Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1017, I call up the bill (H.R. 3254) to approve the Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Agreement, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House. Mr. Speaker,…
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1017, I call up the bill (H.R. 3254) to approve the Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Agreement, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 3254.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today, the Committee on Natural Resources is bringing before this body for consideration three bills which would provide for the settlement of the legitimate water claims of several Indian tribes.
Many Americans rarely give a thought to having clean, potable water in their homes. We turn on the taps in our kitchens, and we take it for granted that water will flow forth. But that, unfortunately, is not the case in all places.
There is no scarcity of water in my home State of West Virginia. We are rich in water. It flows freely.
Yet, today we continue to work to ensure that all of our citizens have access to clean, potable water, as well as to be served by sanitary wastewater systems; and I have and will continue to fight this fight every day of my tenure in this body. So it is with understanding and with compassion that I bring these three measures to the floor today.
The pending measure, and I give him full credit for his leadership and bringing it to our attention, sponsored by the gentleman from New Mexico, Ben Ray Lujan, would adjudicate the water rights of the Pueblo of Taos and end 40 years of active litigation by ratifying a settlement agreement.
Forty years, my colleagues, 40 years of litigation: that is what the pending legislation would end. And I cannot commend enough Mr. Lujan and Mr. Heinrich, the other gentleman from New Mexico and member of our Committee on Natural Resources, for their efforts in this matter.
Similarly, I commend the chairwoman on the Subcommittee on Water and Power, the gentlewoman from California, Grace Napolitano, for the hearings and all of her hard work on the measures that we are considering today.
This legislation implements a settlement agreement that was signed in May of 2006 by the Pueblo of Taos, the State of New Mexico, 55 community ditch associations, the town of Taos, El Prado Water and Sanitation District, and the 12 Taos-area Mutual Domestic Water Consumer Associations. Collectively, the parties to the agreement represent the majority of water users in the Taos Valley.
Let me emphasize that point. This settlement provides water certainty to both tribal and non-tribal communities.
Under this settlement agreement, funds would be authorized for the Taos Settlement Fund, the Taos Infrastructure and Watershed Fund, and for various projects that are mutually beneficial to the pueblo and non-pueblo parties.
I would note that the Taos Pueblo has settled for a water right that is far less than what the claims asserted in litigation by the United States and the pueblo. This potential value is much more than the amount that is authorized to be appropriated in H.R. 3254, a clear financial benefit to all taxpayers.
Yet we will hear from some on the other side of the aisle that they are just not sure whether or not this settlement agreement is a good deal. They just do not know, they will say.
Well, all the parties which finally came together to settle 40 years of litigation, I remind you, believe that this is a good settlement. The gentleman from New Mexico who represents these people in this body believes it is a good deal. The gentlewoman from California, Grace Napolitano, who held hearings on this bill and worked with all the concerned parties, believes it is a good settlement. And the Committee on Natural Resources, which approved a pending measure, thought it was a good enough settlement to send to the full House.
Let me be clear: Both the Departments of the Interior and Justice were involved in this settlement agreement. Rather than engage in protracted litigation, both Republican and Democrat administrations for over the last 20 years believe that negotiated Indian water rights settlements are the preferred course of action.
In testimony before the Water and Power Subcommittee, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation stated: ``Settlements improve water management by providing certainty not just as to the quantification of a tribe's water rights but also as to the rights of all water users.''
He added further: ``Indian water rights settlements are consistent with the Federal trust responsibility to Native Americans and with a policy of promoting Indian self-determination and economic self- sufficiency.''
We do indeed have a trust responsibility to Indian country, and fulfilling that responsibility is at the heart of what we are doing today. The Taos Pueblo has had to fight for its water rights against Spanish settlers, with Mexico, and then as part of the United States. Let us today end this long fight and provide certainty to all the water users in the Taos Valley.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the lead sponsor of this bill, whom I referenced in my opening remarks, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).
Mr. Speaker, it's my honor to now yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico, Martin Heinrich, another cosponsor of this legislation and a valued member of our Committee on Natural Resources.
I am prepared to close, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me conclude by noting that in a letter dated January 19 from the Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice, they noted, ``Both rancor and uncertainty can have substantial economic consequences. The existence of unquantified water rights claims casts a shadow over all water users in a water basin, as no other water user in the basin can ever be certain when these rights may be used and how this will impact other users.'' The pending bill solves this problem. It provides badly needed certainty.
And before finally concluding, I would note to my colleagues, and I did not really want to do this for fear of scaring off support from my side of the aisle, but I will note that a third of these bills have a cosponsorship of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), not an individual known around here for his prolific spending habits. So I do that, again, with the trepidation of scaring off support from my side of the aisle for the pending measure. I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, by asking all Members to support this measure.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.