S.953 Indian Water Rights Settlements for Navajo, Hopi, San Juan Southern Paiute

Good afternoon. We're going to call this hearing to order. Today we are examining Federal policies associated with Indian water rights settlements. We will have an opportunity to review S.953, the Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Act that has been introduced by our colleague, Senator Kelly. So welcome to the committee, Senator. For more than a century, disputes over water rights have endured in the American West. In regions where water is precious, questions about who is entitled to use it and in what quantity have shaped communities, economies, and landscapes. Tribal water rights are central to that story. Beginning with the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Winters v. United States, Federal law has recognized that when the United States established Indian reservations, it implicitly reserved sufficient water to fulfill the purposes of those reservations. These reserved rights are not simply policy choices. They arise from treaties, Federal actions, and the trust responsibility to tribal nations. Congress shares in the obligation to ensure those commitments are honored. At the same time, unresolved tribal water rights claims create uncertainty that extends beyond reservation boundaries. States, municipalities, irrigation districts, farmers, ranchers, and many others depend on clear and reliable water allocations. And when claims go unresolved, uncertainty can stall economic development, complicate water management, and strain relationships. And that's why negotiated settlements have long been recognized as the preferred path forward. Settlements allow parties to come together to craft durable solutions rather than spending decades in costly and uncertain litigation. As many in the West say, settlements deliver what we call wet water, not just paper rights. They provide tribes with the infrastructure and resources needed to actually access and use their water while also providing certainty and stability for non-tribal users who depend on the same systems. I appreciate that this administration has reaffirmed what many of us have long believed. Whenever possible, negotiated settlements are preferable to litigation. But we must also acknowledge a growing challenge. The Federal cost associated with Indian water rights settlements have increased dramatically in recent years. During development of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we focused on the delays that have plagued already authorized settlements. And we created the Indian Water Rights Settlement Completion Fund and provided $2.5 billion to help complete settlements that had been approved but lacked funding to move forward. 17 settlements received support from that fund, finally finishing work that had been pending for years or even decades. The bill that we are considering today, the Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, is a reminder that that job is not done. It seeks to resolve decades of litigation that has left the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, and the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe tied up in disputes over the waters of the Colorado River. For those tribes, this settlement is enormously important. The lack of access to clean water in native communities should shock us as Americans, particularly the effect on health. We remember the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 across Indian Country, where inadequate water and sanitation contributed to unconscionably high death rates of native people. Reliable access to clean water is foundational for public health and every aspect of life, including long-term economic opportunity. This bill will also provide certainty for all water users in Arizona who depend on the Colorado River system. But its estimated Federal cost, approximately $5 billion, is also double what we allocated under the infrastructure law. This is not the only water settlement proposal before Congress either. There are at least seven others under discussion with more likely to follow. So the question before us is clear. How do we continue to meet our solemn trust and treaty responsibilities while maintaining fiscal responsibility and balancing the many, many priorities that are facing Indian Country? And that's the conversation that we must have as we consider this legislation and think more broadly about the future of Indian water rights settlements in the years ahead. And with that, I turn to our Vice Chairman, Senator Schatz.

Thank you, Chair Murkowski, for convening today's hearing to discuss S.953 and to hear the administration's view on Indian water rights settlements. It is unacceptable that tribal communities in the 21st century still lack access to clean running water on their own lands, even though delivering water to tribal communities is a critical part of the trust responsibility. So Congress's obligation is to consider legislation that codifies Indian water rights settlement, and it is not optional. It's critical that the final, it's the critical final step to ensure our trust responsibilities are met. The tribes testifying today have done their part. They have spent decades in litigation, they have come to the negotiating table in good faith, they have made hard compromises and worked alongside states, Indian and non-Indian users, and the Federal agencies to produce finalized agreements. This is an extraordinary undertaking and it deserves an extraordinary response from this Congress. I have heard colleagues express concerns about the price tag of these settlements. I understand that fiscal responsibility remains a priority, but inaction carries a real risk. Every year that Congress fails to authorize and fund settlement agreements is another year that tribes and water users are faced with water uncertainty. We can't ask tribes to do the work of reaching a settlement and then leave them waiting indefinitely because Congress can't resolve its own disagreements over funding. Let's consider the alternative to funding water settlements: years of continued litigation at Federal and state taxpayer expense with no guarantees that the tribes will get what they're owed. And when a court decision does come down, the tribes still need to secure the funds from Congress. By that time, in some cases after decades, costs will only have grown. In short, the Federal government's liability does not disappear because we have declined to act. So the question before this committee is not whether we can afford to fund these settlements, it's how we fund them. To date, Congress has enacted 39 Indian water rights settlements with only 25 of them being fully funded. 14 more are pending before us, totaling more than $12 billion. Another 13 tribes are in active negotiations with Interior and moving towards settlements. Inaction is not an option. I urge my colleagues to move pending settlements like S.953 forward, authorize them, fund them. Give tribes, states, and water users in these basins the certainty that they need, not just for today, but for generations to come. The tribes have held up their end of the bargain, it is long past time for Congress to hold up ours. I want to thank the Chairman for convening this hearing and our witnesses for being here today.

