IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA IN THE GENERAL ADJUDICATION OF ALL RIGHTS TO USE WATER IN THE GILA RIVER SYSTEM AND SOURCE W-1 (SALT) W-2 (VERDE) W-3 (UPPER GILA) W-4 (SAN PEDRO) JUDGMENT The claims asserted herein by the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe and by the United States of America for the benefit of the Tribe having been resolved by stipulation and agreement among the interested parties, this Court having reviewed and considered the substance of said stipulation and agreement, and other parties to this action having been given an opportunity to be heard on this matter, It is Ordered and Adjudged: In accordance with the foregoing Stipulation, the Court hereby approves and adopts the Stipulation dated 199, as its decree of the rights of the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe in the waters subject to this proceeding which shall be incorporated into the final decree herein without further order, and which shall, upon entry of the final decree herein, have the same force and effect as against other water rights as those adjudicated by the court. The water rights of contributing parties to the Agreement shall be determined in the due course of this proceeding. The final decree herein shall set forth the water rights of said contributing parties, and shall reflect their contractual obligations to provide water to the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. The Court herein determines that there is no just reason for delay and the partial judgment is properly final pursuant to Rule 54(b), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. Wherefore, the Court directs the entry of judgment, pursuant to the provisions of Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b). Dated at Phoenix, Arizona, this day of 199 . Judge, Superior Court. COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS The analysis of the Congressional Budget Office on the costs of S. 1146: U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Hon. DANIEL K. INOUYE, Chairman, Select Committee on Indian Affairs, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has reviewed S. 1146, the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 1993, as ordered reported by the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs on November 18, 1993. CBO estimates that implementing this bill would cost the federal government about $225,000 over the fiscal years 1994 and 1995, assuming appropriation of the necessary funds. Because enactment of S. 1146 would affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to this bill. We estimate, however, that the net change in direct spending would be zero. Bill Purpose. S. 1146 would approve a water settlement agreement among the federal government, the state of Arizona, the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (tribe), the city of Prescott, and the Chino Valley Irrigation District, and would direct the Secretary of the Interior to execute the settlement. Currently, the tribe and Prescott hold contracts that obligate the government to make available about 7,600 acre-feet of water from the Central Arizona Project (CAP), a federal water supply project. The Secretary would be mandated to arrange for the assignment to other parties of these existing contracts or to purchase the contracts from the tribe and Prescott. Proceeds from disposition of the water contracts, whether by assignment of purchase, would be deposited into a Verde River Basin Water Fund in the U.S. Treasury, and would be made available to the tribe and the city of Prescott only for specified purposes related to purchasing alternative water supplies and facilities. The bill also would authorize appropriations of no more than $200,000 for costs associated with judicial confirmation of the settlement, and such sums as may be necessary to establish, maintain and operate a gauging station. In addition, the bill would require the state of Arizona to contribute $200,000 to the tribe. Estimated Costs to the Federal Government. Based on information from the Department of the Interior (DOI), CBO believes that the Secretary will be able to find an assignee for the CAP contracts, who would become responsible for the associated repayments to the federal government. As a result, we estimate that there would be no additional cost to the federal government for assigning the CAP contracts of the tribe and the city of Prescott. We expect that the deposit of the proceeds from disposition of the CAP contracts into the Verde River Basin Water Fund and the payments out of the fund would be made within the same fiscal year and thus would not result in a net change in federal spending in any one year. These transactions would be di rect spending, but there would be no net change in outlays for pay-as-you-go purposes. If the Secretary is not able to find an interested party to which he can assign the contracts and instead must purchase them, the bill could result in additional costs to the federal government of between $5 million and $8 million to acquire the contracts, assuming appropriation of the necessary funds. (CBO's estimate of the costs of the contracts is based on information from DOI and prices from recent sales in the area.) Under these circumstances, the federal government also would lose a stream of future payments by the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) that would pay for a portion of CAP's capital, operating, and maintenance costs. (CAWCD holds the master contract for CAP water that includes water for Prescott.) Because Prescott has not begun paying for the water contracts it would relinquish under this bill, eliminating its future payment obligations-estimated to total about $4 million on a present value basis-would not result in a loss of receipts to the federal Treasury for a number of years. CBO does not expect the government to purchase the contracts; therefore, we expect that no additional expenditures or loss of future payments would occur as a result of S. 1146. We estimate that costs totaling about $225,000 would be incurred over the next two years for judicial confirmation of the settlement ($200,000) and building the gauging station ($25,000). Ongoing operating costs for the gauging station are not expected to be significant. Estimated Cost to State and Local Government. If S. 1146 is enacted, the state of Arizona would be required to contribute $200,000 to the tribe. In addition, the city of Prescott would receive money for the assumption of its CAP contract. The city and tribe would be able to spend these funds for specified purposes related to purchasing alternative water supplies and facilities. Otherwise, we expect that enactment of S. 1146 would not affect the budgets of state or local governments. