▶ 0:20:57Chair Murkowski: We are here today to receive testimony on five deals regarding indian water rights settlements, one focused on the broader challenge of how we finance them. S.3573 from senator lujan would amend the aamodt litigation settlement act with an extension to prevent the settlement from failing due to construction
▶ 0:21:27Chair Murkowski: Delays. S.3617 from senator kelly would ratify the yavapai-apache nation settlement in arizona. It would confirm their right to for thousand 610 acre-feet of water annually and authorize approximately 1.0 4 billion for the pipeline drinking water treatment plant and transmission system and a tribal settlement to trust fund.
▶ 0:21:54Chair Murkowski: S.4368 from senator padilla would ratify the agua caliente band of cahuilla indians with the co-a chilly -- coachella valley water settlement, providing groundwater use annually from the indio some water basin and authorize federal land transfers.
▶ 0:22:20Chair Murkowski: Also, s.4417 from senator padilla would update the previously enacted pechanga settlement, ensuring settlement covers continuous trust lands and allows the tribe's water quality account to support water quality projects in the wolf valley basin.
▶ 0:22:40Chair Murkowski: These resolve long-standing claims provide certainty, avoid costly litigation and support communities that have waited far too long for reliable water infrastructure but as I said at our hearing in march, we must ensure they are structured for successful implementation. And that means confronting the difficult question of how these settlements are financed.
▶ 0:23:03Chair Murkowski: The settlements before us together with other settlements represent nearly $13 billion in new federal spending, that's a lot of money. That is not a reason to abandon our trust responsibilities but it does require congress to identify a credible, sustainable, and realistic funding path and requires us to ensure each settlement is reasonable in scope, clearly defined, and fully implementable by agencies and communities alike.
▶ 0:23:33Chair Murkowski: We must be confident that the infrastructure commitments and timelines are achievable and we are not creating obligations that exceed practical and fiscal capacity. Congress provided a once in a generation investment of 2.5 trillion dollars to complete water projects but it is now fully exhausted and will not be available to address the settlements now awaiting congressional action.
▶ 0:24:04Chair Murkowski: In 2010, the stars align for passage of the claims resolution act. Senators kyle and bacchus helped bring together the settlement package and a budgetary offset that included an extension of customs user fees. That allowed congress to authorize and fund four major indian water settlements. Today, we have another proposal to establish a dedicated settlement fund along with the related proposals to offset it with custom user fees.
▶ 0:24:41Chair Murkowski: S.4890 what establish settlement accounts provided by her bipartisan infrastructure law. One would provide $45 million annually for operation, maintenance, repair, and other continuing federal obligations under specified enacted settlements. The other would provide 250 million dollars annually for newly enacted and continuing settlements.
▶ 0:25:12Chair Murkowski: I think our goal should be to continue meeting while maintaining fiscal responsibility and priority sad face indian country. This must be friend of mine as we think about the future of indian water rights sent -- settlements. I want to acknowledge our colleagues that are before the committee here today. I will now turn to vice chairman schatz.
▶ 0:25:40Sen. Schatz: Really good to see colleagues, senators kelly and padilla, two of the members in the senate not on this committee who advocate the most, generally speaking for indian country, but particularly for their tribes.
▶ 0:25:58Sen. Schatz: Congress has enacted 35 indian water rights settlements, 16 new settlements or amendments are currently pending before congress and more than a dozen tribes are in active settlement to -- negotiations with the department of the interior. The bills add to this growing list. Four would set a lower dress indian water rights claims to ensure access to much needed and reliable drinking water for tribes and surrounding communities.
▶ 0:26:26Sen. Schatz: It is congresses obligation to consider water rights settlements but that is not where our obligation hands, we must ensure paper water turns into wet water, that is there is defending -- sufficient funding to deliver water to tribal and surrounding communities and yet for years progress on delivering water has been installed primarily due to a lack of adequate funding from the congress.
▶ 0:26:54Sen. Schatz: So it is important we are also considering senator lujan spilled to ensure existing and future indian water settlements have a stable source of funding. But there is a concern particularly among republican colleagues in the house that indian water rights settlements cost too much, they insist on no new spending despite our trust in treaty obligation forcing tribes to offset the cost of their legal and moral right to the water to sustain their homelands and their citizens.
▶ 0:27:25Sen. Schatz: This is not right. I appreciate the deal why is here to testify today is a party to all indian water settlements. I'm glad deal why is sitting next to tribal leaders representing their communities that have waited years to settle their water rights claims and can speak to the urgency of ratifying or amending these settlements.
▶ 0:27:53Sen. Schatz: The committee in congress must closely consider these bills and advance other water rights settlement bills that have passed out of committee. I look forward to working with the committee and indian country to find solutions that work with everyone. I want to thank the chair for convening this earring on the witnesses for being here today.
▶ 0:28:12Chair Murkowski: Before return to our witness panel, we do have senator kelly in senator padilla here to make some remarks on their bills but also to introduce the witnesses premier states. Senator kelly, why don't you lead often welcome both of you to the committee.
▶ 0:28:29Sen. Kelly: Thank you, madam chair and vice chair schatz. Thank you to you both for holding today's hearing on s.3617, the yavapai-apache water rights settlement act. For years, the yavapai-apache nation has sought water to preserve its homeland.
▶ 0:28:55Sen. Kelly: This settlement provides an opportunity to finish settling long water rights claims and helps the department of interior fulfill its obligation and it helps protect the wert he river by reducing reliance on groundwater pumping, benefiting not only the nation, but neighboring communities in downstream water.
▶ 0:29:25Sen. Kelly: What makes this settlement remarkable is the coalition behind it. This settlement is supported by the salt river project, the central arizona project, local governments, environmental organizations, and other important stakeholders. In a region where water is such a precious commodity, it is rare to see water providers in state, local, and tribal governments all in agreement about water allocation.
▶ 0:29:56Sen. Kelly: That level of agreement did not happen by accident. It is the result of years of good faith negotiations reflecting a shared recognition that the settlement is not just important, but absolutely vital for the future of the yavapai-apache nation and the long-term health of the wert he valley.
▶ 0:30:18Sen. Kelly: This consensus was made possible to the hard work of leaders like chairman buddy rocha who I have the honor of introducing today. Chairman rocha was elected after serving another tribal council in working in tribal economic development.
▶ 0:30:40Sen. Kelly: He has made securing congressional approval of this water settlement a top priority, building on decades of worth -- work by other tribal leaders, but the work doesn't end here. We have to keep working closely with the department of interior to move this settlement forward, resolving any implementation issues ensuring the nation can reliably access clean water.
▶ 0:31:07Sen. Kelly: I encourage the department to continue working in good faith with the nation to develop infrastructure that meets long-term needs within reasonable timelines and budgets. The nation has waited long enough. There is no need to make them wait any longer. My staff and I are here to help facilitate this partnership in any way we can across the finish line.
▶ 0:31:33Sen. Kelly: I want to thank you and the many tribal leaders who came with your persistence and leadership. Water rights settlements are the most complex agreements and ire to my colleagues to support this important bill as it moves through the committee. I will be submitting several letters of support and the broad coalition supporting this settlement.
▶ 0:32:03Sen. Kelly: Chair murkowski and vice chair schatz, think of her holding the hearing on this important legislation.
▶ 0:32:11Chair Murkowski: We look forward to the testimony from chairman rocha. Senator padilla, if you would like to deliver your remarks and introduce any witnesses.
▶ 0:32:25Sen. Padilla: I want to thank you and your staff for your assistance on the conservation bills we discussed earlier today. Chairman murkowski and vice chairman schatz, I appreciate you convening this hearing I want to thank you and your teams for all of your hard work on behalf of indian country.
