Hearings to Examine Indian Water Rights Settlements and Completion Fund

Committee will come to order. We're here today to receive testimony on five bills addressing Indian water rights settlements, four related to settlements, and one focused on the broader challenge of how do we finance them. S thirty-five seventy-three from Senator Lujan would amend the Amat settlement in New Mexico to allow statutory deadlines for completing The Powahkeen Basin Regional Water System to be extended when spec- specified parties agree that more time is necessary. This is meant to prevent the settlement from failing due to construction delays. S thirty-six seventeen from Senator Kelly would ratify the Yavapai Ap- Apache Nation settlement in Arizona. It would confirm their right to four thousand six hundred and ten acre feet of water annually and authorize approximately one point zero four billion for the Craigian Verdean pipeline, a drinking water treatment plant and transmission system, and a tribal settlement trust fund. And then S forty three sixty eight from Senator Padilla would ratify the Agua Caliente band of Chihulia Indian settlement with the Coachella Valley Water District and Desert Water Agency. It would confirm the tribe's right to produce or use up to twenty thousand acre feet of groundwater annually, from the Indio sub-basin, providing provide funding to implement the settlement and authorize federal land transfers. And also S four four one seven from Senator Padilla would update the previously enacted uh Pechanga settlement. It would ensure that settlement covers contiguous trust lands and allow the tribe's water quality account to support water quality projects in the Wolf Valley Basin. These settlements resolve long-standing claims provide certainty to tribal and non-tribal water users, 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 that they are structured for successful implementation. And that means confronting the difficult question of how these settlements are financed. The settlements before us, together with other settlements, our committee has already heard or reported this Congress. represent nearly thirteen billion dollars 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. It also requires us to ensure that each settlement is reasonable in scope, clearly defined, and fully implementable by agencies and communities alike. We must be confident that the infrastructure commitments, timelines, and costs are achievable, and that we're not creating obligations that exceed practical or fiscal capacity. Through the bipartisan infrastructure law, Congress provided a once in a generation investment of two point five billion dollars to complete previously enacted Indian water settlements. That funding was historic and it was necessary, but it is now fully exhausted and will not be available to address the settlements now awaiting congressional action. In twenty ten, the stars aligned for passage of the Claims Resolution Act. Senators Kyle and Baucus, both members of the finance committee, helped bring together the settlement package and a budgetary offset that included an extension of customs user fees. And that cooperation allowed Congress to authorize and fund four major Indian water settlements along with the Cobell and Pickford settlements. And then today we have another proposal to establish a dedicated settlement fund, along with a related proposal to offset it through a similar extension of customs user fees. S forty eight ninety, also from Senator Lujan, would establish two mandatory funding sub-accounts within the Indian Water Rights Settlement Completion Fund established by our bipartisan infrastructure law. One would provide forty five million dollars annual for annually for operation, maintenance, repair and other continuing federal obligations under specified enacted settlements. The other would provide two hundred and fifty million annually for newly enacted and continuing settlements. The question is whether that approach can provide the durable bipartisan solution these settlements require in today's environment. I think our goal should be to continue meeting our solemn trust and treaty responsibilities while maintaining fiscal responsibility and balancing the many priorities that face Indian country that's what must be front of mind as we consider these measures and think about the future of Indian water rights settlements so I wanna thank our witnesses I wanna acknowledge our colleagues that are before the committee here today I'll now turn to Vice Chairman Schutz for his opening comments.

