Reclamation Water Settlements Fund Act of 2007

Mr. President, one unresolved issue that is of grave concern to many in the west is unresolved Indian water rights claims. Over the past century, many parties have sought to determine the extent of Indian water rights in the courts. However, litigation to determine Indian water rights has failed in many respects for both Indians and non-Indians. Unresolved Indian water rights claims are of particular concern in New Mexico which has 23 Indian tribes.

As with all litigation, the outcome is uncertain and one party generally loses. If the Indian nations were to receive a large award by the courts and those water rights were exercised, the senior priority date of many Indian water rights claims have the potential to displace existing users. This means that non-Indian towns, farmers, and industry could ultimately have their water supply cut off. However, in many instances, even if an Indian nation were to receive a water windfall from the courts, many of the Indian nations lack the water infrastructure to make use of the water awarded by the courts. Additionally, Indian water rights litigation often takes decades. For example, the Aamodt litigation in New Mexico was filed in 1966 and is the longest standing litigation in the federal judiciary. Finally, the numerous unresolved Indian water rights claims in many western states such as New Mexico impair our ability to effectively undertake water rights planning as we are unsure of the award that the Indian nations will receive.

Over the past two decades, many parties have pursued negotiated settlements in lieu of litigation, an approach beneficial to all parties involved. In negotiated settlements, multiple parties get together and determine how best to allocate water among Indians and non-Indians in a way that does not curtail existing uses. Many of the settlements also contain authorization for the Federal Government to provide funding to the Indian nations so that the Indian nations involved can make use of the water they are awarded under the terms of the settlement, resulting in economic development and health benefits on the Indian nation.

Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne and his staff deserve a great deal of credit for trying to advance the New Mexico Indian water rights settlements. However, current Federal budgets cannot accommodate the upcoming New Mexico settlements. This is troublesome for several reasons. First, it impairs Congress's ability to resolve Indian water rights claims in a way that keeps all water users whole. Additionally, many of the settlements require the construction of water infrastructure benefiting an Indian nation. Lack of a steady stream of Federal money results in water projects that take far longer to construct, costing taxpayers significantly more money in the long run.

Today I introduce the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund Act of 2007. This bill would establish a reliable source of Federal funding to resolve Indian water rights claims in New Mexico. The bill provides that, over the next 10 years, 30 percent of the revenues generated in New Mexico that would otherwise be deposited in the reclamation fund would instead be used to fund Indian water rights settlements. The amounts deposited in this fund could be used to pay for the Aamodt, Abeyta, and Navajo Indian water rights settlements after the parties resolve outstanding issues and the settlements are signed into law. It is important to note that the fund created by this legislation would allow us to fund New Mexico Indian water rights settlements without compromising the sustainability of the reclamation fund.

The consequences of not settling outstanding Indian water rights claims in New Mexico are dire. The legislation I introduce today would remove the main impediment to the resolution of Indian water rights settlement.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, one unresolved issue that is of grave concern to many in the west is unresolved Indian water rights claims. Over the past century, many parties have sought to determine the extent of Indian water rights in the courts. However, litigation to determine Indian water rights has failed in many respects for both Indians and non-Indians. Unresolved Indian water rights claims are of particular concern in New Mexico which has 23 Indian tribes.

As with all litigation, the outcome is uncertain and one party generally loses. If the Indian nations were to receive a large award by the courts and those water rights were exercised, the senior priority date of many Indian water rights claims have the potential to displace existing users. This means that non-Indian towns, farmers, and industry could ultimately have their water supply cut off. However, in many instances, even if an Indian nation were to receive a water windfall from the courts, many of the Indian nations lack the water infrastructure to make use of the water awarded by the courts. Additionally, Indian water rights litigation often takes decades. For example, the Aamodt litigation in New Mexico was filed in 1966 and is the longest standing litigation in the federal judiciary. Finally, the numerous unresolved Indian water rights claims in many western states such as New Mexico impair our ability to effectively undertake water rights planning as we are unsure of the award that the Indian nations will receive.

Over the past two decades, many parties have pursued negotiated settlements in lieu of litigation, an approach beneficial to all parties involved. In negotiated settlements, multiple parties get together and determine how best to allocate water among Indians and non-Indians in a way that does not curtail existing uses. Many of the settlements also contain authorization for the Federal Government to provide funding to the Indian nations so that the Indian nations involved can make use of the water they are awarded under the terms of the settlement, resulting in economic development and health benefits on the Indian nation.

Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne and his staff deserve a great deal of credit for trying to advance the New Mexico Indian water rights settlements. However, current Federal budgets cannot accommodate the upcoming New Mexico settlements. This is troublesome for several reasons. First, it impairs Congress's ability to resolve Indian water rights claims in a way that keeps all water users whole. Additionally, many of the settlements require the construction of water infrastructure benefiting an Indian nation. Lack of a steady stream of Federal money results in water projects that take far longer to construct, costing taxpayers significantly more money in the long run.

Today I introduce the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund Act of 2007. This bill would establish a reliable source of Federal funding to resolve Indian water rights claims in New Mexico. The bill provides that, over the next 10 years, 30 percent of the revenues generated in New Mexico that would otherwise be deposited in the reclamation fund would instead be used to fund Indian water rights settlements. The amounts deposited in this fund could be used to pay for the Aamodt, Abeyta, and Navajo Indian water rights settlements after the parties resolve outstanding issues and the settlements are signed into law. It is important to note that the fund created by this legislation would allow us to fund New Mexico Indian water rights settlements without compromising the sustainability of the reclamation fund.

The consequences of not settling outstanding Indian water rights claims in New Mexico are dire. The legislation I introduce today would remove the main impediment to the resolution of Indian water rights settlement.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today along with the senior Senator from Vermont to introduce the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act Amendments of 2007. This is another significant piece of legislation on which I proudly have teamed with Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Most recently, we have worked together on important reforms to the Freedom of Information Act, and also introduced comprehensive patent reform legislation. I am glad to continue our work by introducing this legislation which, though seemingly technical and minor, offers very important clarifications about the scope of protections available to boat designers.

Boat designs, like any technical designs, are complex and are the result of a great deal of hard work and contribution of intellectual property. Accordingly, Congress enacted the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act in 1998 to provide necessary protections that were not present among copyright statutes prior to that time. The act has been instrumental for the continued development and protection of boat designs but unfortunately recently has encountered a few hurdles.

A recent court decision raised questions about the scope of protections available to various boat designs. Justifiably or not, this interpretation under the VHDPA unfortunately has led many in the boat manufacturing industry to conclude that the act's provisions are not effective at protecting vessel designs. Intellectual property protection of those designs is critical to these manufacturers in order to encourage innovative design, and a clarification of the law is needed.

The legislation we offer will clarify that the protections accorded to a vessel design can be used to separately protect a vessel's hull and/or deck as well as a plug or mold of either the hull or deck. The proposed amendments would make clear that it remains possible for boat designers to seek protection for both the hull and the deck, and plug or mold of both, of a single vessel, and many designers no doubt will continue to do so. However, these amendments are intended to clarify that protection under the VHDPA for these vessel elements may be analyzed separately.

This bipartisan legislation provides the necessary assurance to boat manufacturers that the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act will remain a vital intellectual property protection statute. The bill offers very important clarifications about the scope of protections available to boat designs and will be welcome news to boat makers across the Nation and in Texas. The thousands of miles of coastline in Texas, and all the lakes and rivers in between, provide significant opportunities for recreational and commercial boating throughout the state. This legislation will ensure that there will be continued innovation in the design and manufacture of boats for many years to come.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a small but important piece of intellectual property legislation today with my friends from Texas, Wisconsin, and Rhode Island. Our recent collaborations have been fruitful and important. The OPEN Government Act with Senator Cornyn, NOPEC with Senator Kohl, and patent reform with Senator Whitehouse. Today, we are joining together to reintroduce the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act Amendments of 2007.

Designs of boat vessel hulls are often the result of a great deal of time, effort, and financial investment. They are afforded intellectual property protection under the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act that Congress passed in 1998. This law exists for the same reason that other works enjoy intellectual property rights: to encourage continued innovation, to protect the works that emerge from the creative process, and to reward the creators. Recent courtroom experience has made it clear that the protections Congress passed 7 years ago need some statutory refinement to ensure they meet the purposes we envisioned. The Vessel Hull Design Protection Act Amendments shore up the law, making an important clarification about the scope of the protections available to boat designs.

We continue to be fascinated with, and in so many ways dependent on, bodies of water, both for recreation and commerce. More than 50 percent of Americans live on or near the coastline in this country. We seem always to be drawn to the water, whether it is the beautiful Lake Champlain in my home State of Vermont or the world's large oceans. As anyone who has visited our seaports can attest, much of our commerce involves sea travel. Protecting boat designs and encouraging innovation in those designs are worthy aims, and I hope we can move quickly to pass this bipartisan legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.