benefits
to allottees in the Settlement Agreement, including the
remedies and provisions requiring that any rights of allottees
shall be satisfied from supplemental water and other water
available to the Bands or the Indian Water Authority, are
equitable and fully satisfy the water rights of the allottees.
(f) No Precedent.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed or
interpreted as a precedent for the litigation or settlement of
Indian reserved water rights.