Thank you, Chair Murkowski. It is really good to see two uh colleagues here, um Senators Kelly and Padilla, um two of the members in the Senate who are not on this committee, who um advocate the most uh generally speaking for Indian country, but particularly for their tribe, so welcome. To date, Congress has enacted thirty-five Indian water rights settlements, sixteen new settlements or amendments are currently pending before Congress. and more than a dozen tribes are in active settlement negotiations with the Department of the Interior. The bills on today's agenda add to this growing list. Four would settle or address Indian water rights claims to ensure access to much needed clean and reliable drinking water for tribes and the surrounding communities. We all know that it is Congress's obligation to consider legislation that ratifies new Indian water rights settlements or amends existing settlements. But that is not where our obligation ends. we must also ensure that paper water turns into wet water. That is, that there is sufficient funding to actually deliver water to tribal and surrounding communities. And yet, for years' progress on advancing these settlements and delivering water has been stalled, primarily due to a lack of adequate funding from the Congress. And so it's important that we're that we're also considering Senator Lujan's bill to ensure that both 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 and treaty obligation, forcing tribes to identify pay-fors to offset the cost of their legal and moral right to the water to sustain to sustain their homelands and their citizens. This is not right. So I appreciate that the DOI is here to testify today. As a party to all Indian water settlements, it is vital to have the on the record, especially on the cost. And I'm glad DOI is sitting next to tribal leaders representing their communities that have waited years to finally resolve their water rights claims and can speak to the urgency of ratifying or amending these settlements. The committee and Congress must closely consider these bills before us and advance other water rights settlement bills that have passed out of this committee. I look forward to working with the committee an Indian country to find solutions that work for everyone. I wanna thank the Chairman for convening this hearing and our witnesses for being here today.

Thank you, Vice Chairman Schatz. Before we turn to uh our witness panel, we do have Senator Kelly and Senator Padhia here to make some remarks on their bills, but also to introduce the witnesses um from your state. So, Senator Kelly, why don't you lead off and uh welcome both of you to the committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair, um, and Vice Chair Schatz, thank you, uh, to you both for holding today's hearing on S thirty six seventeen, the Yavapai Apache Nation Water Rights Settlement Act. For generations, the Yavapai Apache Nation has sought a permanent reliable water supply to support its people, and preserve its homeland along the Verde River. This settlement provides a historic opportunity to finally resolve long-standing water rights It also helps the Department of Interior meet its trust responsibility by providing the infrastructure needed to make those water rights a reality. Just as importantly, it helps protect the Verde River by reducing reliance on groundwater pumping, benefiting not only the nation, but also neighboring communities and downstream water users across Arizona. What makes this water right settlement remarkable is the coalition that stands behind it. This settlement is supported by the nation, the State of Arizona, 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 and state, local, and tribal governments all in agreement about water allocation. That level of agreement did not happen by accident. It is the result of years of good faith negotiations. It reflects a shared recognition that this settlement is not just important, but absolutely vital for the future of the Yavapai Apache nation and the long-term health of the Verde Valley. This consensus was made possible, thank you, to the hard work of leaders like Chairman Buddy Rocha. who I have the honor of introducing today. Chairman Rocha was elected chairman of the Yavapai Apache Nation in twenty twenty five after serving on the tribal council and working in tribal economic development. Since taking office, he has made securing congressional approval of this water settlement a top priority, building on decades of 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 and ensure that the nation can reliably access clean water most importantly 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 had wa- has waited long enough There's no need to make them wait any longer. My staff and I are here to help facilitate this partnership in any way we can to get this settlement across the finish line. Chairman Rocha, I want to thank you and the many tribal leaders who came before you for your persistence and leadership. Water rights settlements are among the most complex agreements Congress considers, and this one is no exception. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill as it moves through the committee. I'll be submitting several letters of support from stakeholders across Arizona that highlight the importance of this legislation and the broad coalition supporting this settlement. Again, Chair Murkowski and Vice Chair Schatz, thank you for holding today's hearing on this very important legislation.

Thank you, Senator Kelly, and we'll look forward to to the testimony from Chairman Rocha, so thank you for introducing him. Senator Padilla. If you would like to deliver your remarks and introduce any witnesses. Welcome.