Thank you, Vice Chair Schatz. I think I think we both recognize the obligation. It's how how we get there and that's why we're having these discussions here today. With that, as I mentioned, we have Senator Kelly here to make some remarks on his bill, but also to introduce the witnesses that we will have with us from Arizona. So Senator Kelly, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair Murkowski, Vice Chair Schatz. Thank you for holding today's hearing on the Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Act. It's my honor to introduce Navajo President Buu Nygren, Hopi Chairman Lamar Keevama, and San Juan Southern Paiute Vice President Johnny Lehi. President Nygren was elected to serve as the 10th Navajo Nation President in November 2022. President Nygren has a doctorate from the University of Southern California. He has been leading the Navajo Nation through the negotiation of the Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement. Chairman Keevama was elected to lead the Hopi Tribal Council in 2025. A former multi-term council member, he has worked extensively on water rights, energy policy, and economic development. He previously served as the manager of the Hopi Cultural Center and as a director of the Hopi Tribe Economic Development Corporation, reflecting a long record of leadership and service to the Hopi people. Vice President Lehi currently serves as the Vice President of the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe. He was first elected to the council in May of 2022 and served as President prior to his current role. Vice President Lehi is serving, as did his father, Johnny Lehi Sr., who was on the tribal council when the tribe was originally recognized in December of 1989 and who was the tribe's President when he negotiated and signed the land treaty in 2000. Access to clean, reliable water shouldn't be a question in the United States, but it still is for far too many families in Northeastern Arizona. On the Navajo Nation alone, roughly one in three homes does not have running water. The Hopi and San Juan Southern Paiute communities face similar challenges. This settlement is a major step forward, securing the tribes' water future while providing long-needed certainty for Arizona and the entire Colorado River Basin. Without it, uncertainty over tribal water claims will persist, affecting not only the tribes, but also the communities across the region that depend on clear and reliable water management. I also want to thank this committee for the hearing that you held on a previous version of this legislation in 2024. That hearing helped surface important questions from members and stakeholders. Since then, the tribes, the state of Arizona, and other partners have continued working to strengthen the agreement. The result is the updated legislation before us today. It's built on years of negotiation and supported by more than 30 parties across the region. Finally, President Nygren, Chairman Keevama, and Vice President Lehi, I want to thank you for your commitment to your communities. This is a large and complex agreement, and you and your teams deserve recognition for the decades of persistence, collaboration, and dedication it took to reach this point. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill as it moves through the committee process. I will also be submitting dozens of letters of support from stakeholders across Northeastern Arizona that underscore the critical importance of this legislation and the broad coalition that supports this settlement. Again, Chair Murkowski and Vice Chairman Schatz, thank you for holding the hearing today on this important and historic legislation. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Kelly. Appreciate the not only the introductions of of those who will be on the panel, but your leadership in this and your effort over the years. We know that you've got a lot of things on your schedule this afternoon, so understand that you're probably going to be leaving us. So thank you for that. I also want to welcome to the committee and the panel this afternoon Mr. Scott Cameron. He is with the Department of the Interior. Mr. Cameron has a couple titles. He is the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science and exercising the delegated authority of Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. So as the witnesses please come to the table here, go ahead. I I will just remind you that your full written testimony will be made part of the official hearing record. So we're asking folks to try to keep keep testimony to the five minutes so that we have full opportunity for engagement back and forth on this very important matter. So again, to those who were introduced by Senator Kelly, I add my my welcome to you and and also my thanks and gratitude for the work that you have been doing as Senator Kelly mentioned. We've we have had an opportunity to to hear this issue before this committee previously and sent you away with homework and you are you are back now to report on that and and I I appreciate the the work that each of you and the dedication that each of you bring to the table here. So we will begin with testimony on your end of the table, Mr. Cameron, if you would like to lead off, please.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chairman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz. My name is Scott Cameron, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of the Interior, and I am exercising the delegated authority of the Commissioner of Bureau of Reclamation. Really appreciate the opportunity to testify on Indian water rights settlements and in particular S. 953, the Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Act. The Department supports the long-standing policy that negotiated Indian water rights settlements are, as you've both indicated, certainly preferable to protracted and divisive litigation. Settlements can resolve long-standing claims, provide certainty to water users, promote tribal sovereignty and self-sufficiency, and support the development of water infrastructure that improves conditions on and off reservations. They also foster cooperation among water users within a watershed while protecting infrastructure investments and the communities and economies that rely on them. The Department's participation in settlement negotiations is guided by the federal government's 1990 criteria and procedures for the negotiation of Indian water rights claims. These criteria reflect four principles. First, settlements must be consistent with the United States' trust responsibilities. Second, tribes must receive benefits equivalent to the rights they release as part of a settlement. Third, tribes must be able to realize value from confirmed water rights. And finally, settlements should include an appropriate cost share among the parties that benefit. Congress obviously plays an essential role, as this committee knows, in approving Indian water rights settlements. The Department stands ready to work with this committee to support settlement negotiations. We are also committed to implementing enacted settlements as necessary funding is available. With approximately $13 billion in Indian water rights settlements pending before Congress, it's important that settling parties have realistic expectations regarding the level of federal funding. S. 953 addresses water rights claims across approximately 11.5 million acres in northeastern Arizona, which is home to more than 100,000 members of the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, and the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe. The bill would ratify a negotiated settlement among the tribes, the state of Arizona, and more than 20 other parties, and that's clearly very impressive. It would quantify the tribes' water rights in Arizona, including rights associated with the Colorado River in both the upper and lower basins, and provide waivers for claims among the parties. S. 953 would also provide approximately $5.1 billion in mandatory funding to implement the settlement and direct the Secretary to plan, design, and construct a pipeline to help deliver reliable drinking water supplies to tribal communities. The legislation would establish tribal trust funds and allocate certain upper basin Colorado River water to the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe. It would authorize those tribes to use that water on reservation lands in the lower basin in Arizona and allow them to lease a portion of their upper basin Colorado River water rights within Arizona for a limited period of time. In addition, the bill would ratify a treaty between the Navajo Nation and the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe and establish a reservation for the Paiute Tribe from lands currently held in trust as part of the Navajo reservation. If enacted, S. 953 would become part of the broader framework governing the Colorado River. Over the past year, the tribes have worked closely with Department and Reclamation staff, the state of Arizona, and the upper basin states to address implementation issues associated with these provisions and to ensure the framework could function within future Colorado River operations. The Department supports increased flexibility and marketability of water in both basins and recognizes the importance of allowing tribes to use, store, and lease their water rights in support of tribal self-determination. While the Department certainly supports the goals of S. 953, we do have real concerns with the overall cost of the settlement. We appreciate the tribes' efforts to address potential cost increases. We are committed to working with the tribes, the bill's sponsors, and the committee to identify opportunities to reduce costs while maintaining the settlement's core objectives. The Department looks forward to continuing to work with the tribes, the bill's sponsors, and the committee to address these issues and move toward a resolution of these long-standing water rights claims. Thank you, and naturally, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Cameron. President Nygren, welcome.