▶ 0:32:59Sen. Padilla: The pechanga band of indians and the agua caliente band of indians, I think them both for their service and leadership for being here today and testifying at today's hearing. Put tongass water rights settlement was codified in 2016 and made fully enforceable in 2020.
▶ 0:33:29Sen. Padilla: The technical amendments act would update the water rights settlement to allow current and future trust lands to be eligible for the tribes water rights. It would expand allowable uses of the water quality fund to reflect modern wallet -- water quality challenges such as the challenges raised by emerging contaminants. These are important to public health, long-term water supply and sustainable water supply in the region.
▶ 0:34:01Sen. Padilla: To develop agreements on water rights and protect the watershed. I urge my colleagues to support this technical fix that would preserve the pechanga sovereignty over their water rights. The second bill I have before you today would support the settlement. In a 2017 ruling the U.S.
▶ 0:34:21Sen. Padilla: Court of appeals for the ninth circuit issued the first controlling federal appellate decision explicitly extending to groundwater, the winters doctrine which establishes federal reserve water rights for tribes. This ruling means the federal reserve ground rights along with the land was created.
▶ 0:34:47Sen. Padilla: It is held in a distinct checkerboard pattern of land ownership interspersed with railroad and private property. It has been quite challenging for how to resolve groundwater overlaid by multiple checkerboard landowners.
▶ 0:35:07Sen. Padilla: I commend all that to get -- dedicated efforts to negotiate an agreement over the last few years by agua caliente, the united states government, the coachella water valley district in the desert water agency. All parties reached the comprehensive agreement to secure the tribes federally reserved water rights and promote the tribe's sovereign authority over its water resources and trust lands.
▶ 0:35:37Sen. Padilla: It would ratify this agreement. This bill also includes provisions to establish a fund for critical water infrastructure as part of the settlement. I want to highlight the broad support for this bill and I would like to enter into the record 11 letters of support ranging from the state of california, the county riverside, local municipalities in southern california tribes.
▶ 0:36:06Sen. Padilla: Chairman murkowski and vice chairman schatz, thank you for your work and for allowing me to testify in support of these important bills.
▶ 0:36:17Chair Murkowski: Chair murkowski: thank you, we appreciate that, and now that we have our work cut out in front of us, but we appreciate your comments. We will now call up our panel here, Mr. scott cameron, the principal assistance it secretary for water and science with the department of the interior, welcome back to the committee.
▶ 0:36:40Chair Murkowski: As was introduced earlier, we have the honorable buddy rocha, who is the chairman of the yavapai-apache nation in camp verity, arizona. We also have the honorable jeff grubbe the chairman of the agua caliente band of indians in palm springs, california.
▶ 0:37:04Chair Murkowski: And we also have the honorable catalina chacon who is the councilmember for the pechanga band of indians into macula, california. So, we are grateful that you are each year with us today and I would just remind you that your full written testimony will be made part of the official hearing record.
▶ 0:37:31Chair Murkowski: We are going to ask that you try to keep your comments to five minutes so we have plenty of time for your questions. I know senator schatz has other things he is supposed to be racing off to as well, so we are going to make sure we get through this quickly. Mr. cameron, if you would like to begin with your testimony please.
▶ 0:37:49Mr. Cameron: Thank you, madam chairman, and senator schatz, and moved glad to be back with you. As you indicated, I'm scott cameron, principal deputy assistant secretary for water and science at the department of interior. I will be addressing four bills related to specific water rights settlements and one bill that would increase funding for the indian water rights settlement completion fund.
▶ 0:38:15Mr. Cameron: S.4890 would establish two new subaccounts within the indian water rights settlement completion fund providing $450 million from 2026 through 2030 five and mandatory funding from operations, repair, and ongoing maintenance and $2.5 billion for new and continuing settlements. The department appreciates the commitments to implement enacted settlements contingent on available appropriations.
▶ 0:38:44Mr. Cameron: We look forward to working with the committee to ensure appropriate funding is provided as part of the annual appropriations process. S.3573 would allow parties to extend the statutory deadline for completion of the water system and allow the department to working closely with our point below, state, and county partners to ensure remaining federal funding.
▶ 0:39:18Mr. Cameron: The department is pleased to support as it has become apparent to the parties that authorized federal funding would be insufficient to complete construction on the regional water system as originally contemplated. The parties have agreed to reassess the phased construction schedule.
▶ 0:39:40Mr. Cameron: So the by the time federal funding is exhausted, the party will provide the regional water system that is as functional as possible. The bill does not provide additional federal funding but maximizes the value derived from existing resources.
▶ 0:39:58Mr. Cameron: S.3617 would ratify a settlement agreement and appropriate over $1 billion in mandatory spending including major infrastructure projects. The department has significant concerns about any less than feasibility cost estimates and advises congress authorizing any project until a thorough feasibility study has been completed would be problematic.
▶ 0:40:27Mr. Cameron: The department also has serious concerns about the size and scope of the projects relative to united states water rights claims on behalf of the nation and we have concerns with provisions related to the verde river and the lack of cost-sharing from state and local parties who would appear to be benefiting. This project appears to be oversized with the infrastructure being much bigger than necessary.
▶ 0:40:58Mr. Cameron: Oversized projects can lead to cost overruns and unnecessary operational expenses. We are committed to working with the stakeholders to address these issues. S.4368 would ratify a settlement agreement and appropriate 500 million dollars in mandatory spending. The billing crudes transfers of blm land and novel and potentially problematic provisions such as preemption of certain state and local tax laws.
▶ 0:41:28Mr. Cameron: The department has concerns about the federal contribution and on some technical issues that I think and be resolved about the land transfer and we look forward to working with the parties to resolve these issues. Then s.4417 would make technical changes to the pechanga act and broaden eligible uses of the water quality account.
▶ 0:41:57Mr. Cameron: The department is very pleased to support these amendments as they facilitate implementation without increasing federal funding or affecting enforceability. In general, the department of the interior is committed to implementing indian water rights and ensuring tribal communities have access to reliable water resources and we look forward to working with congress, tribal nations, and other affected stakeholders to address our concerns with some of the specific bills.
▶ 0:42:27Mr. Cameron: Thank you for the opportunity to testify and appear before you again and I'm happy to answer any questions.
▶ 0:42:32Chair Murkowski: Next, we will turn to chairman rocha, welcome.
▶ 0:42:46Chairman Rocha: Good afternoon. I am chairman of the yavapai-apache nation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the water rights settlement act of 2026. It was introduced by our senators mark kelly and ruben gallego and on behalf of the yavapai-apache nation, I respectfully ask this committee in congress to approve s.3617 and fulfill the united states responsibility to our people.
▶ 0:43:17Chairman Rocha: This is essential to securing a permanent, reliable water supply for our nation. The history of our people is a story of profound loss. In 1875, responding to the pressures of non-indian settlers, the united states supported the army to round up all the yavapai-apache people in remove them to the south indian reservation.
▶ 0:43:43Chairman Rocha: We begin the long migration back to the verde valley and for the last 125 years our people have been slowly reclaiming and rebuilding our homeland, starting with a small 15 acre parcel purchased by congress in 1909. The homeland has grown to more than 5000 acres today.
▶ 0:44:02Chairman Rocha: This rebuilding process has meant strengthening our government and restoring our farming and ranching practices, building homes, starting businesses, and crating a permanent homeland where our people can raise our children, practice our culture, and build self-sustaining economies.
▶ 0:44:20Chairman Rocha: One of our elders has stated as long as the river flows, life will be good, thus the yavapai-apache water is not just a resource but a core part of our culture and spiritual identity and the very foundation of our future. The wert he river flows through the heart of our reservation and culture. For more than 40 years, the nation has been seeking legal recognition of our water rights and protection of the river that defines who we are as a people.