Thank you uh Madam Chair and uh before I begin I also wanna take a moment Madam Chair to thank you uh and your staff for your assistance on the uh conservation and tribal lands bills that we discussed earlier today in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee uh by both Chairman uh Murkowski and Vice-Chairman Schatz I appreciate you convening this hearing to discuss important tribal water settlement bills including two in California. Uh I also want to thank you and your teams for all your hard work uh on behalf of Indian country uh want to recognize council member Chacon from the Pechanga Band of Indians and Chairman Grube from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. I thank them both for their service, for their leadership, for being here for today and for testifying at today's hearing. For generations the Pechanga Band of Indians has been a dedicated steward of land and water resources in the Temecula Pechanga's water rights settlement was codified in twenty sixteen and made fully enforceable in twenty twenty. The Pechanga Band of Indians Water Rights Settlement Technical Amendments Act would update the tribe's water rights settlement to allow current and future trust lands to be eligible for the tribe's water rights. The legislation would also expand allowable uses of the water uh quality fund to reflect modern water quality. challenges such as the challenges raised by PFAS and other emerging contaminants. These technical updates are important for public health, long-term water supply and sustainability in the region. The tribe has worked with the surrounding water users to develop agreements on water rights and to protect the Santa Margarita River watershed. Urged my colleagues to support this technical fix that would preserve Pechanga's sovereignty over their water rights. The second bill I have before you today would support the historic settlement for the Awakalienta Band of Kowaii Indians. In a twenty seventeen ruling, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued the first controlling federal appellate decision explicitly extending to groundwater, the Winters Doctrine, which establishes federal reserved water rights for tribes. This ruling means that the federal government reserved groundwater rights along with the land when Aguacalientes reservation was created. The Aguacalientes land is held in a distinct checkerboard pattern of land ownership, interspersed with railroad and private property. As you might imagine, it has been quite challenging to resolve how to manage ground water that is overlain by multiple checkerboard land owners all of whose actions affect the ground water below not just their own property but also their neighbor's. So I commend all the dedicated efforts to negotiate an agreement over the last a few years by Agua Caliente, the United States government, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Desert Water Agency. All parties reached a comprehensive agreement last May to secure the tribe's federally reserved water rights and to promote the tribe's sovereign authority over its water resources and trust lands. The Agua Caliente Band of Korea Indians Water Rights Settlement Act would ratify this agreement this bill also includes provisions to establish a fund critical water infrastructure investments as part of the settlement, and to transfer additional land administered by the Bureau of Land Management into trust for the tribe. And before I conclude, I just want to highlight the broad support for this bill. I'd like to enter into the record eleven letters of support ranging from the State of California, the County of Riverside, local municipalities, and Southern California tribes. Chairman Murkowski and Vice-Chairman Schatz, thank you f- again for all your work. and for allowing me to testify in support of these important bills.

Thank you, Senator Padea. We appreciate that and uh I know that we've got our work cut out in front of us, but uh appreciate your comments on that. Um we will now call up our our panel here. Uh, Mister Scott Cameron, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science with the Department of the Interior welcome back to the committee Mister Cameron and um Uh as was introduced earlier, we have the Honorable Buddy Rocha, who is the Chairman of the Yava Pie Apache Nation in Camp Verde, Arizona. Uh we also have the Honorable Jeff Grubbe, who is the Chairman of the Agua Caliente Band of Cajulia Indians in Palm Springs, California. Good to see you, Mister Grubbe. And we also have the Honorable Catalina Cheek Cheekon, uh who is the council member for the Pechanga band of Indians in uh Temecula, Ca- uh California. So we are grateful that you are each here with us today. Uh I will just remind you that your full written testimony will be made part of the official hearing record. We're going to ask that you try to keep your comments to about five minutes so that we've got plenty of time for questions. I know Senator Schatz uh has has other things that he's supposed to be uh racing off to as well, so we'll we're gonna make sure that we get through this quickly. Um but Mr. Cameron if you would like to begin with your testimony please.