Yá'át'ééh, Chairwoman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz, and members of the committee. I'm Dr. Buu Nygren, President of the Navajo Nation. I'm also here joined by Navajo Nation Speaker, Speaker Crystalyne Curley as well. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on support of S. 953. Thank you also to Senators Kelly and Gallego for sponsoring this legislation. The Navajo Nation is the largest indigenous nation in the country. We provide critical governmental services to over 420,000 tribal members, half of whom live on the reservation. Our reservation is approximately the size of West Virginia. Roughly, as mentioned earlier by Cameron, roughly a third of Navajo households lack running water. I also grew up without running water. This picture to my right reminds me of how difficult it is to live on the Navajo Nation. As you can tell, you've got family members with five-gallon buckets of water. I remember hauling five-gallon buckets of water in a car daily when I would travel with my mom and my grandma. So thousands of our people continue to haul water over 30 miles round trip to meet daily water demands. Hauling water is expensive. It also costs on average $600 per month for a family to haul water and countless hours for each trip. This is crippling for the many who live below the poverty line on the Navajo Nation. Congress must act to end the water crisis. The funding in the settlement represents a considerable investment of federal dollars to end this crisis. The United States will receive valuable consideration in return. We tribes are waiving our water right claims in the Colorado River basin. In this year's version of the updated settlement, we're also providing a tool for improving the Lake Powell's reserve levels. The cost is approximately 25 percent less per tribal member than previously congressional enacted Indian water settlements. Given the large populations and large reservations, the major water rights claim being settled, this is a cost-effective settlement that provides significant benefits to the federal government and the American taxpayer. Several of the upper basin states have submitted testimony indicating they continue to have unresolved concerns with our settlement. Some of those concerns are tied to tribes being able to lease our Arizona Colorado River upper basin water to the lower basin in Arizona. Some states are apparently concerned because of this potentially setting a precedent. This concern is without merit. The Navajo Nation is the only Indian tribe in both the upper and lower Colorado River basin. Moreover, it is literally taking an act of Congress to authorize this use. There is no way for this to happen again because there is no other tribe besides Navajo in this position. In an attempt to address the upper basin's concern, the tribes have agreed in S. 953 to ensure leasing is temporary. We also set limits on the amount of water we may lease. The tribes have agreed to create a water savings pool in Lake Powell by contributing 17,050 acre-feet a year for 20 years, which will benefit all upper basin states and the federal government by protecting critical infrastructure in Lake Powell. Notably, this is one-half of the amount of water that was formerly used for decades by the Navajo Generating Station. The closure of NGS was economically devastating to the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe. It is hard to imagine that any upper basin state would object to my people being able to use water that they have used for decades simply because of the fear of a potential precedent. Reason suggests the upper basin states would understand that NGS's closure was not the fault of the tribes and recognize that tribally proposed uses under the settlement of the water that was previously used by NGS is not a detriment. Unfortunately, ultimately, the amount of water is an issue for the upper basin states as relatively insignificant, but the revenue the tribes would be able to generate by leasing their water to help pay for potential funding shortfalls for water infrastructure is incredibly significant. We remain willing to work with the upper basin states and we have made significant progress with some states, including the state of New Mexico, but the tribes believe we have already given enough and should be able to use our water as other settling tribes have been able to do in the past. Your leadership in securing a safe, stable water supply for our nations will be felt for generations to come. I respectfully urge the committee to swiftly pass this bill to ensure water security for all in our region. I'm also happy to answer any questions today. Ahéhee', thank you.

Thank you, President Nygren. We'll next turn to Chairman Keevama.

Chairwoman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz, and members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Thank you for holding this hearing and for allowing me to testify in support of S. 953, the Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025. My name is Lamar Keevama. I am Greasewood Clan from the village of Bacavi. I have the honor of serving as Chairman of the Hopi Tribe. The Hopi people are the most ancient inhabitants of northeastern Arizona. Archaeological evidence and our oral history both confirm that our people have lived on these lands since time immemorial. According to Hopi teachings, when our ancestors emerged into this world, they encountered Maasaw, who we refer to as the original caretaker. He blessed the Hopi people and instructed them to live as humble farmers and stewards of the land. A covenant was established, one that calls on the Hopi people to remain and care for our homeland. The Hopi reservation was intended to be a permanent homeland for our people. Yet the federal government landlocked my people, surrounding us with the Navajo Nation and cutting us off from necessary water resources. As a result, the Hopi reservation has extremely limited water, creating immense challenges for those living on the reservation. Despite living in one of the most arid regions of the country, the Hopi people adapted and developed farming methods that make use of every drop of water. Floodwater fields, seepage fields, and carefully managed agricultural systems adapted to the land. These practices remain central to our culture and identity today. But even with that knowledge and resilience, we cannot overcome today's growing water scarcity alone. The Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement represents a historic effort to address these challenges. Through collaboration among tribal governments, the state of Arizona, the federal government, and local stakeholders across northeastern Arizona, this settlement provides a sustainable water future for the Hopi people and water certainty for our neighbors. And the historic importance of the settlement between Navajo and Hopi can never be understated. Among its key elements, the settlement confirms the Hopi Tribe's water rights and provides access to additional water supplies, including Colorado River water, which is the only source of renewable water to ensure the tribe's future. It also establishes cooperative agreements between the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation to protect shared groundwater resources and manage them sustainably for generations to come. Just as important, the legislation authorizes major investments in water infrastructure. Today, water infrastructure is either aging or non-existent. 30 percent of those living on the Hopi reservation do not have running water and must haul water to their homes. This legislation will fund critical infrastructure projects such as wells, pipelines, treatment systems, and storage facilities that are necessary to deliver safe and reliable water to our communities. For the Hopi people, water is not simply a resource. It is sacred. It is a spirit with life. Our prayers, ceremonies, and way of life are all tied to water and the land. This settlement is more than a legal agreement. It is a path forward. It allows the Hopi Tribe to remain and protect our homeland, supports economic development, and ensures that our communities have the basic resources necessary to thrive. It will bring certainty and stability to the broader Colorado River Basin by resolving longstanding water claims through cooperation rather than decades of costly litigation. The Hopi people have lived in Northeastern Arizona for more than a thousand years. With reliable water and modern infrastructure, we can ensure that my people can continue to live and practice our way of life on our homeland for the next thousand years. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I look forward to answering your questions. Kwakwhay.

Thank you, Chairman Keevama. Thank you, Chairman Keevama. And next we turn to Vice President Lehi. Welcome.