▶ 0:44:49Chairman Rocha: In june 2024 we reached a historic settlement agreement. Every party has approved the settlement and is ready to move forward. I received several letters of support and I would like to ask that to be included in the record. A pipeline from the bureau of reclamation and a modern drinking water plant to be located on our reservation.
▶ 0:45:19Chairman Rocha: This will deliver clean renewable surface water to our history, the key to unlocking our future. This infrastructure is necessary to secure a homeland promised under a treaty in our long-standing relationship with the united states. Without a secure water supply we cannot build homes, businesses, economy for our family that are desperately needed. We cannot meet the need without reliable drinking water a sustainable economy.
▶ 0:45:48Chairman Rocha: We spent years working alongside the united states to identify a source that meets the long-term economic and social needs. We identified the delivery of the reservoir is the most viable solution for all stakeholders. At least two of our wells including a critical municipal well or failing to produce enough water to meet current demands that must be significantly deepened.
▶ 0:46:12Chairman Rocha: Continuing our exclusive reliance on diminishing groundwater resources is not sustainable and the pipeline will change that. It will allow us to build homes, support our work force, and sustain our cultural practices for generations. The pipeline will protect the natural flows of the verde river which is critical to our ceremonies and will safeguard the health of local aquifers throughout the entire community. The project will allow the nation to finally realize the benefit.
▶ 0:46:48Chairman Rocha: To secure these benefits through the settlement the nation has made significant compromises. We have agreed to broaden water rights claims, no off water reservation will be shut down, no historic irrigation rights will be harmed. We have chosen partnership over conflict, regional cooperation over decades of continued instability. Without congressional approval of s.3617 none of this progress can move forward.
▶ 0:47:16Chairman Rocha: The pipeline cannot be billed and the drinking water cannot be completed. And we remain vulnerable without a renewable water supply. It is wise and vital and it permanently replaces a cloud of endless litigation with the promise of a collaborative future. Thank you for your time.
▶ 0:47:49Chair Murkowski: Thank you chairman and the letters of support will be included as part of the record. Thank you. We next turned to chairman grubbe, welcome.
▶ 0:48:01Chairman Grahame: -- grubbe: good afternoon. I'm chairman of the agua caliente band of cahuilla indians. Thank you for allowing me to testify in support of s.4417.
▶ 0:48:25Chairman Grahame: The bill secures water supply for agua caliente and strengthens tribal self-sufficiency and water security for the entire coachella valley. For millennia my tribe has inhabited land in and around palm springs, california. Today, our reservation is 34,000 acres and includes large portions of palm springs, cathedral city in rancho mirage.
▶ 0:48:55Chairman Grahame: The tribe and the non-indian community rely upon the same groundwater supplies. In the desert, service water is scarce and almost all the water consumed in the region comes from the aquifer. Non-indian groundwater mining and in their fear and swear resources accelerated with the department of palm springs after world war ii.
▶ 0:49:19Chairman Grahame: Water levels in the upper valley wells dropped 50-100 feet between the 1950's and the 1970's substantially increasing the cost of accessing water. We estimate the cost of 174,000 acre-feet of groundwater in storage -- loss of 174,000 acre-feet of groundwater in storage.
▶ 0:49:42Chairman Grahame: To preserve it for the future, we filed against the coachella valley water district and the water agency. In 2017, agua caliente received a landmark ruling that federal indian tribes have rights to groundwater. The tribe, the water districts, and the united states reached a settlement.
▶ 0:50:14Chairman Grahame: It quantifies when the state of california declares the tribe will charge a fee for its water related projects.
▶ 0:50:44Chairman Grahame: When the water districts deliver water own of the reservations, they will collect a fee. A memorandum of cooperation between the agua caliente and the water districts details the tribe's active involvement in the management of the groundwater. The tribal use.
▶ 0:51:17Chairman Grahame: S.4368 establishes a 500 million dollars water settlement trust agua caliente fund to allocated as follows. $300 million for the tribal water infrastructure facilities and conservation projects. $100 million for water supply projects in districts that support water levels under the reservation. $50 million for water management funds supporting the role as a water manager can purveyor.
▶ 0:51:54Chairman Grahame: It not only confirms the water right, it ensures it will have an active role in the coachella valley vital to our own water agency for the first time in its history. This provides increased water stability for all valley residents. On behalf of the agua caliente, I respectfully request this congress passes the agua caliente water right settlement act as soon as possible.
▶ 0:52:21Chair Murkowski: Thank you, chairman. Last, we will hear from councilmember chacon. >> good afternoon, chairman murkowski, vice chairman schatz, and members of the committee, I'm honored to serve as a member of the tribal council of the band of indians --pechanga band of indians. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of s.4417.
▶ 0:52:52Chair Murkowski: Before I discuss the bill I would like to take a moment to explain why this legislation is so important to my tribe. Water is not simply a natural resource for the pechanga people. It is part of our identity. Our ancestors have lived in what is now the to macula valley since time immemorial.
▶ 0:53:10Chair Murkowski: More than 150 years ago after our people were forcibly removed from our ancestral village, they rebuilt the community around a small spring in the hills, that spring gave our tribe life during one of the darkest chapters in our history and it gave our tribe its name. It means at the place where water drips. Today, that same connection continues to define who we are.
▶ 0:53:37Chair Murkowski: We have a responsibility to protect it not only for ourselves for our children, her grandchildren and generations of pechanga people who will come long after we are gone. That responsibility is what brings me here today. I want to thank senator padilla for introducing the legislation and senator schiff are joining on as an original cosponsor.
▶ 0:54:00Chair Murkowski: We deeply appreciate their commitment to honoring the promises congress made when it approved the pechanga water settlement. After decades of litigation, negotiation, congress enacted our water settlement in 2016, the product of years of collaboration between, neighboring water districts, and the united states and recognized our water rights, resolve long-standing disputes and established a cooperative framework for protecting water resources throughout the santa
▶ 0:54:30Chair Murkowski: Margarita river watershed. Nearly 10 years later, that settlement is working, but as often happens with legislation implementing complex indian water settlements, practical experience has revealed two narrow technical issues that should be corrected so the settlement can function as congress intended it to. These are not controversial.
▶ 0:54:54Chair Murkowski: They have been developed collaboratively with rancho california water district, eastern municipal water district and the metropolitan water district of southern california. All of these settlement partners support s.4417. The first amendment updates the definition of the reservation to ensure that pechanga can use its existing water right on continuous trust lands within the santa margarita river watershed that have been or may later be taken into trust.
▶ 0:55:22Chair Murkowski: This amendment does not increase our water right, it simply ensures that the water right congress already recognized can be used on the reservation. We face new water quality challenges including contaminants such as pfas.
▶ 0:55:55Chair Murkowski: This provides existing settlement funds can be used for water quality issues rather than limiting those funds to a single-purpose envisioned nearly a decade ago. Again, this amendment simply allows existing funds to be used more effectively to protect water resources. S.4417 contains two changes that are truly technical amendments to our original water settlement.
▶ 0:56:21Chair Murkowski: It does not reopen our settlement, it does not alter the negotiated balance among the parties, it does not expand our water rights and it does not ask -- require additional appropriations. Instead, it honors the agreement congress approved -- approved in 2016 by assuring the settlement can serve the purposes congress intended for pechanga and neighboring water agencies and future generations.
▶ 0:56:47Chair Murkowski: On behalf of the pechanga band of indians, I respectfully ask the committee to approve s.4417 and advance it to the full senate. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I would be happier -- happy to answer any questions.