Uh thank you Madam Chairman and C- Senator Schatz, I'm glad to be back with you. Uh as you indicated I am Scott Kerman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of the Interior. Today I will be addressing four bills related to specific Indian Water Rights settlements and one bill that would increase funding for the Indian Water Rights settlement completion fund. S forty eight ninety, the Protecting Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, would establish two new sub-accounts within the Indian Water Rights settlement completion fund providing four hundred and fifty million dollars from twenty twenty-six to twenty-thirty-five in mandatory funding for operations, repair and ongoing maintenance and two and a half billion over the same period for new and continuing settlements. The department appreciates the commitment to implement enacted settlements, contingent on available appropriations. We look forward to working with the committee to ensure appropriate funding is provided as part of the annual appropriations process. S thirty five seventy three, the Amit Litigation Settlement Act amendments would allow parties to extend the statutory deadline for completion of the Pohatke Basin regional water system. This will allow the department to continue working closely with our Pueblo, state and county partners to ensure the best use of the remaining federal funding for construction of the regional water system. The department is pleased to support S thirty-five seventy-three as it has become apparent to the parties that authorized federal funding will be insufficient to complete construction of the regional water system as originally contemplated. by June thirty, twenty twenty eight. The parties have agreed to reassess the phase construction schedule, and if necessary, make changes so that by the time federal funding is exhausted, the department will have provided the settlement parties with a regional water system that is as functional as possible. The bill does not provide additional federal funding, but offers flexibility to maximize the value derived from existing resources. S thirty six seventeen, the Yavapai Apache Nation Water Rights Settlement Act would ratify a settlement agreement and appropriate over one billion dollars in mandatory spending for its implementation, 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 is completed, uh would be problematic. In this specific case, the department also has serious concerns the size and scope of the projects relative to United States water rights claims on behalf of the nation. We also have concerns with provisions related to the Verde River, an associated liability and sovereign immunity, and the lack of cost sharing from state and local parties who would appear to be benefiting from the legislation. This project appears to be oversized, with the infrastructure being much bigger than necessary. Oversized projects can understandably lead to larger cost overruns, and unnecessary operational expenses. We are, however, committed to working with the stakeholders to address these issues. S forty three sixty eight, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indian Water Rights Settlement Act would ratify a settlement agreement quantify groundwater rights and appropriate five hundred million dollars in mandatory spending the bill includes transfers of BLM lands and novel and potentially problematic provisions such as preemption of certain state and local tax laws. The department has concerns about the federal contribution and uh some technical issues I think can be resolved about the land transfer. We look forward to working with the parties to resolve these issues. Finally, S forty four seventeen, the Pechanga Band of Indian Water Right Settlement Technical Amendments Act, would make technical changes to the Pechanga Band of Luis Eño Indian Water Right Settlement Act, expanding the definition of reservation and broadening eligible uses of the Pechanga water quality account. 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 settlements and ensuring that tribal communities have access to reliable water resources. We look forward to working with Congress, tribal nations and other affected stakeholders to address our concerns with some of these specific bills. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, to appear before you again, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Cameron. Next we will turn to Chairman Rocha. Welcome.

Ryan, very soon.