Mike de'ay. My name is Johnny Lehi Jr. I am Vice President of the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Schatz, for allowing us to testify today on Senate Bill S.953, the Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Act. Thank you also, Senator Kelly and Senator Gallego, for their support. The committee is going to hear a lot about numbers today, how much the settlement costs, dollar amount per person, per acre, per project. I wish I was able to provide you with something that could be quantified in dollars, but there is no way to measure what this legislation means to the San Juan Southern Paiute people. S.953 provides water for our tribal members, but it also ratifies a 26-year-old treaty that establishes San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe's permanent exclusive reservation. For the Paiute people and the homeland is priceless. My family has lived near Tuba City for generations. 26 years ago, my family watched a historic promise being made. My grandmother Mabel Lehi helped negotiate with the agreement of the Navajo Nation and father, former President Johnny Lehi Sr. signed the treaty with then Navajo Nation President Kelsey Begaye on March 18, 2000, when I was president. And now, many years later, we are still waiting for that treaty to be ratified for our reservation to be created. And now, many years later, we are still waiting for that treaty to be ratified and for a reservation. Our elders, including my father, carried our tribe through long work of survival recognition and the parents, grandparents of my council members in these chambers spent their lives fighting for our people to have a homeland. Many have passed on. That is why this moment matters so much to me, my council members, and our elders. Today, the Paiute Tribe is the only federally recognized tribe in Arizona without an exclusive reservation that affects daily life. We have families with multiple generations in two-bedroom trailers without running water and without electricity. Without a land base, it can be impossible to build homes, plan communities, maintain roads, or provide services. And being landless also means we miss opportunities that other tribes can access. An exclusive reservation allows us to apply for housing, economic development funding that requires a land base. Without a reservation, my people have lived for generations as outsiders in our own homeland. We have been told we don't belong and to stop speaking our language and honoring our traditions, but that has not stopped us. The land treaty was negotiated to create a permanent homeland for our tribe to resolve longstanding litigation still stayed in the Ninth Circuit, but it only becomes effective after ratification by Congress and the signature of the Secretary of Interior. That has not happened yet. S.953 carries that promise forward by establishing our reservation and making it livable. The treaty sets aside 5,100 acres near southern area west of Tuba City and about 300 acres in the northern area near Paiute Mountain, Utah. S.953 declares Paiute rights to water in the southern area, provides up to 350 acre-feet of water per year, and creates a trust fund so the tribe can build and maintain infrastructure we need. It gives us enough water for a community supply and ability to build the system. It will also reduce the need for families to haul water long distances or rely on bottled water. The San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe supports this settlement because it brings certainty, stability, and a future for our people. When I talk to my grandmother about this treaty, she tells me she hopes to see our people living on our reservation homeland in her lifetime. I share that hope. This is not just paperwork for our families. It is the difference between waiting another generation and finally coming home. For us, the heart is simple. We ask Congress to advance S.953 and ratify the treaty two sovereign tribal nations already negotiated and agreed to so our elders and our children can finally see that promise fulfilled on a homeland that is real. Thank you. Ayak.

Thank you, Vice President Lehi. And thank you to all of our tribal leaders for making clear the impact of this water settlement on your communities, on your tribal members. I'm going to direct my first round of questions to you, Mr. Cameron, just more of the technical questions regarding not only the settlement we're talking about today but outstanding ones as well. I mentioned in my opening that we had created through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law the Indian Water Rights Completion Fund. We've got numerous proposed settlements that are pending this Congress that together represent about $9 billion in potential federal commitments. Pretty easy question here. Does the department believe that there is a funding gap for future settlements that Congress may authorize? And if so, what kind of a mechanism does the department believe that we should be using to fund those obligations? Should it be coming out of annual appropriations? Should we be looking to another dedicated fund? Is there perhaps a third alternative? First, the funding gap and then proposal or suggestion as to how we address such.

Yes, Senator, there very definitely is a funding gap. Thanks. There is very definitely a funding gap and a significant funding gap, furthermore. And we are happy to use all of the tools that Congress might in its wisdom decide to provide to us to bridge that funding gap. As you've indicated, there is that settlement fund, about $120 million a year that helps. There are some funds that are still available from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

How much do you know is still available under that?

Not off the top of my head, but it's nowhere near $9 billion. It's probably nowhere near $1 billion, frankly, at this point. Annual discretionary appropriations could not possibly meet the obligations that are implied by the various water rights settlements that are facing us. Bureau of Reclamation's appropriated dollars are in the order of $1.5 billion a year. So we'd have to zero out virtually everything else going on inside the Bureau in order to fund even $2 billion a year of Indian water rights settlements.

Well, I think it speaks too to the challenge that we have because I agree with Senator Schatz here. We've got an obligation. These are treaty and trust responsibilities. So it's one thing to provide for the authorizations or the approval of the settlements. It's how then we take that next step because if what we're talking about is really trying to get to the wet water, you don't get there if we haven't funded that. I mentioned the other proposed settlements that are under consideration this Congress. Back in March, we reported four settlement bills for tribes in New Mexico coming out of committee here. And for those four, the estimated total is $2.75 billion in federal costs. Has the administration reviewed these four New Mexico settlements and do you have any concerns about these settlements as written?

We certainly are aware of them, Senator. We typically don't take position on legislation until we're invited to testify on those particular bills. So I guess our next opportunity might be over on the House side to express a formal administration position.

Well, it would be helpful if there are concerns about the specific settlements if you can be communicating with the committee here. We're trying to sketch out how we're going to take on this massive funding challenge here. And so if you could work with us on that. Let me turn specifically to S.953. You raise concerns about the costs of the settlement in your testimony. So you've outlined in your remarks here too kind of the criteria that the government looks to, but the government evaluates settlement costs in part by considering the existing federal trust responsibilities and other unmet federal obligations to the tribes. So given that framework, with the funding authorized by this settlement in 953 help fulfill the unmet federal programmatic responsibilities? And this is everything that the tribal leaders here have talked about, which is water supply, safe drinking water, sanitation infrastructure. And assuming that it does meet those federal responsibilities, how did the department account for these existing obligations when you're evaluating the overall cost to this settlement and whether or not it's appropriate under the policies?

So first of all, Senator, the bill would accomplish a lot of good things. There's absolutely no doubt about that, and it would provide drinking water for folks who haven't had it forever, and that would be a really useful and a good and positive thing for the United States to do. The criteria and procedures are a tool to help guide the department's and the administration's analysis of the obligations of the United States. They don't necessarily determine what our position is going to be on any particular bill, but I do need to reiterate $5 billion is a lot of money. And we look forward to working with the committee and with the three tribes and the other interested parties, of which there are quite a few, to see if we can't creatively come up with some ideas to still satisfy the purposes of the bill at somewhat less cost.

So one of the things that your testimony mentions is the possibility of reevaluating the size and the scope of the pipeline. So I'm assuming that's just one of many out there, but how are projects like this evaluated by the department, by the Bureau of Rec, on how these cost estimates are developed? You've suggested there's room here to work this number down. What's the best way here to ensure that we're actually getting accurate cost estimates for these kinds of infrastructure projects? Are we just kind of taking a big number and saying this seems like it's in the neighborhood, or how specific are you actually getting in drilling down the cost?

The best way to do it, Senator, is to have a full-blown feasibility study. When we start looking at legislation like this, the first step is an appraisal study, which is very high level. But we really need, not just for this bill, but for any piece of legislation, even in the Corps of Engineers' world outside of the context of Indian water rights settlements, a full-blown feasibility study where there are on-the-ground geological analyses, actually walking the ground and doing really reliable construction estimates. That's the best way to begin. More broadly, we look at the perceived financial benefits and costs of a project. We look at the litigation risk on the part of the United States, were our friends over here potentially to sue us to enforce perceived trust responsibilities or other statutory responsibilities on the part of the secretary. But we also look more broadly at what are the perhaps not easy to calculate trust responsibilities to tribes of the United States more generally. And Secretary Burgum had a great relationship with North Dakota tribes. He's made it very clear to his political leadership at the department that he wants to have a good relationship and be responsive to the needs of all tribes across the country. Ultimately, it's a negotiation process. It's an evaluation of different alternatives when you meet with the tribes. You mentioned perhaps changing the nature of the pipeline. That might be one possibility. Another possibility would be instead of an upfront one-time payment, this committee in other contexts has provided for annual payments over some number of years. That might be one way to address at least the one-time hit on the Treasury. We could potentially look at changing the scope of the trust funds, and there may be other ideas too. And we would welcome the opportunity to get into the details with the three tribes and your committee, as well as your colleagues over on the House side, to brainstorm about a path forward.