▶ 0:57:03Chair Murkowski: Thank all of you for your testimony, I would like to begin with the yavapai-apache water rights settlement and I would like to address my first question to you, Mr. cameron. Under the bill, approximately $1.04 billion in mandatory funding, $731 million-plus for the pipeline.
▶ 0:57:32Chair Murkowski: 152-plus million for the drinking water system, $156 million in additional trust accounts. Interior states these two principal projects are supported only by less than feasibility estimates and has warned that similar estimates have resulted in substantial cost overruns. The bill also indexes amounts from cost fluctuations and unforeseen market volatility.
▶ 0:58:00Chair Murkowski: Can you share with the committee what level of engineering or design has been completed for the pipeline and for the drinking water system? What is the expected range of uncertainty in these estimates?
▶ 0:58:17Mr. Cameron: As is often the case when we move ahead with water rights settlements based on an appraisal level study as opposed to a full-blown feasibility study, the cost is typically dramatically underestimated.
▶ 0:58:35Mr. Cameron: So one of our concerns is that of congress were to move ahead with this bill in the absence of a feasibility study, both the committee and the administration and the tribes would find out several years from now that we significantly underestimated what the costs were to the united states.
▶ 0:59:05Chair Murkowski: Basically they need additional feasibility work to get to a more reliable estimate of cost?
▶ 0:59:07Mr. Cameron: Exactly, so there are no surprises on the part of anyone.
▶ 0:59:17Chair Murkowski: Interior states the required pipeline capacity exceeds the water right claims by nearly 40%. The legislation would require capacity for at least 6836 acre-feet annually for the nation and up to 1912 acre-feet for county communities, so how much of the additional capacity benefits for nontribal users rather than the nation?
▶ 0:59:48Chair Murkowski: And can you give a committee the quantity claimed by the united states, the quantify for the nation under the settlement and the proposed design capacity? I know these are all more technical but if you have those details I think the committee would appreciate those.
▶ 1:00:02Mr. Cameron: I will have to get back to you on the precise numbers there, madam chairman. What I can certainly say is that our initial estimate is approximately 40% of the benefits of the pipeline and the benefits are shouldn't there be cost sharing from those non-indian parties?
▶ 1:00:33Mr. Cameron: If those projects were to move ahead as originally sized. That is a significant question. Absent a feasibility study, it is hard to put particular numbers either on that percentage. Our best estimate right now, but if we had a feasibility study, we would have that.
▶ 1:00:59Mr. Cameron: As much of that detail as you can provide, that would be appreciated. Why is this settlement such a big deal really? And you mentioned perhaps the need for cost share. What specific pipeline costs should local users pay and what level would satisfy the department here?
▶ 1:01:26Mr. Cameron: As a general principle, in reclamation law, people who benefit from water or power should be paying the treasury back for the treasury's investment in that water and power.
▶ 1:01:42Mr. Cameron: So to the extent that non-indian parties would benefit from part of the cost of this project, the expectation would be that they would be repaying the treasury over time for the benefits they received as is true of all reclamation projects as a general rule across the country.
▶ 1:02:02Chair Murkowski: So, chairman, I've got a couple questions but my time has expired so I will turn to the vice chair.
▶ 1:02:10Sen. Schatz: Thank you, chair murkowski. Secretary cameron, quick first question, so a preliminary assessment always comes in low and you do the feasibility study and it is always more than that, is that fair to say?
▶ 1:02:29Sec. Cameron: That's a pretty accurate generalization.
▶ 1:02:32Sen. Schatz: How calm? That doesn't seem like it is something we should accept as a statute or the weather. Can't you change your internal process so it is not reliably coming in under and therefore not a particularly useful number?
▶ 1:02:45Sec. Cameron: It largely depends upon the way the work is conducted at an appraisal level. It is almost at the risk of oversimplifying a desktop exercise where the feasibility level you are walking the ground, you are doing geophysical and geological explorations, you are doing soil testing.
▶ 1:03:06Sen. Schatz: But like on capital improvement projects, you have contingency. For instance in the honolulu area rapid transit, you have a 30% contingency between inflation and supply chain shocks, time, value, money, the rest of it, it is going to be more. Why can't we at least have some little equation that set of gets this thing closer to where we all know it is going to be so the number we get given is closer to the number?
▶ 1:03:36Sec. Cameron: You raise a good point. Building and management and contingency as is standard practice in project management.
▶ 1:03:45Sen. Schatz: Is it a standard practice for you?
▶ 1:03:48Sec. Cameron: I can't tell you what the percentage we normally use.
▶ 1:03:52Sen. Schatz: You get the question, right?
▶ 1:03:55Sec. Cameron: I get the question.
▶ 1:03:57Sen. Schatz: Can we work together? I know it is not the main thing but if you are trying to figure out how much money you need and then it ends up relying a bleeping 1.9%, that seems like it is something we ought to be able to fix. That's not a criticism of inflation or supply chain risks, we want to be able to rely upon the number you give us. We have to go to appropriators to get this thing down and fit is really just two thirds of the money, we lose our credibility.
▶ 1:04:28Sen. Schatz: Let me move on from that. In march, you testified the current funding is not adequate to complete the enacted settlements much less pay for the 16 pending before congress right now. I'm considering a bill that could be used by bor or boh. With that help interior pay for the settlements?
▶ 1:04:50Sec. Cameron: As a general principle the administration prefers to pay for settlements through discretionary appropriations. We feel that gives the executive branch and the congress more control on the annual basis in response to the actual, on the ground funding needs. But we are obviously happy to implement any statute that the congress chooses to enact.
▶ 1:05:13Sen. Schatz: Several members of this committee have proposed ways to pay for indian water rights settlements but this administration has not really responded in writing either with ta or policy advice on senator lujan's bill or the one I'm considering and I'm wondering if you can work with our teams? This is clearly a broken system. The estimating is wrong, we are way short, and then it is not as though you save money by shorting projects.
▶ 1:05:43Sen. Schatz: If a project can't be completed, the time value of money and inflation, you end up with lots of difficulty. It is not cheaper to only partially funded project. I get the idea of congress having a tactile control over which projects get funded. I understand that peace and I get that the variation of cost is inevitable.
▶ 1:06:08Sen. Schatz: But I think this is a broken system and I'm hoping you can give us some ta on I don't care if it is my good friend senator lujan's bill or mine or anyone else's, but we have to normalize this so it is not goofy where you sort of have to do politics to get a water rights settlement funded. Sometimes you get them funded, sometimes you don't, sometimes there's a requirement for a pay for, this is no way to run a railroad especially since these are obligations we have under treaties.
▶ 1:06:38Sec. Cameron: I agree with you, senator. We very much look forward to working with you and the chairman and senator lujan and other colleagues to figure out a smarter way to manage these things going forward. We owe it to you and to the drives and to the american people to do a more reliable estimate and as you indicated, the longer these things drag out, the higher the price tag on the projects becomes.
▶ 1:07:09Sec. Cameron: So, coming up with the right estimate the first time and expeditiously funding it is in everybody's best interest.
▶ 1:07:15Sen. Schatz: Thank you.
▶ 1:07:17Chair Murkowski: Thank you for raising that. We had a hearing previously this year on a water settlement and the conclusion of that and I'm looking at my friend from new mexico here, we have an obligation to address these. Right now, we don't have a lot of good answers in terms of how we are paying for it.
▶ 1:07:45Chair Murkowski: I happen to be chairman of the interior appropriations committee as well and believe me, when we are talking about what this means for our accounts , 13 billion dollars is kind of eye-popping when you are looking at it from the perspective of where you find that within the budget.
▶ 1:08:07Chair Murkowski: This is a hearing specific to a handful of these water settlements, but I think you are correct in pointing out we have a bigger structural flaw trying to wrestle to the ground. Senator rounds.