There. Good afternoon, Chair Mikalski and Vice Chair Schatz. My name is Buddy Rocha, Jr. I'm Chairman of the Yabba Pie Patchy Nation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S thirty six seventeen. The Yavapai Apache Nation Water Rights Settlement Act of twenty twenty six. This bill was introduced by our senators Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego. On behalf of the Yavapai Apache Nation, we respectfully ask this committee in Congress to approve S thirty six seventeen and fulfill the United States' trust responsibility to our people. This legislation is essential to securing a permanent reliable water supply for the nation. The history of the Yavapai Apache people in the Arizona territory of the mid to late te- on eighteen hundreds, is a story of profound loss. In eighteen seventy-five, responding to the pressures of non-Indian settlers and territorial business interests, the United States ordered the army to round up all the Abapai and Apache people living in and around the Verde Valley, and forcibly removed them to the San Carlos Indian Reservation in southeastern Arizona. Eventually, with the end of the Apache wars in eighteen ninety, we began the long migration back to the Verde Valley. For the last one hundred and twenty-five years, our people have been slowly reclaiming and re- rebuilding our homeland. Starting with a small fifteen acre parcel, purchased by Congress in nineteen O nine. The nation's homeland has gradually grown to more than five thousand acres today. This rebuilding process has meant strengthening our government, exercising our sovereignty, and restoring our farming and ranching practices. Building homes, starting businesses, and creating a permanent homeland where our people can raise and educate our children and practice our culture and build self-sustaining economies that complement the regional economy. One of our elders, Mary Sine, has had stated, " As long as the river flows, life will be good." Thus, the Yevil Pie patchy nation water is not just a resource, it is a core part of our culture and our spiritual identity, and the very foundation of our future. The Ver- the Verde River flows through the heart of our reservation and through the heart of our culture. For more than forty years, the nation has been seeking legal recognition of our water rights and protecting protection of the river that defines the who we are as a people. In June, twenty twenty four, we reached a historic settlement agreement with the State of Arizona Salt River Project, the Central Arizona Project, Yevi County, Gila County, and the towns and cities of the Verde Valley. Every party has approved the settlement. Every party is ready to move forward. I've s- received several letters of support and I would like to ask that to be included in record. The core of the settlement is the construction of water infrastructure project, a pipeline from the Bureau of Reclamation's C. C. Cragen Reservoir, and a modern drinking water treatment plant to be located on our reservation. This project will deliver clean re- renewable surface water supplied to the nation first time in our history. It is the key to unlocking our future. This infrastructure is necessary to secure permanent homeland that was promised by the Evo-Pipatian Nation under our treaty and our long-standing relationship with the United States. Our nation is growing, but 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 and sustainable economy. We spent years working alongside the United States and our settling partners to identify a source that meets the nation's long-term social and economic needs. Together, we identified the delivery of the Cragen reservoir water as the most viable and sustainable solution for all stakeholders. Today, our ground aquifers declining in both quantity and quality, and at least two of our wells, including our critical municipal well, are failing to produce enough water to meet the current demands that must be significantly deepened. Continuing our exclusive reliance on diminishing ground water resources and is not sustainable to the nation. The pipeline will change that. It'll allow us to build homes, expand our communities, and support our workforce, and sustain our culture practice, cultural practices for generations. Moreover, the pipeline will protect the natural flows of the Verde River, which is critical to our ceremonies. It will safeguard the health of local aquifers and sustain communities throughout the entire region. Importantly, the project will allow the nation to finally realize the benefit of one thousand two hundred acre feet of CAP water allocation, which we have held since nineteen eighty, but have never been able to use. To secure these benefits through sett- the settlement, the nation has made significant compromises. We have agreed to broaden waivers of water rights claims, protecting all water uses in the watershed from future litigation. No off-water reservation wells will be shut down. No historic irrigation rights will be harmed. We have chosen partnership over conflict, legal certainty over litigation, original cooperation over decades of continued instability. Without congressional approval of S thirty-six seventeen, however, none of this progress can move forward. The pipeline cannot be built and the drinking water cannot be completed. The nation cannot use its CAP water and the Verde Valley will remain vulnerable without long-term renewable water re water supply. On behalf of the Yevil-Paipatchee nation, I urge this committee to advance S thirty-six seventeen. It is wise, it is vital, investment in justice, economic stability, and environmental s- sustainability for central Arizona. It permanently replaces the cloud of endless litigation with the promise of collaborative uh a collaborative future. I thank you for your time, your consideration, and your leadership. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Chairman, and the letters of support that you have will be included as part of the record. Thank you.

Thank you.

We next turn to Chairman Gruebe. Welcome.