Well, I appreciate that. I know that there's no one easy answer to that question that I asked you, so fair enough. But it is going to require a fair amount of communication back and forth. I am well over my time. I'm going to turn to the vice chair.

The chair has no time limits. [Laughter.] I want to thank our tribal leaders for being here. I want to thank our tribal members for being here. We really appreciate you making the trip, and it does reinforce how essential this is in Indian Country. I want to also thank Senator Kelly for his leadership alongside us, Senator Gallego. Mr. Cameron, in your written testimony, you stated that the department is committed to implementing enacted Indian water rights settlements so long as there is funding to do so. Does the Reclamation Water Settlement Fund currently have enough money to complete enacted settlements?

No, sir, it does not.

Does the Reclamation Water Settlement Fund have enough money to support pending settlements, including S. 953, if they were enacted today?

We could not support S. 953 in terms of there isn't enough money in the fund. I'm not taking a position on S. 953 itself, but to your question directly.

You couldn't fund it.

We could not.

Would you support funding that is both adequate and stable to complete these settlements, both enacted and those pending before Congress?

Yes, sir. The challenging part of your question is folks would define those terms perhaps a bit differently. But we're definitely committed to fulfilling our obligations as the Congress has presented to us in these statutes once enacted.

What do you mean by folks may define those terms a bit differently?

I think you used the term appropriate there in your question. There may be different perspectives on what appropriate means. But having said that, we are committed to implementing the laws as the Congress passed them.

Will Reclamation request additional funding or provide a legislative proposal in the president's budget request to fix the shortfall in funds for the Indian Rights Water Settlements?

Senator, the FY 27 budget has not been released yet by the administration, so I'm unfortunately not able to answer that question publicly at this point.

Can you work with the staff of the Indian Affairs Committee led by the chair on a path forward so that we're not sort of downstream from the president's budget? I understand I've spoken to Secretary Burgum. It's one of the reasons I voted for Secretary Burgum is his commitment to tribal and trust responsibilities. And so I'm hoping we don't sort of, I don't want this to be a black box exercise where we find out later that in the president's budget we just are stuck. And both of us sit on this committee and on appropriations and want to make sure we're both upstream and downstream. Is that a fair request?

That is a very fair request, and I will commit both to you and the chairman and frankly your colleagues over on the House side that we're always happy to work with Congress to provide as much information as we can and find a path forward to address these very real and unfortunately increasingly expensive situations.

Thank you. President Nygren, nice to see you again. Interior testified today that it quote supports the policy that negotiated Indian water rights settlements are preferable to protractive and divisive litigation. 953 would end decades of costly litigation. About how much has that litigation cost the tribe and non-federal parties?

For the Navajo Nation, I believe it's been in the, in all the tribes, it's tens of millions of dollars and decades of resources. And I think by the passage of S. 953, it would end a lot of that.

Thank you very much. Mr. Cameron, how much has it cost the United States government, both Interior and DOJ, to litigate these cases?

I don't have an exact number, but it's fair to say it costs in the millions of dollars, and there are significant costs to the non-federal parties who are involved in litigation as well.

Thank you. I want to talk just a little bit about pay-fors. Of the 39 enacted settlements, how many had pay-fors in the authorizing legislation?

I believe the number is nine, Senator, but I can confirm that. Yep. Okay. Four actually.

Four. Okay. My staff had four. That sounds right. Okay. Final question actually. Are there any accounts within Interior that are large enough for Congress to use to offset the cost of S. 953?

Well, we do have multiple, not in terms of the appropriated accounts, the annual appropriated accounts, sir, no. As I indicated earlier, we do have the Water Settlement Fund, but a fairly small amount of money compared to the price of S. 953. We have some funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

What's the, hold on, on the border settlement fund? I mean, I first of all, I take your point that if it's, if we're talking about appropriated funds, you're stuck with whatever we appropriate. Fair enough. And there could be a big pot of money, but if you're not, if we didn't make an appropriation, you can't just, you can't just pilfer it. But on the, on the border settlement account, is that what it's called?

Right.

I thought that was bringing in in the billions annually. Is it not?

We have 120 million available every year through FY 2029.

But that's how much is appropriated. How much is collected, and then how much sits in that account?

I don't know the collected number, Senator, but I'm happy to provide that.

Okay. Why don't we work together on that? Because my understanding, and it's based on staff briefing me, is that that is a real pot of money. It's not just in the tens of millions. It is, it has been used in the past to pay for water settlements, and I think that that's something that the, that the Congress has to at least consider in consultation with, with, with the department. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Senator Schatz. Senator Daines.

Chair Murkowski, thank you. The Fort Belknap have waited over a century to settle their water rights. In fact, they are the original tribe that led to the Winters Doctrine. They completed their settlement negotiation decades ago and have been waiting for Congress to do its job and ratify the compact. Assistant Secretary Cameron, is ratifying an Indian water settlement an effective way to avoid decades of litigation, which would cost the government millions of dollars?

Yes, sir, absolutely.