▶ 1:08:20Senator Rounds: Thank you, madam chair, and welcome to our panelists. Three of you are off the hook with me, all of my questions are for Mr. cameron and they are along the same lines as co-chair schatz has with regard to some other projects. These are items I offered and I think my team has sent you the list of questions I have today so that you would be prepared or at least have the opportunity Mr. cameron to be able to respond. Mr.
▶ 1:08:50Senator Rounds: Cameron, the water investment in the northern south dakota project, the winds project, is vital to aberdeen and the surrounding area. Funding for phase 2 was included in fy 26. While I appreciate the progress made so far and being concerned about the pace of the bureau of reclamation has taken to obligate construction funds. Can you provide an update on when reclamation expects to obligate construction funds?
▶ 1:09:20Sec. Cameron: I'm happy to report we are on schedule. I'm glad to be able to give you a little bit of good news.
▶ 1:09:31Sen. Rounds: Would you also be able to provide us with what that schedule looks like if I ask for it in a uf are, please?
▶ 1:09:40Sec. Cameron: Absolutely, sir.
▶ 1:09:43Sen. Rounds: It sounds like we should be able to get that back in terms of dates. Also, I introduced the dakota mainstem water supply project feasibility act which would authorize a feasibility project for the mainstem regional water system and I have cosponsored legislation that would cosponsor re-disability -- feasibility studies.
▶ 1:10:12Sen. Rounds: Airing the senate energy and national resources, provisions were added to each bill that requires reclamation to identify sources of available appropriated funds to pay the federal share of these feasibility studies. My question for you today is do you believe that reclamation has sufficient funding to support these feasibility studies as well as other feasibility studies marked out by the energy and national resources committee?
▶ 1:10:41Sec. Cameron: I think we can find the cash to do those feasibility studies and I want to commend you for introducing legislation to do feasibility studies as opposed to jumping ahead and trying to authorize a project without the benedetto feasibility studies.
▶ 1:10:56Sen. Rounds: Eventually I think we need to combine two parts of it together and that would say probably a couple years in the development of some of these projects. We want to make sure we do it correctly. Finally, section 120 of the house transportation and infrastructure committee reported water resources development act contains, it contains a concerning provision.
▶ 1:11:24Sen. Rounds: This is the one that is in the house. It contains a concerning provision that prohibits the diversion of water from the missouri river or any of its tributaries to a state outside of the watershed unless such diversion is approved by the governor of each of the missouri river states. In effect granting veto authority to a single state overwater projects in the region.
▶ 1:11:52Sen. Rounds: How would the adoption of this provision impact existing and future indian water rights settlements and does the bureau of reclamation have concerns about this specific provision?
▶ 1:12:03Sec. Cameron: Senator, we are always concerned about any situation where the congress with steve -- would seem to inject itself into state water law regulation. We seem that is a high risk proposition. For indians and non-indians.
▶ 1:12:22Sec. Cameron: On its face, it would seem that where that provision to become law it would at least create an awkward relationship among those various governors and probably slow down economic activity across the board in all of those states as they might be tempted into a tit-for-tat exercise.
▶ 1:12:37Sen. Rounds: I recognize that downstream states would be concerned about upstream states on the missouri perhaps sending water or selling water to other states way outside the region. My concern is that number one I'm not sure we have a veto authority, but second of all if there is any reason that items that are on the missouri river basin, that there are other ways to work this out and I'm thinking in particular about some of the projects we have
▶ 1:13:08Sen. Rounds: Already done that include states like minnesota who may not be considered part, they are only a few miles away from the missouri but they may not be considered part of that watershed. I have concerns about that and I just wanted to draw to your attention and perhaps there is another alternative that might work better than the legislation in the house today.
▶ 1:13:25Sec. Cameron: Thank you for bringing that to our attention. We were aware of it and we have some real concerns about it.
▶ 1:13:32Sen. Rounds: Thank you. Thank you, madam chair.
▶ 1:13:35Chair Murkowski: Senator lujan.
▶ 1:13:38Senator Lujan: Thank you one welcome to our two chairmen today and councilwoman, thank you for taking time to travel and help everyone understand the importance and urgency of what needs to happen at home. Secretary cameron, thank you for being here as well. Thank you for your support and releasing the $120 million for the navajo pipeline settlement as well.
▶ 1:14:02Senator Lujan: Thank you for your work in that space and I appreciate that the administration has provided testimony today I appreciate the support of the technical fix to the litigation settlement act as well.
▶ 1:14:18Senator Lujan: As you aware the problem is a hard june 30, 2028 deadline and current law the interior solicitor said could move construction to a halt even though every party wants the opposite, the legislation bill of s.3573 supports the settlement parties and would allow them to agree jointly on a new completion date. With president settlements like the navajo gallup it adds no cost to the federal government and allows construction to continue.
▶ 1:14:48Senator Lujan: The bill supported by all four pueblos, santa fe county, the state of new mexico. Madam chair I have letters from those entities for the record. Secretary cameron I want to confirm your support.
▶ 1:15:02Sec. Cameron: Senator, absolutely. We are very happy to support these type of amendments which make a lot of sense and I appreciate your leadership and help to make it happen.
▶ 1:15:15Sen. Lujan: I appreciate that an urge the committee to move forward with this bill, s.3573. I want to acknowledge senator mark heinrich from new mexico with his work on the legislation as well. Mr. cameron, with all the conversation today, there has been a lot of attention brought to the number of pending water settlements, binding federal commitments to communities with no guaranteed funding source for any of the settlements that were enacted after 2021.
▶ 1:15:48Sen. Lujan: My legislation protecting indian water rights settlement act s.4890 fixes that by creating two dedicated subaccounts within the completion fund. The first, for new and continuing settlements in $45 million for ongoing obligations. As has been expressed by colleagues on both sides, it is about keeping or word as the U.S.
▶ 1:16:11Sen. Lujan: Government to our tribal brothers and sisters, to our first nations, as required by treaties and the constitution. Water that they were promised. Mr. cameron, your testimony notes the department relies on congress to appropriate funds necessary to reach enforceability through the annual budget process.
▶ 1:16:35Sen. Lujan: But your testimony also referenced $13 billion in pending settlement obligations the annual appropriations process has not kept pace with. The indian water rights settlement completion fund is now exhausted. Given that, does interior believe a dedicated, mandatory funding stream like the one in s.4890 is a better vehicle than relying on annual discretionary appropriations, or does the department have a different mechanism in mind?
▶ 1:17:05Sec. Cameron: Senator, again, I want to reiterate my appreciation for joining us on the problem here. We appreciate that very much. As a matter of policy, the administration does prefer to deal with these very real obligations the U.S. has through the appropriations process. That is where we are coming out.
▶ 1:17:32Sec. Cameron: That said, congress to pass a bill and the president to sign it to produce a stream of mandatory spending, we would be very happy to implement the law.
▶ 1:17:45Sen. Lujan: Appreciated. Mr. secretary and madam chair as you pointed out with some of our predecessors on the committee who sought support from the custom user fees, I have separate legislation that mirrors this, referred to the finance committee, that also points to customer user fees. To the point of secretary cameron, yourself, senator schatz, trying to find a solution here is we are all working toward that.
▶ 1:18:14Sen. Lujan: With that, secretary cameron, does interior have a view on whether a bill this size needs and identified paid for to move forward the department support this committee advancing new funding for settlements without one?
▶ 1:18:30Sec. Cameron: At the very highest level we are interested in managing the size of the growing federal deficit. Anything that can be done to reduce the financial exposure to the american taxpayers at large is worth considering. We haven't taken a position on specific pay for.