Thank you. Uh, good afternoon, Chairwoman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Sh- Shatz, and honorable members of the committee. My name is Jeff Gruebe and I'm chairman of the Albo Colante Band of Que Indians. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of my tribe's water settlement, legislation S forty three sixty eight. Thank you to Senators Padilla and Schiff for sponsoring this historic legislation. The bill secures a water supply for Ahwah Kaliente and strengthens tribal suf- self-sufficiency and water security for Ahwah Kaliente and the entire Coachella Valley. For millennia, my tribe has inhabited land in and around Palm Springs, California. Our reservation is checkerboard checkerboarded with reservation trust lands mixed with non-Indian fee land. Today our reservation is thirty four thousand acres and includes large portions of the cities of Palm Springs Cathedral City and Rancho Mirage. The tribe and the non-Indian community rely upon the same ground water supplies. In the desert, surface water is scarce and almost all the water consumed in the region comes from the aquifer. Non-Indian ground water mining and interference with Awokalente's water resources accelerated with the development of Palm Springs after World War Two. With annual groundwater pumping far exceeding the aquifer's ability to recharge naturally, water levels in the upper valley wells dropped fifty to a hundred feet between the fifties and seventies substantially increasing the cost of accessing water. We estimate the loss of a hundred and seventy-four thousand acre feet of groundwater in storage beneath the reservation lands between nineteen, thirty-six and two thousand nine. To protect the tribe's water from further depletion and to preserve it for the future, in two thousand thirteen, Ahwa Kalente filed a lawsuit against two local water districts, the Coachella Valley Water District and the Desert Water Agency, who deliver water to the reservation. In twenty seventeen, Ahwa Kalente obtained a landmark ruling that tribes, that Indian tribes have federal reserved rights to groundwater. Five years later, following intense mediated discussions, the tribe, the water districts, and the United States reach the settlement. That comprehensive agreement is now before Congress. It quantifies Agua Colenta's federal water right to twenty thousand acre feet per year with a priority date no later than an executive order establishing the reservation. Despite the senior right, the tribe agrees to reduce its water use by up to five thousand acre feet when the state of California declares a shortage. The tribe will be exempt from fees, the water districts charge for pumping of the groundwater. Instead, the tribe will charge a fee to fund its water-related projects. Where the water districts deliver water on the reservation, the water districts will collect the tribal fee from customers and remit them to the tribe. A memorandum of cooperation between Avacoliente and the water districts details the tribe's active involvement in the management of the groundwater. The settlement will replace Riverside County's property tax possessory interest in the reservation trust lands with the tribal possessory interest tax the tribal uses proceeds of this tax for water re related projects to fund to provide funds to other non-tribal public agencies. S forty three sixty eight establishes a five hundred million dollar water settlement trust fund for Alba Caliente allocated as follows one three hundred million for the tribal water infrastructure facilities and conf conservation projects Two, a hundred million for water supply projects by the water districts that support water levels under the reservation. Three, fifty million for a water management fund supporting the tribe's larger role as a water manager and purveyor. And number four lastly, fifty million for quar- for operation, maintenance and replacement costs for the Ahwa Kalinta development projects. S forty-three sixty-eight not only confirms Ahwa Kalinta's federal reserve water right, and ensures the tribe will have a active government role in the Coachella Valley, groundwater planning and management 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 Ahwa Kaliente, I respectfully request that this Congress passes the Ahwa Kaliente Water Rights Settlement Act as soon as possible. Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman. And last, we will hear from Councilmember uh Chacon.

Good afternoon, Chairman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz, and members of the committee. My name is Catalina Chacon and I'm honored to serve as a member of the tribal council of Pechanga Band of Indians. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of S forty four seventeen, the Pechanga Band of Indians Water Rights Settlement Technical Amendments Act. Before I discuss this bill, I'd like to take a moment to explain why this legislation is so important to my tribe. For the Pechanga people, water is not simply a natural resource. Water is part of our identity. Our ancestors have lived in what is now the Temecula Valley since time immemorial. More than one hundred and fifty years ago, after our people were forcibly removed from our ancestral village, they rebuilt their community around a small spring in the hills. That spring, known as Picha'a, gave our tribe life during one of the darkest chapters in our history. It also gave our tribe its name. Pechanga means " at the place where water drips". Today, that same connection to water continues to define who we are. We have a responsibility to protect it, not only for ourselves, but for our children, our grandchildren, and generations of Pechanga people who will come long after we are gone. That responsibility is what brings me here today. I also wanna thank for introducing the legislation and Senator Schiff for joining on as an original cosponsor. We deeply appreciate their leadership and continued commitment to honoring the promises Congress made when it approved the Pechanga water settlement. After decades of litigation and negotiation, Congress enacted our water settlement in twenty sixteen. It was a product of years of collaboration between Pechanga, neighboring watering water districts, and the United States. It recognized our federally reserved water rights, resolved long-standing disputes, and established a cooperative framework for protecting water resources throughout the Santa Margarita River watershed. Nearly ten years later, that settlement is working. But as often happens with liti- with legislation implementing complex Indian water settlements, practical experience has revealed two narrow technical issues that should be corrected. function exactly as Congress intended it to. These amendments are not controversial. 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 forty four seventeen. The first amendment updates the definition of the reservation to insure that Pechanga can use its existing tribal water right on contiguous trust lands within the Margarita River watershed that have been or may later be taken into trust. This amendment does not increase our water right. It simply ensures that the water right Congress already recognized can be used on the reservation as it exists today. The second amendment updates the authorized uses of the Pechanga water quality account. When the settlement was negotiated, the primary concern was salinity. Today, communities across the country face new water quality challenges. including contaminants such as PFAS. This amendment simply provides the flexibility to use uh existing settlement funds to respond to today's water quality issues, rather than limiting those funds to a single purpose, envisioned nearly a decade ago. Again, this amendment requires no new federal fund re- funding. It simply allows existing funds to be used more effectively to protect water resources. S forty-four seventeen contains two changes that are truly technical amendments to our original water settlement. 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 require additional appropriations. Instead, it honors the agreement Congress approved in twenty sixteen by ensuring that settlement can continue to serve the purposes Congress intended, for Pechanga, for our neighboring water agencies, and for future generations. On behalf of the Pechanga Band of Indians, I respectfully ask the committee to approve S forty-four seventeen, and advance it to the full Senate. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Appreciate your testimony, of all of you. Uh I I'd like to begin uh with uh the Yavapai Apache Nation Water Rights Settlement, and I wanna direct my first question to you uh, Mister Cameron. Um under the bill approximately uh one point uh O four million billion in mandatory funding uh seven hundred thirty-one uh million plus for the Craig and Verity pipeline, hundred and fifty-two uh plus million for the nation's drinking water system and approximately a hundred fifty-six million in additional trust accounts. Um Interior states that these two principal projects are supported only by less than feasibility estimates and has warned that similar estimates have resulted in substantial cost overruns. Um the bill also indexes authorized amounts for cost fluctuations and an unforeseen market volatility can you share with the committee what level of engineering or design has been completed for the Craig and Verde pipeline and the uh Yavapai Yavapai Apache Nations drinking water system What's the what's the expect expected range of of uncertainty in these estimates?