I want to focus on the costs of not completing settlements, especially for our farmers and ranchers. Montana's High Line is semi-arid. It's a drought-prone region of the state. Many when they think about Montana, they think about Brad Pitt with a fly rod and a river runs through it. And yes, we have beautiful rivers, and I grew up with a fly rod in my hand until Brad Pitt ruined it for the rest of us. But when you look at the High Line in Montana, what you're seeing here is spring wheat production by county. Montana is a semi-arid state. Even where Brad Pitt filmed A River Runs Through It, which is down there, not too far from Yellowstone Park, our average rainfalls are in the 14 to 16 inches there. Further north up on the High Line, it's even drier, 12 to 14 inches of annual rainfall. Compare that to Washington, D.C. or Seattle, which by the way get about the same amount of rain, they get about 41 inches of rain. We get 12 to 14 in the High Line. It is the Milk River that is the lifeblood of the region. It provides irrigation for 140,000 acres and drinking water for 20,000 people. And as you can see, the Milk River Basin is among the most productive areas for spring wheat in the country. The same is true for winter wheat as well as barley. The Milk River Basin is served by the Milk River Project. It's an over 100-year-old irrigation project that diverts water from the St. Mary River and carries it across what we call the High Line, that northern edge of Montana. But due to drought and aging infrastructure, the project is breaking down and delivering less and less water to irrigators. You know the old saying we say in Montana, whiskey's for drinking and water's for fighting, and that is really true. This project already suffered one catastrophic blowout, leaving thousands with limited irrigation and drinking water, and it cost hundreds of millions of dollars to repair. As they say, there's never enough money to do it right, but there's always enough money to do it over, and there's an example. The tribe is a senior water right holder. The Milk River Basin is over-leveraged. Put plainly, there are more paper water rights than wet water on the ground. And the Fort Belknap Tribe is a senior water right holder. Without a settlement, junior water right holders, like the farmers and ranchers, face a huge amount of uncertainty because the way water rights work, it's the date when you receive that right, the date of the claim. The older the claim, the stronger and more senior the water right. Assistant Secretary Cameron, there are tens of thousands of unresolved claims along the Milk River. If we move to litigation instead of settlement, farmers and ranchers across the High Line could lose their ability to irrigate. So my question is, what might the future cost of not ratifying the water compact be, especially if wheat and barley producers don't have settled water allocations?

Senator, I think the implications are certainly serious. They're serious in terms of the litigation risk and the litigation cost. They're serious in terms of the disruption of the economic activity in the Indian and non-Indian community. They're significant in terms of the agricultural productivity of the land because as you know, farmers need certainty about access to water. So it would clearly be in everyone's best interest to come to closure on that situation. And as I've indicated to your colleagues, we'd be happy to work with you and your colleagues on the House side to see if we can get some momentum going to make progress on this.

I appreciate it. And just what's adding insult to injury at the moment is our wheat and barley prices are in the tank. Our farmers are losing money right now with higher input costs with fertilizer, and it's truly some of the toughest times we've seen in farm country out in Montana that I can remember. One last question, Mr. Cameron. In your testimony, you said the administration supports building off past models of success for negotiating settlements. A great example is that when I and the rest of the Montana delegation worked closely with the first Trump administration to get the CSKT water compact finished, and that was back in 2020. How can I get your support for the Northern Montana Water Security Act and finish Montana's final Indian water settlement?

Senator, I'm very familiar with the passage of that previous legislation. I worked for now Congressman, former Interior Secretary Zinke when that legislation moved through. And I still have a number of friends who work for now Congressman Zinke and they talk to me about Montana water issues about every other week for the last year. So very sensitive to the situation. And the administration hasn't taken a formal position on the bill yet. We haven't had an opportunity to testify, but certainly can commit to you to working on the legislation and finding a path forward.

Yeah, and this is again, it's so much bigger than just the Fort Belknap Tribe. It starts there, but this is all the irrigators along the Hi-Line and my farmers and ranchers at the moment that span a huge swath there across Montana, the fourth largest state in the nation. We're smaller than Alaska though, Chairman Murkowski. I know she, I know who the chairman is, believe me. So if I could summarize, this is about water security for our farmers and ranchers. It's about water security for our tribes. It's about infrastructure investment for our ag economy. My bill invests, it saves money, ensures long-term stability for our farmers and ranchers with literally century-old infrastructure and helping out both tribal and non-tribal entities. It is time to get this done. Thank you, Chairman.

Senator Daines, thank you. Senator Lujan.

I appreciate that, Madam Chair. And Mr. Cameron, you know this, there's bipartisan support for Senator Daines' legislation here as we all work together to get this done as well. So just want to remind us all of that as well. Now, Mr. Cameron, President Trump's budget request of FY 27, I think you're aware of a letter that myself, House colleagues, Senate colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, we sent to the Secretary. We included you on the letter advocating for support of the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project. Now, we were all disappointed with the lack of funding requested from the administration on the project in FY 2026, and I certainly hope we don't see that in the FY 2027, which is why you have a group of Democrats and Republicans writing about this so that there's not a question. Now, as a result, I was proud to work with the leadership of this committee and the staff in this room, and I want to commend them and thank them all for the work that was done to secure $55 million in CDS to keep this project moving. In addition to that, the leadership on this committee also provided support, as did all of our colleagues, to provide use and access to the Bureau of Reclamation $120 million from the water settlement fund. As you're aware, appreciate that acknowledgment. Now, as you may know, this project is still waiting for the $120 million in funding to be assigned to the Navajo-Gallup water project. Just as a reminder, if this project fails, it'd be the first to fail. And once we know one fails, they all fail. And we do not want to see the first one fail. So Secretary, I'm hoping that I can get your commitment today that the funding will come through and that you will do everything you can to keep this project on track.

I can't speak to the President's 2027 budget, but as you know very well, Senator, the Navajo-Gallup project is the number one priority for the water settlement fund. And we are doing everything we can to deliver on time on that project. It's the biggest construction project in the Bureau of Reclamation. I've actually been out there on the ground and seen a small piece of it because as you know, it's a very big project and really appreciate your leadership on that by the way. So we are doing everything we can to meet our obligations in terms of dollars and timing on that, sir.

Can you speak to the $120 million at BOR now in the water settlement fund, which we know exists, that money exists. Can you give us a timeline as to when that would be transferred over since it's already been approved by Congress?

So I'll have to look into that, Senator. I frankly was not aware of there being a hold up on that, but that's the first thing I'll do when I get back to the office.

I appreciate that very much. Madam Chair, as you know, water settlements matter to all of us. One of the areas that I was proud to work on with colleagues in the House was the late Chairman Raul Grijalva. And Raul, he introduced an important piece of legislation that we now call this water fund. Well, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law also created the 2.5 billion Indian Water Rights Settlement Completion Fund to provide mandatory funding for the 34 settlements enacted prior to the law. Although we're just reminded that there's a restriction to that not to support projects enacted after November 15, 2021. Going forward, I believe it's vital that Congress provide a stable dedicated funding source for Indian water right settlements to ensure these commitments are honored and tribal communities have safe, reliable water supplies in their homelands. And I will be introducing legislation soon to do just that. Secretary, as you said in your testimony, the department is, quote, "steadfastly committed to implementing enacted Indian water right settlements so long as the funding necessary for such implement is available." Now, I hope this legislation can be bipartisan. We're working with all offices. I hope we can find a way to get there and we're willing to work. And I'm happy to share a draft with you and I welcome your comments if that's something that I might be able to do.

Senator, we'll be delighted to look at a draft, be delighted to provide technical assistance as we do to any Senator on or off this committee or any member of Congress for that matter. And when Congress appropriates money, we will be happy to spend it in the way that the Congress specified.