▶ 1:18:54Sec. Cameron: I look forward to seeing how the administration testifies on the bill before the finance committee, but I'm not in a position to offer an opinion on a pay force at this time.
▶ 1:19:05Sen. Lujan: Madam chair as my time expires here, I have been part of conversations in the past to understand the accounting when it -- what counts as a pay for, and what will take away from a pay for, and how that can be utilized and someone suggested if the U.S. is addressing liabilities the U.S. has that that creates pay fors.
▶ 1:19:35Sen. Lujan: All these water settlements great a pay for for something everyone else wants to do. I know that is one person's view of accounting with the federal government, but it should be on the table as all the smart people in the room, I would challenge you all to help me understand what I just talked about in a way. Does not hold water or not? Is this one of those tools [indiscernible] thank you for the time.
▶ 1:20:03Chair Murkowski: Thank you, senator. One with think we make that determination sometimes that black hole of omb. But you have put something out on the table for us all to think about. I appreciate that you are really looking to explore different ways we need to keep commitments for these water settlements. Senator armstrong.
▶ 1:20:34Chair Murkowski: [indiscernible] simple armstrong is owed $136 million and no one disagrees with that.
▶ 1:20:55Chair Murkowski: If we owe money we owe money and shouldn't be talking about if you owed me money and said, I have to go back to my wife and figure this out how I will pay you, I would say tough, you owe me the money. So I fully support you on that and appreciate the first nations here are probably really frustrated with those answers so I'm sympathetic to that issue and think it deserves a good answer so thanks for raising that.
▶ 1:21:25Chair Murkowski: Back to the yavapai apache water settlements, I'm really confused over if we know we are over building it and yet we know there are water right claims the tribe has come how do we get there? How do we get to a point where we agree we are over building it and yet are not following through with the obligation to provide the water rights for the tribe? Mr. cameron if you could respond.
▶ 1:21:55Sec. Cameron: The department had not signed off on the notion that the project capacity should be 40% bigger than we thought the need is. The various parties, state and local government and the tribe, have come up with their proposal on their own and this is the first time this administration has been able to testify on the bill.
▶ 1:22:23Sec. Cameron: The previous administration I think expressed similar concerns about the price tag and the size, and potential oversize of the project. That is how we ended up here.
▶ 1:22:39Sen. Armstrong: So, maybe chairman -- I understand the tribe wants to enforce its rights to have clean water but to the degree the expansion of the project is what is holding it up, how do you -- seems like you would want to get your water rights resolved, and not worry about all the other auxiliary needs complicating the project. Could you respond how we got there?
▶ 1:23:09Sec. Cameron: Thank you, senator armstrong. Great question. I believe it is important we continue to work together with the department of interior and understand more about these challenges being presented.
▶ 1:23:26Sec. Cameron: Rather than looking at it from what we already garnered in these partnerships in understanding there're additional benefits to be gained from it, I think it is important we come to the table and as mentioned about the feasibility, when we look at it from the feasibility aspect and look at the technical pieces of it, this would help us understand about what is being discussed today
▶ 1:23:57Sec. Cameron: And through these technical feasibility's and getting to the cost associated with that, that is where these questions will be answered in terms of sizing. But I also would like to point out that our additional parties that could benefit from this and looking at what is currently happening within the wert he valley -- verde valley with depletion of resources, this will be critical for their
▶ 1:24:29Sec. Cameron: Survival. We have three municipal wells across verde that are in dire need of having to go into the aquifers. It is concerning because we are all connected to the same aquifer. When we look at it and from the perspective of what is happening underneath the ground water and trying to preserve what is there and try to replenish it, this will be critical.
▶ 1:24:59Sen. Armstrong: To follow up, you would agree it is reasonable for the U.S. to say, we only owe you for this amount of water rights on one hand, but on the other it is a total community need that needs to be addressed and that is what leads you wanting to make sure the project is adequate to serve the whole valley?
▶ 1:25:22Mr. Rocha: I think it is important is technical feasibility Mr. cameron is talking about allows us to reassess over all and continue to work together collaborate -- collaboratively on what Mr. cameron has identified as a challenge or concerned by the federal government.
▶ 1:25:41Sen. Armstrong: Thank you, I yield my time.
▶ 1:25:44Chair Murkowski: Thank you, senator armstrong. That was going to be one of my questions for you, how you reconcile the different figures. You stated the pipeline has to be capable of delivering 8 -- 6836 acre for the nation, yet in the testimony it was -- and the adjudication claim was 4900.
▶ 1:26:10Chair Murkowski: So we are looking at those numbers and saying, where is the discrepancy here? And perhaps it has to do with conveyance losses or peak demand or water not consumptive lee used but understanding all that would be helpful for us as we work through this with you and with the department.
▶ 1:26:37Chair Murkowski: Interior also suggests existing on reservation water resources may satisfy much of the nation's future demand. Your testimony goes a different direction. You speak to the fact the aquifer is declining in both quantity and quality. The wells are failing to meet current demand. And one municipal well has to be significantly deepened.
▶ 1:27:05Chair Murkowski: In your view, is continued reliance on groundwater just not a sustainable option for the nation?
▶ 1:27:15Mr. Rocha: Thank you, madam chair. It is not a sustainable option. If we were to look at it from the perspective of in perpetuity of us being on this reservation, water resources are declining across the southwest. My fellow colleagues are in the same situation. We are in a critical status of, we are not going to leave the land, now our homelands.
▶ 1:27:44Mr. Rocha: To have this critical resource we need in order to survive, in order to flourish, along with our community, surrounding communities, it is critically important to address this now. All this new information has come about in the last two months. I think the drought has significantly impacted every community across the southwest, but we are feeling it today. I have acknowledged this and had communications with our surrounding communities and understand the urgency we have right now.
▶ 1:28:15Mr. Rocha: It is going to be a critical point where we have to import water at some point. This is a reality. I think it is a reality for all communities across the southwest, about how to better the water resources.
▶ 1:28:30Chair Murkowski: You mentioned the importation of additional water. Helps to reduce groundwater pumping. We understand that, but how much you were actually able to do there and how that balances out. I want to turn to you, chairman grubbe.
▶ 1:28:59Chair Murkowski: I had an opportunity to speak with folks from the agua caliente tribe. I've seen the map, the big checkerboard map, that is this pattern of tribal trust and non-indian fee lands. Because of that you have an unusual situation of tribal fees, replacement taxation and the settlement. Interior calls some of these provisions a little bit novel.
▶ 1:29:31Chair Murkowski: I don't know if that means good, bad or indifferent. Are these provisions meant to be tailored to the circumstances that are perhaps unique in the coachella valley, or are they intended to establish a broader precedent concerning indian and tribal taxing and regulatory authority over non-indians? How did these provisions come to be included in this water settlement bill?
▶ 1:30:00Mr. Grubbe: Thank you, madam chair. I appreciate that question. It is an important question. Especially dealing with the uniqueness of agua caliente. It is a little checkerboard that spans over three different cities.
▶ 1:30:18Mr. Grubbe: Going through this settlement, working with the water agencies, this was a means, as a sovereign nation, we have the right to run our own government and one of the primary functions of a government is to collect taxes for the betterment of the community. When I say community, not just our tribe and members, but the community the tribe spans across, the three cities.
▶ 1:30:42Mr. Grubbe: It was a way to collect revenues the county was already collecting, that the tribe now collects and we decide where it goes in our community for the city. Riverside county is a very large county.
▶ 1:30:58Mr. Grubbe: The moneys collected went through other areas of the county that were not an exact benefit to those in the coachella valley, so this was an opportunity for us to collect that money and really spend it for the betterment of the coachella valley.
▶ 1:31:13Chair Murkowski: Do see this more as somewhat specific to what you are doing in coachella other than broader precedent? In other areas?