As is uh you know often the case when uh we move ahead with water rights settlements based on an appraisal level study as opposed to a full-blown feasibility study, uh the cost is typically, dramatically underestimated. So one of our concerns is that if the Congress were to move ahead with with and also Agua Caliente, uh in the absence of a feasibility study, uh 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.

So it's it's basically they they need additional feasibility work to to get a a more reliable estimate of the cost.

Exactly. So there are no surprises on the part of uh of anyone.

Okay. Uh let me ask then about the the pipeline capacity. Uh Interior states that the required pipeline capacity for the pipeline exceeds the water right claims um by nearly forty percent. Uh the legislation would require capacity for at least six thousand eight hundred and thirty-six uh uh point nine two acre feet annually for the nation and up to one thousand nine hundred and twelve uh uh acre feet county communities. So how much of the additional capacity benefits for non-tribal users rather than the nation um and can you can you give the committee uh the quantity claimed by the United States the quantity quantified for the nation under the settlement, and the proposed design capacity. I know that these are all um more technical, but if you have those details I think the committee would appreciate those.

'Kay. I'll have to get back to you on this on the precise numbers there, Madam Chairman.

Okay.

Um I what we certainly can say is that our initial estimate is approximately forty percent of the of the benefits of the pop- pipeline would go to uh uh non-Indians, and that begs the question, shouldn't there be cost sharing from those non-Indian parties uh if the the project were to move ahead uh as as originally sized? Um, and that's uh, you know, that's a significant question. Um, the a- again, absent a feasibility study, it's hard to put particular numbers either on that percentage. Is it really thirty-eight percent? Is it really forty-seven percent? So our best estimate right now is forty percent over-design, but if we had a feasibility study, we'd have more clarity.

Well, and I appreciate that. But as as much of that detail um as you can provide us, I think that that would be helpful as you as you gain it. Um and then from the federal perspective, why is this settlement such a such a a big a big deal, really? Um and and you mentioned uh perhaps the need for for a cost share. Um uh what specific pipeline costs should local users pay and and what level of commitment would satisfy the department here?

As a general principle um in reclamation law, uh people who benefit from water or power uh should be paying the treasury back for the treasury's investment in that water and power so to the extent there are non-Indian parties who would benefit from part of the cost of this project, the expectation would be that they would be uh repaying the treasury uh over time for the benefits that they receive as is true of all reclamation projects as a as a general rule across the country.

So Chairman, I've got a couple questions for you on this, but uh my five minutes is expired so I'll turn to the Vice Chair.