Invest it. I appreciate that, sir. President Nygren, now I understand that good progress has been made in the discussions with the state of New Mexico as well, but I want to have assurances especially that there is a provision in the legislation with the Arizona settlement, or the Navajo settlement that is in Arizona and Utah I should be corrected to say. But there's a provision in there that says that the Navajo-Gallup project could delay project projection completion if it goes past 2029, something along those lines, if the hookup to the i-Navajo-pa, if I said that correctly, sir, to-a-ka-tsi pipeline exists. Can you share with me what assurances have been included to make sure that we're able to get this pipeline moving, we're not, we won't see delay, we need to get the other project passed by Congress, get it to the President for signature, get it funded and get that connection. Can you talk to that as far as the assurances, Mr. President?

Thank you, Senator Lujan, and thank you for your leadership as well too. One of the assurances is that we want to get Gallup, Navajo-Gallup water supply done as quickly as possible because I know that we don't want to hold up that project in some of the provisions in this legislation is to make sure that if there was a delay or a cost increase that the Navajo Nation would pay for that cost as well too.

I appreciate that. And Madam Chair, one thing I appreciate about this connection is as we talk about the Navajo Nation, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, there's state lines there, but it's within the boundaries of the Navajo Nation and there'll be interconnection on this project which Congress has approved those changes. And that's the connection that I'm talking about up in the northwestern part of New Mexico and northeastern part of Arizona. Mr. President, last thing I'd like to just hear from you as well, if I could get your commitment to continue the good work that you, I see Speaker Curly here and other leaders, to continue working with the state of New Mexico and with the other upper basin states so that way we can get this done.

Again, thank you, Senator Lujan as well too. So our commitment's going to be there just the way we've met with the state of New Mexico, we continue to negotiate and we continue to make progress with the state of New Mexico and we'll keep resolving issues like we have. And then with the upper basin states as I've mentioned in my testimony earlier, this is a completely newer revised version that's before Congress this time around because the first time we were thinking about leasing up to the whole 44,000 acre feet as well. And now we've reduced it to leasing only up to 17,000 acre feet of water which was initially half of what we use for NGS. So again, we are definitely taking all the upper basin states' concerns as well too because I know that through the settlement it's going to be a lot easier than going the longer route of litigation.

President Nygren, I appreciate you saying that because just to repeat what you said, you'd be using half the water you already were using.

Yes, half.

Half. And look, I understand my colleagues having debates with the upper basin, New Mexico's an upper basin state, about the Colorado. This water was taken from the nation. Where I come from, first in time, first in right. Plain and simple, it's easily defined. And so I certainly hope that as all of us have this conversation that we can find a way to get there as well. And Madam Chair, since you've not closed me down just yet, I would just like to remind my all my friends on the committee that I look forward to the next hearing on other water right settlements as well. There's a few pieces of legislation I've been proud to introduce from New Mexico, I know other colleagues have as well, but look forward to getting that done for me, Taos settlements, some technical changes as well as others that may come forward as well. But everyone thank you for your time, the other leaders I apologize for not asking you direct questions, I support your water rights as well and please let me know how I can be more supportive working with colleagues and doing my part as well. Madam Chair, thank you for the time today.

Thank you Senator Lujan and I appreciate your your passion on this, we have had an opportunity to speak to this and you pointed out in response to Senator Daines that these issues truly are bipartisan, it should not make a difference whether you are Republican or Democrat, it really depends on where you are from. I am in an interesting position and I think my vice chair here is also in an interesting position, water settlement rights are not something that we struggle with in certainly in my state, in my hometown, I was just checking the average rainfall in Ketchikan, Alaska is 160 inches, 160. It is probably 16 in where Senator Daines is from. [Laughter.] Yeah, yeah, yeah, we are yeah, anyway, no comment on that. But so it I feel like I can be kind of an impartial arbiter up here in in just really trying to understand again what the intensity is and and to listen to the comments from our tribal leaders here today and to know that one in three households in Navajo do not have have running water. We have this in our villages where it is no shortage of water but you still are hauling and it is it is a challenge to to the families, it is a challenge to your health status and and this is the United States of America in in 2026 and I think the the basic request to have access to clean, safe drinking water is not too much to ask in in today's world for our people. And so I take these take these matters very, very, very seriously. I have a couple more questions for you Mr. Cameron then I want to direct some quick ones to our tribal leaders here. And this this relates to the statement that was made by by President Nygren regarding the leasing authority in S.953 which authorizes Navajo and Hopi tribe to lease a portion of their Arizona upper Colorado to users in the lower Colorado River Basin. So we know that there is some controversy with two of the upper basin states but given as as the the president has pointed out, given that Navajo Nation is the only tribe with lands that are located in both the upper and the lower basins, is there a policy reason that the Navajo Nation or the Hopi tribe should be restricted from leasing their Arizona upper basin waters to users in the lower basin as long as it is within the same state? Are you concerned about that from a policy perspective?

From a federal perspective, Madam Chairman, we are interested in helping all of our tribes including the Navajo and Hopi and and Southern Paiute to get the fullest value of of their resources, water resources or or otherwise. So I recognize that when you are dealing with inter-basin transfers and you are dealing with state water law, there are all sorts of complications. And I am hoping that the upper basin states would be in a a position to be reasonable and be cooperative with the tribe so that they can move forward to get the the best value from that water. There are precedents certainly for tribal water leasing and other settlements that have been enacted by the Congress inside Arizona, the department has been working intensely for more than a year with the Colorado River Indian tribe to try to enable them pursuant to to federal law to lease some of their water to parties in the Central Arizona Project for instance. So we are strongly in in favor of of leasing arrangements, we think they put the water to the the best you know use from an economic perspective in a region, we support the goals of the tribes here to to to lease their water. At the same time we realize that state water law is important too, but I would hope these things could be negotiated out between the upper basin states and the tribe so that the tribes end up having the the freedom if approved by Congress to to lease their water.

So it sounds like from a policy perspective you are good with it and in terms of concerns about a precedent being set, it sounds like there is certainly a willingness again to to address the the water rights needs of the of the Navajo and the Hopi.

President Nygren made a good point in that this could be a one-off situation, you know Congress would not be providing blanket authority for inter-basin transfers for any tribe anywhere in the country, you know it would be limited by by this particular statute. So I think that is a reasonable way to think about it, again I cannot speak for the the governors of the upper basin states and where they are coming from let alone their senators and but look forward to finding a path forward that enables the the Navajo and the Hopi to get the best use of the of the water they are entitled to.