▶ 1:31:28Mr. Grubbe: I don't think every tribe has that or delete -- has that ability to do what we are doing but that doesn't mean I'm trying to take away -- every tribe has their sovereign right to do things so if it makes sense, this is important and it may be a popular president we are setting to help other travel communities.
▶ 1:31:54Chair Murkowski: Let me ask before my time expires, under the bill you are transferring about 2742 of blm managed land into trust for the agua caliente band. You included this transfer in the water rights settlement though the bill provides water rights associated with the transferred lands are not added to the tribes quantified settlement water rights.
▶ 1:32:22Chair Murkowski: So why does the tribe need these particular blm lands transferred into trust, and why is the land transfer an important part of the water rights settlement?
▶ 1:32:33Mr. Grubbe: That is another good question. It is more of a formality. The water districts were having to go back and get permissions or whatever it was. They had to keep going back and asking, asking, asking. This was part of the settlement that they wouldn't have to do that any longer.
▶ 1:32:52Chair Murkowski: Senator hoeven.
▶ 1:32:56Sen. Hoeven: Thank you, madam chair, secretary cameron. The court ordered resources act is very important in our state and it is a win-win for the federal government and north dakota. We want to know that you continue to support not only the dakota water resources act, but also the amendment.
▶ 1:33:28Sen. Hoeven: We got a start on it this year $158 billion and the use of the canal that saves not only the state of north dakota 200 million dollars, saves the federal government. It is already constructed and in great condition. An expanse where we don't have to put pipeline in the ground. Operating costs as well. So it is a win-win project.
▶ 1:33:57Sen. Hoeven: The energy and natural communities committee unanimously approved that last month, which is supported by all five tribes, or more tribes than that. The tribes that represent the five reservations in our state. My question is, will you continue to work with us, not only our state, but our tribes, to pass this critical legislation?
▶ 1:34:25Sec. Cameron: Yes, sunder. I would beat -- senator. I would be happy to. Look forward to working with you on that.
▶ 1:34:35Sen. Hoeven: Does that include you coming to our great state to actually see the work we are doing and what remains to be done?
▶ 1:34:42Sec. Cameron: The secretary looks for every opportunity to send political leadership to the great state of north dakota and alaska. [laughter]
▶ 1:34:49Sen. Hoeven: Good, he can help you navigational he -- navigationally. He knows the way. Would love to have you here this summer.
▶ 1:35:00Sec. Cameron: Appreciate the kind offer and look forward to taking advantage of it one of these days.
▶ 1:35:05Sen. Hoeven: We hope one of these days like soon. I'm getting older. I'm not young like the chairman anymore.
▶ 1:35:12Sec. Cameron: I'm getting older, too.
▶ 1:35:15Sec. Cameron: That means sooner versus later. 1960, the standing rock sioux tribe was relocated when their lands were flooded by the army corps for a reservoir on the missouri river.
▶ 1:35:31Sec. Cameron: In 1985 the secretary of interior pointed a garrison unit joint committee to recommend equitable compensation and congress authorized $90 million under the three affiliated tribes, the act of1992. They acknowledged additional compensation would be necessary to address the tribe's infrastructure needs.
▶ 1:35:58Sec. Cameron: 2007, the government accountability office confirmed this, justifying the tribe's additional compensation should have been up to $170 billion. The tribe is currently looking at how additional compensation funds can be used to fund current needs like an updated health care facility in fort yates. I will pause for a minute so you can digest that. I know you were listening intently and have.
▶ 1:36:25Sec. Cameron: Will the department work with us and the standing rock sioux tribe to determine if additional funds will be made available to help the tribe address its current community needs, and that is a hospital?
▶ 1:36:36Sec. Cameron: Yes sir, definitely. We eagerly look forward to figuring out how this will work out with you.
▶ 1:36:43Sec. Cameron: The tribe is very committed to this and I think we have done a lot of work in rural north dakota with rural development on updating and building critical access hospitals. That is off reservation. This reservation covers a bigger area then north dakota.
▶ 1:37:14Sec. Cameron: It is both states so you are helping us figure something out, that would be another visit we could make when you come this summer.
▶ 1:37:25Sec. Cameron: I will start making my plane reservations now and to alaska. [laughter]
▶ 1:37:30Sec. Cameron: It is kind of on the way to alaska. [laughter] >> it is.
▶ 1:37:37Sec. Cameron: Now, you will have to work in north dakota. But I know the chairman will take you fishing up in alaska. So that is incentive for you. But we might let you fish the missouri river. Really good fishing on the missouri river, too.
▶ 1:37:55Sec. Cameron: I have been advised by people who are well-informed that you are absolutely correct, sir.
▶ 1:38:00Sec. Cameron: I live on the river, it is fabulous. We can catch some salmon, but the one we catch a lot of and are famous for his walleye. No halibut. We catch many types of fish but no halibut so far.
▶ 1:38:17Chair Murkowski: I will put my salmon up against your walleye.
▶ 1:38:21Sec. Cameron: A very tasty contest.
▶ 1:38:26Sec. Cameron: I will be neutral on this debate if you don't mind.
▶ 1:38:31Chair Murkowski: Thank you, senator hoeven. I want to throw a question to you, Ms. chacon. You spoke to the two changes to the 2016 water settlement agreement, and why we now have this legislation in front of us.
▶ 1:38:55Chair Murkowski: You are seeking to expand the statutory of anish and in broad and uses -- definition and broaden uses. What were implementation problems under the 2016 settlement that has precipitated the need? What didn't work?
▶ 1:39:16Chair Murkowski: I get the fact we are making these two changes, but what happened with the settlement because I think we thought we got it right then, but now we know we need to make improvements. What happened with the implementation?
▶ 1:39:31Ms. Chacon: Thank you, chair murkowski for the question. In 2016, when our water settlement was enacted, pechanga has gone through land trust areas. So we can't get our ground to those areas. We purchased contiguous lands to our was a ration for critical tribal housing. We came into a snag because we can get water there. We would like to use groundwater to provide for that tribal housing. That was the first issue.
▶ 1:40:02Ms. Chacon: The second, when we were initially negotiating our water settlement, our main concern, pechanga's and the rancho california water district, sala nation -- salination was an issue. As you know pfas are an issue throughout california. This technical amendment does not require alternative or more appropriations. It simply broadens the water quality uses we can use this.
▶ 1:40:31Ms. Chacon: Pot of money for it just needs to expand because we don't know what will happen in the future and what new contaminants. 10 years ago nobody knew anything aboutpfas.
▶ 1:40:41Chair Murkowski: That helps, thank you. Back to you, Mr. cameron, and this will relate to s.4368 with the agua caliente band. This legislation would preempt riverside county's possessory interest tax when the tribe imposes its own tax.
▶ 1:41:09Chair Murkowski: It would not use a lower rate or assessed value, the tribe is required to distribute equivalent resources. Again the interior described this as a novel provision involving preemption of state and local tax law. Have we seen this tax replacement structure in any previous indian water settlements you are aware of?
▶ 1:41:33Sec. Cameron: Not to my knowledge, madam chair. It easy you need and merits discussion and attention. Probably with a whole bunch of lawyers to figure out there are significant -- chair murkowski: is there a concern you could establish precedent for respective taxing authorities for tribes and states and counties on reservation lands? Is this what we are concerned about?
▶ 1:42:01Sec. Cameron: Exactly, that is the precedent I think we need to think through, about whether or not we are creating a long-term issue, long-term expectation, long-term potential problem.
▶ 1:42:15Chair Murkowski: Do you think you need additional provisions that govern assessments, the collections, audits and the like? And as you are looking at the payments they go to schools and public service entities?