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Patricia Conroy, who can be reached at 226-2860. Sincerely, ROBERT D. REISCHAUER, Director. REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires each report accompanying a bill to evaluate the regulatory and paperwork impact that would be incurred in carrying out the bill. The Committee believes that S. 1146, as amended, would have minimal regulatory or paperwork impact. EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS The November 16, 1993, testimony of John Duffy, Counselor to the Secretary and Chairman of the Department of the Interior's Working Group on Indian Water Settlements, before the Committee on Indian Affairs, follows. STATEMENT OF JOHN DUFFY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NOVEMBER 16, 1993 Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am John Duffy, Counselor to the Secretary and the Chairman of the Department of the Interior's Working Group on Indian Water Settlements. I am pleased to be here to discuss S. 1146, a bill to provide for the settlement of the water rights claims of the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. With me is Mr. Bill Swan, the attorney in our Solicitor's Office in Phoenix, Arizona, which assisted in the Department's review of this settlement. I am pleased to say that, if the bill is modified to reflect the changes which I will outline today, we would support this legislation. We believe it is another step in the direction of resolving the long-standing Indian water rights disputes in Arizona. As you are aware, in July of 1992, the Executive Branch provided testimony on Senate Bill 2975 which had been introduced in the one hundred second Congress. At that time, the Department did not support the proposed legislation for a variety of reasons. Since 1992, however, a number of the Department's concerns have been addressed and resolved either in the new proposed legislation or in the new proposed settlement agreement. While significant progress has been achieved through the cooperation of all parties, we have several remaining concerns that we believe should be addressed as follows: 1. Elimination of provisions directing the Secretary to acquire CAP contracts of the Tribe and the city of Prescott, and instead changing the bill to authorize the sale of the Central Arizona Project (CAP) subcontract of the city and the CAP contract of the Tribe to a third party; which will include deletion of the water allocation requirements in Section 5, 2. Deletion of the requirement in Subsection 11(d) to study the water needs of the Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona, 3. A change in Section 11(c) so as to allow the Tribe to develop its own water management plan, independent of the Secretary, 4. Execution of a final settlement agreement which includes agreed upon language for the final decrees before ratification of the agreement by the Congress. 5. Revising Section 10(a) in order to insure that the Tribe as well as all of its members waive their claims, 6. At this time we are advised by the Department of Justice that Section 11(a) of the bill, which waives the sovereign immunity of the United States with respect to the future enforcement of the settlement agreement, is not necessary because the Tucker Act permits suits for damages in the Court of Federal Claims. Therefore, Justice counsels that all references to the United States in Section 11(a) be stricken. Before expanding upon our recommendations, let me set forth some of the reasons we would support the settlement, if modified to address these remaining issues. First, this settlement will provide for the permanent resolution of water rights litigation between the YavapaiPrescott Tribe and its non-Indian neighbors. As you know, this Administration has placed a high priority on efforts to resolve Indian water rights disputes via negotiated settlements as opposed to protracted litigation. Second, under the settlement, the City of Prescott will contractually agree to provide for the Tribe's water rights needs in perpetuity, without continuing expense to the Federal Government. It is important to note that there is no obligation on the part of the Federal Government to build water delivery systems of any kind. In this regard, let me emphasize that in the absence of this legislation the Federal Government could be faced with the costs of adjudicating the Tribe's water rights claims, as well as costs associated with the Tribe's CAP water. In our view, this settlement is clearly a preferable alternative that provides permanent resolution of the Tribe's water problems. Third, Section 8 of the bill includes application of certain environmental compliance standards that would avoid concerns about the potential impact of the City's future water development plans on the sensitive upper Verde River watershed. The City's agreement with these compliance standards helps ensure the long-term protection of valuable natural resources, including endangered and threatened fish species in the Verde River system. Fourth, the City of Prescott is committed, under the legislation and the settlement agreement, to use the monetary proceeds resulting from the assignment of its CAP contract for water resources development purposes. This arrangement is in lieu of an actual CAP water rights exchange which was originally contemplated as the only feasible way to provide CAP water to the City. In light of the environmental difficulties faced by the City in consummating a CAP water exchange, and in light of the City's serious commitment, in both time and money, we believe that this alternative approach is both appropriate under the circumstances and consistent with the CAP Act. Finally, we appreciate the good faith that has been exhibited by both the Tribe and the City in the settlement process. As we view it, this is another example of how these two entities have decided to work cooperatively together rather than focus on potential points of disagree |