Well I I appreciate that I think I think President Nygren you did a a good job in in outlining how and and why you are in such a unique position and also noting that this would be temporary, not permanent in nature. Last question to you Mr. Cameron and this is this is regard regarding the new operating guidelines, Bureau of Rec is currently developing some new operating guidelines for the Colorado River that is going to take effect after the current interim guidelines expire at the end of this year. How how does the department anticipate the water leasing and the contribution provisions in S.953 interacting with this post-2026 operating framework for the Colorado River Basin?

They are they are connected but loosely connected, the problems or the challenges that we are dealing with on the Colorado can be measured in the hundreds of thousands if not the millions of of acre-feet of water. So in that context, 17,000 or or even a slightly larger number of of acre-feet is not going to make a material difference at all in in my opinion to what we hope will eventually be a seven-state agreement on the Colorado. We do not see the lack of an agreement today among the seven basin states on the broader Colorado Basin issues as a reason not to move forward with this legislation, I think they can be distinct you know separate considerations.

Okay, thank you for that. I am going to direct this next question to both you President Nygren and to Chairman Keevama. I pronounced I mispronounced it the first time around I want to make sure I get it right, Keevama. Keevama. You have talked about the the fact that this really is a a historic agreement among the Hopi tribe, among the Navajo and the San Juan Southern Paiute, the state of Arizona. So we know that these do not come together easily, this has been a lot of work, this has been a lot of years and as you testified in response to Senator Schatz, it has been a lot of money, we get that. So as we as we look to examples of how to do things right in the future when it comes to water settlements, is there anything special or something that you want the committee to know about in terms of collaborative strategies that allowed you to get to this place where you are able to talk about this historic agreement and and also what kind of compromises you had to make along the way in order to get here? It may be tougher to talk about the compromises because those are oftentimes things that you had to leave behind, but I think that that also can be instructive. So to either one of you please.

Thank you Chairwoman Murkowski for that question, I know this has been in the making for decades and I know that over the past three years the three tribes have come together because we have realized that in order to be economically stable, economically ready to go to plan for the future for our communities, we need reliable water. And I think that the more and more we thought about how are we going to build our communities, how are we going to bring water to our households, how are we going to be able to build out facilities so that our kids and our future grandkids can have a place to live and enjoy their lives, so the more and more we thought about that we said you know what historically the Hopi tribe, the San Juan Southern Paiute and the Navajo Nation have never come together. And I think we just made sure that we we sat at the table with and said you know what we got to stay here. We got to make sure that we continue to compromise and to continue to think about the future and how are we going to set ourselves up for the kids that are not born so that they are not sitting at this table 20, 30, 40, 50 years from now asking for water that is flowing already flowing through our our lands as well too. So that is one of the things I am really proud about is that I want to say thank you to the Hopi Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute and the other thing I also want to mention too is the San Juan Southern Paiute they are going to have a reservation, a finally a place for themselves to call home and I think that within itself is very historic to kind of continue to see ourselves that way because at the end of the day there is members of the Navajo people who are also half Hopi, part Southern Paiute and vice versa between the three different nations and I feel like that is how we feel too is within the Navajo Nation we have a lot of individuals that are part Navajo that live in the East Coast, northern northern states and things like that. So again overall I think we just came together and make sure that we continue to think about our kids that are not here and how do we provide them a place that they can call home.

Very good. Chairman.

Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, for the question. I agree with President Nygren that I think the three tribes have come together and realized that we do need to provide a sustainable homeland for our future generations to come. And how do we get there? We work together. This is a historical settlement for all three tribes, as pointed out, San Juan Southern Paiute will finally have a place that they can call their homelands. And both tribes will gain enough water to be able to provide economic development and a future for our future generations. So this settlement act is going to be historic in that the three tribes worked together in collaboration. And yes, there were some not disagreements, but you know, there but we look past that. We just want to look for at the path moving forward and we want to work collaboratively together to be able to reach that goal that all three of us have, and that's to be able to provide a future for our future generations. Thank you.

Yes, it's pretty pretty basic when you say, look, we realize that what we're asking for is is what allows for life, and that's water. So if you agree on your goals, stick stick to to the effort and despite the setbacks. I want to address this final question to you, Vice President Lehi, because I think you in your testimony, you you you talked about there was no way to measure the benefits to the people of what it means to to have a permanent reservation. And I think that that identifier, if you will, is is significant, is important. We are dealing with five communities in my state in trying to resolve an outstanding settlement with regards to their land status. We call them the landless. And so probably along the same same lines as as the San Juan Southern Paiute who have been seeking seeking that level of identity. Can you can you just provide for the committee a little bit more about what it means to establish a permanent reservation for the San Juan Southern Paiute people when we're able to ratify this agreement?

Yes, thank you, Senator. You know, as for us, you know, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, we never had this opportunity before. And you know, this is we greatly appreciate that it's gotten this far. And you know, we face the same hardships as our sister tribes like the Hopi and Navajo Tribe, you know, we haul water same way, we go through the same hardships. And as as for us, you know, it's an opportunity to where we finally get to say it's our home. And you know, this is very very special that we're we're here today, you know, even all three tribes coming together and testifying here as as a group, you know, and like like I echo what they say, the the Chairman and President here, this is something that has never been done before. And even for ourselves, you know, like I have elders that fought tirelessly for this and even with the recognition, and you know, this is will finally fulfill and become a sovereign nation, you know. And you know, this this water settlement is is really great news because what is a land without water as well, you know. And you know, I'd like to thank you for this opportunity.

Thank you. I I think the the testimony that has been provided today has been very important. Again, my gratitude and thanks for the tribal leaders that have given testimony today, but but really for for your commitment to working collaboratively and in a in a manner that has gotten us to this place. Mr. Cameron, thank you for being here on behalf of the department. I think we know what the challenge is. We have we have trust responsibilities that we need to to meet here. And we want to make sure that as we honor those through these appropriate water settlements, that we not only put authorizations into law, but that we then follow through on the funding side, make good on the commitment. And so how we structure whether it is supplements to existing funds, new funds, as the chairman of the Interior Subcommittee, I'm not really looking forward to having everything come out of the annual appropriations bill. It there's a lot in that account, but not not not near enough to to make this difference whole here. So I think we will be looking to how we can ensure that these funding gaps can be addressed in a meaningful way as we address not only settlements that have been already in process, but moving forward including S.953 and the legislation that we have in front of us. So again, thank you for being here. Thank you for making the trips to Washington, D.C. and for the many of you who have gathered to to listen or just to provide your support, know that that is also recognized and appreciated as well. And with that, the committee oh, we'll hold the committee record open for a couple weeks as others may wish to submit questions or statements. And with that, the committee stands adjourned.