▶ 1:42:31Sec. Cameron: We would like to sit down and talk with the tribe, talk with the affected local governments, and make sure we fully understand what is being contemplated here. And thoroughly think through what the implications might be. Especially in terms of precedents.
▶ 1:42:50Chair Murkowski: What I think the chairperson indicated, it is not this go broader beyond the coachella valley, but to your point about how the parties are sitting down and discussing this, along with the many lawyers in the room that are looking at the specific wording involved of the proposal is important as well.
▶ 1:43:13Sec. Cameron: I appreciate the chairman's attitude, but just because he is not intending to create a president -- precedent, does not mean somebody somewhere else might not think it is a precedent, so we have to be careful.
▶ 1:43:29Chair Murkowski: The bill also provides $500 million in and tori federal funding, $100 million for groundwater, $50 million for onm, indexed for cost changes in market volatility. Your interior has expressed concern about the size of the federal contribution, but does not explain your own evaluation of the settlement. Can you give me more about the concerns that you have here?
▶ 1:44:03Sec. Cameron: A couple points. As a general principle we prefer using discretionary appropriations as opposed to mandatory funding. What caught our attention, the $50 million for tribal water rights administration. The tribe already has a sophisticated and effective mechanism for tribal water rights administration so we are wondering why there needs to be another $50 million.
▶ 1:44:33Sec. Cameron: Then there is the broader question of, is $500 million the right number? There seems to be a tendency of a number of water rights legislation in the last year or so to come in at a $500 million price tag. I would like to have more of a from the ground up number, rather than wondering if a number is picked without an analytical basis for it.
▶ 1:45:05Sec. Cameron: We would like to explore the analytical basis for this number.
▶ 1:45:06Chair Murkowski: Fair enough. It goes back to the original comments from senator schatz about getting greater fidelity to numbers, and given the size and consequence of the settlements we are talking about, that seems to make good sense, but it also requires good communication going back and forth, which is part of why we are putting this out on the record today.
▶ 1:45:39Chair Murkowski: We sometimes talk here in congress about indian water settlements only in terms of acreage fee, project waivers and the like. But I would throw this out to you, chairman rocha and chairman grubbe.
▶ 1:46:02Chair Murkowski: What these water settlements mean in practical terms for a family, a yavapai-apache family or agua caliente family, and the ability to live in the area where your families have lived. We have talked about numbers.
▶ 1:46:30Chair Murkowski: Councilwoman if you want to quickly share for the committee what it means to family to have the settlements completed. Chairman?
▶ 1:46:40Mr. Rocha: Thank you, madam chair, for the question, which is really why we are here, to talk about the practical sense of what water represents to the people and what it means to our families. When we have that water resource, it means generations that can sustain practical, traditional, cultural ceremonies within these locations.
▶ 1:47:06Mr. Rocha: I talk about the wert he river -- verde river and how important it is to our practices, how we are passing traditions onto our children and additional generations. What does it mean to have these families come back home and have a water resource so they can continue to build homes. That is important for generations to come.
▶ 1:47:32Mr. Rocha: The other aspect of this, not just speaking specifically to families but also presents an opportunity for economic developments. An opportunity to exercise our sovereignty, to really know where the meaning of sovereignty lies, it is in the resource we have and apply to our systems.
▶ 1:47:55Mr. Rocha: That is why it is so critical this water is important not only to our people but also the community and eventually through economic development we can support surrounding communities as well. That is the most important piece.
▶ 1:48:12Mr. Rocha: It is not just looking at it from the lens of, this is to benefit members as well, but if you look at it from the economic lens and how it can benefit overall the entire area, this speaks volumes to what the overall water rights and asking for congress to consider.
▶ 1:48:38Mr. Rocha: When it means also, as you asked for what it means to the families, it is so critically important for those generations. I hope that my great, great, great grandchildren will be able to live on a reservation. As of right now only about 55% of our tribe is able to live on a reservation due to the resources we have capable for expanding our reservation boundaries for homes.
▶ 1:49:09Mr. Rocha: Once we have those resources we can continue to expand our reservation and complement that with coming home.
▶ 1:49:17Mr. Grubbe: Thank you, that is a good question, madam chairwoman. For agua caliente, we have been rate payers. We have never been given a seat at the table to govern one of the most precious resources in the valley, the water. We look at things from the past, present and future.
▶ 1:49:42Mr. Grubbe: No disrespect to the water agencies, but they prepare for the next five to 10 years. Being able to have a seat at the table to govern what happens the next 10, 20, 100 years is what my tribe wants. We want the ability to make sure the aquifer is being replenished, that the water is safe coming out. We want to look at ways to help the water agencies recoup, retain stormwater issues.
▶ 1:50:14Mr. Grubbe: There are ways to recapture, recycling water waste in the aquifer. We are looking at ways to replenish. Our waters sup -- settlement is unique. We have three cities, the state in the county all supportive of our settlement. No opposition. The p.I.t.
▶ 1:50:35Mr. Grubbe: Issue, we have worked with the county and they understand what they are doing, they understand what the tribes will do with it, there is an agreement there and I look forward to working with the administration, working out those issues are the $500 million was not picked out of nowhere. We have two water agencies that helped us come to the number. We worked with the administration to come to that number. We have paid consultants to help us get to that number.
▶ 1:51:04Mr. Grubbe: So we can justify where the $500 million came from. For us as a tribe, it is making sure we have a future for our children, grandchildren and so forth for their betterment and we understand it is not for our benefit directly, it is the coachella valley. We are 500 members that live in a community of tens of thousands of people. So we know decisions we make today that benefit us will benefit the communities we live in.
▶ 1:51:35Mr. Grubbe: We look at our history, what we have done. We have looked outwardly. We are very charitable. Look at all the tribes, the successes they had. It is not just about them supporting them, it is about giving back to the community, police, fire, school districts, etc. It is about having a seat at the table.
▶ 1:52:00Chair Murkowski: Thank you. Councilwoman, you get the final word.
▶ 1:52:05Ms. Chacon: Thank you. Our ancestral lands have been minimized over the years. We are not a huge land-based tribe and that is why we try to purchase any contiguous land we can on our reservation. Our people want to come home. Water is life to us. We need to make sure, pechanga means the place where water drips. Our people want to come home. We want to make sure they have water to live.
▶ 1:52:34Ms. Chacon: They were forcibly removed from their own homes and now they want to come back home. It is so good to see so many tribal members coming back, learning about their community, their culture, their language. We have to make sure water is there to sustain future generations. Thank you very much.
▶ 1:52:50Chair Murkowski: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your comments. The testimony you provided, the answers you shared, as other colleagues have additional questions, we will keep the record open for the next two weeks. But, I do appreciate the information that has been laid down today.
▶ 1:53:14Chair Murkowski: I do think this is a kick to all of us to say, what is a more workable approach. Whether it is the initial feasibility studies and getting greater fidelity to numbers earlier, upfront. Looking at the mandatory aspect, discretionary.
▶ 1:53:44Chair Murkowski: I didn't want to pin you down on what you think about how custom user fees because it is just one example of what a pay for can be. But I think senator lujan throughout, a very fair thing to think about. These are obligations, liabilities that the government owes. When we take a liability off the table, isn't that then a benefit?
▶ 1:54:13Chair Murkowski: How we look at these things matters. That is why I think it is very important that we also not lose sight of the human side of why it is important that we resolve these settlement issues because we can get caught up very easily in the weeds and forget the primary purpose, which is to ensure, as you say councilwoman, water is life, and how we are able to equitably balance and
▶ 1:54:47Chair Murkowski: Allocate that is a challenge you all are dealing with. We are right there with you. With that, the committee stands adjourned. Thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap.org]