Thank you, Chair Murkowski. Um Secretary Cameron, um quick first question. So you do this sort of preliminary assessment and it's basically al it always comes in low and then you do the feasibility study and it's always more than that. Is that pretty fair to say?

That's a Pretty accurate generalization.

Okay, so how come? Like that that doesn't seem like something that we should accept as though it's like a statute or the weather. Um can't you change your internal process so it's not reliably coming in under, and therefore kind of a not particularly useful number?

It largely depends upon the the way the work is conducted. At an at an appraisal level, it's almost at the risk of oversimplifying a a desktop exercise, whereas at the feasibility level, You are walking the ground, you are doing uh geophysical and geological explorations, you are doing soil testing.

But like another project, another sort of capital improvements project, you have contingency to Right, you get like for instance in the Hawaii, the Honolulu area rapid transit project, you just have a thirty percent contingency because between inflation, supply chain shocks, uh you know, time value of money, all the rest of it, it's gonna be more like wh why can't we at least have some little equation that sort of gets this thing closer to where we all know it's going to be, so that the number that we get given is th is closer to the number.

Right. You you raised a good point, it's um building in management and contingencies is a standard practice in in project management.

Is it a standard practice for you guys?

Uh I can't tell you what the percentage that we normally uh you use off the top of my head but

Then you get you get the question, right?

I get the question.

And I th I think Ca can we work together? Because I I just don't like I I know it's not the main thing. The main thing is the money. Yeah. But if we're trying to figure out how much money you need, Right. and you come in and say it's one point two and then it ends up reliably being one point nine then that seems like something we ought to be able to fix. And that's not a criticism about inflation or supply chain risks. Right, right, right. That's a that's just a you give us a number, we wanna be able to rely upon it. And we have to go and advocate to appropriators um that this will get this thing done. And if it's really just Right. two thirds of the money, then we lose our credibility. Okay, so let me, let me move on from that.

Mm-hmm.

In March you testified that the current funding is n is not adequate to complete the enacted settlements l much less pay for the sixteen pending before Congress. Uh, right now I'm considering a bill that would authorize new mandatory funding for settlements that could be used by either BOR or BIA. Would such a solution help Interior to pay for the settlements?

As a general principle, the administration prefers to pay for uh settlements through discretionary appropriations. We feel that gives both the executive branch and the Congress more control on an annual uh you know basis on in in response to the actual on the ground uh uh funding uh funding needs but we are obviously happy to implement any statute that the Congress chooses to enact.

Um 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 sort of even policy advice on Senator Lujan's bill, the one that I'm considering. And I'm wondering if you can work with our teams because this is clearly a broken system. I mean, the estimating's wrong, we're way short, um, and then it's not as though you save money by shorting projects. You know this, right?

It's true.

If a project can't be completed, then the time value of money and inflation and then you end up you just end up with lots of difficulty. It is not cheaper to to only partially fund a project. I get the idea of a of Congress having sort of a tactile control over which projects get funded.

Mm-hmm.

I understand that piece, and I get that some of this these cost the the vary the variation in cost is inevitable. 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's it's my good friend Senator Lujan's bill or mine or anyone else's, but like we've gotta normalize this so it's not um goofy where you sorta have to do politics to get a water rights settlement funded. And sometimes you get them funded, sometimes you don't, sometimes there's a requirement for a pay for, sometimes there's not. Like this is this is no way to run a railroad especially since these are obligations that we have under under treaties.

Yeah, I I agree with you uh Senator. There's gotta be a w- better way to do this and we would very much look forward to working with you and the chairman and Senator Lujan and other colleagues

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Shouts, and thank you for raising that. You know, we we had a hearing previously this year on on water settlement. Um and uh I think kind of the the conclusion of that, and I'm looking at my friend from New Mexico here, was uh we've got an obligation to to address these. Um right now we don't have a lot of good answers in terms of how we're paying for them. Um I happen to be uh the Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Committee as well, I know. and uh believe me, when we're talking about um what this means for for our accounts, uh you know thirteen billion dollars is kind of eye-popping um when you're looking at it from the perspective of where you find that within the budget. So this is a hearing that is specific to a handful of these water settlements, but I think you are correct in pointing out that we have a a bigger structural flaw that we're trying to to wrestle to the ground here. Center rounds.