- S. 2442, S. 2465, S. 2479, S. 2480, AND S. 2503

[Senate Hearing 113-419]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

S. Hrg. 113-419

S. 2442, S. 2465, S. 2479, S. 2480, AND S. 2503

=======================================================================

HEARING

before the

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

JULY 9, 2014

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs

______

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
90-791 WASHINGTON : 2014
____________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

JON TESTER, Montana, Chairman
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TOM UDALL, New Mexico JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
MARK BEGICH, Alaska DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
Mary J. Pavel, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Rhonda Harjo, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page
Hearing held on July 9, 2014..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Barrasso.................................... 2
Statement of Senator Crapo....................................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Statement of Senator Flake....................................... 43
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Statement of Senator McCain...................................... 46
Statement of Senator Tester...................................... 1
Statement of Senator Udall....................................... 18
Statement of Senator Walsh....................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4

Witnesses

Black, Michael S., Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S.
Department of the Interior..................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Canfield, Michael, President/CEO, Indian Pueblos Marketing,
Indian Pueblo Cultural Center.................................. 57
Prepared statement........................................... 58
Counts, Hon. Sherry J., Chairwoman, Hualapai Tribe............... 53
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Fisher, Hon. Llevando, President, Northern Cheyenne Tribe........ 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Melendez, Hon. Arlan, Chairman, Reno-Sparks Indian Colony........ 48
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Tom, Hon. Aletha, Chairwoman, Moapa Band of Paiute Indians....... 47
Prepared statement........................................... 48

Appendix

Board of Supervisors of Mohave County, Arizona, prepared
statement...................................................... 71
Charter, Steve, Northern Plains Resource Council, prepared
statement...................................................... 76
DeSoto, Randi, Chairwoman, Summit Lake Paiute Council, prepared
statement...................................................... 77
Graham, Patrick J., State Director, The Nature Conservancy,
prepared statement............................................. 86
La Paz County Board of Supervisors, prepared statement........... 80
Letters for the record

Lowery, Hon. Elwood, Chairman, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe,
prepared statement............................................. 78
Manning, Hon. Lindsey, Chairman, Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the
Duck Valley Indian Reservation, prepared statement............. 73
McAllister, Francis, Vice President of Land & Water, Freeport
Minerals Corporation, prepared statement....................... 82
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada, prepared statement... 69
Resolution No. 40-2014........................................... 93
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to
Hon. Arlan Melendez............................................ 94
Temoke, Gerald, Chairman, Elko Band Council, prepared statement.. 75

S. 2442, S. 2465, S. 2479, S. 2480, AND S. 2503

----------

WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 2014

U.S. Senate,
Committee on Indian Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room
628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jon Tester,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

The Chairman. The Senate Indian Affairs Committee will come
to order.
This afternoon the Committee is going to be holding a
legislative hearing on five bills affecting land and water
resources in Indian Country. We are going to first discuss S.
2442, the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act. The bill would primarily
exchange mineral rights between the Tribe and a private
company. In the early 1900s, the United States was supposed to
provide the Northern Cheyenne Tribe the full subsurface estate
within the boundaries of its reservation. However, the United
States failed to include approximately 5,000 acres of
subsurface rights which are now owned by Great Northern
Properties. This bill would address that past mistake. The
company is willing to transfer its mineral interests within the
reservation to the tribe. In return, the Secretary of Interior
will give the company mineral interests off-reservation that
are currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
This transfer would give the tribe full ownership of the
subsurface estate within its reservation boundaries. The tribe
would release all claims it has against the United States for
failure to provide these interests to the tribe more than a
century ago.
S. 2442 was introduced by Senator Walsh and myself. Senator
Walsh has joined us here today to talk about the bill as well
as Northern Cheyenne Tribal President Llevando Fisher. We will
hear from Llevando a little bit later.
We are also going to hear testimony about S. 2479 and S.
2480, which are two bills affecting tribes in Nevada. S. 2479
and S. 2480 would convey lands to eight tribes in Nevada for
housing, economic development, conservation and cultural
purposes.
We are also going to discuss S. 2503, the Bill Williams
River Water Rights Settlement Act of 2014. This bill is a
result of the Hualapai Tribe and its neighbors working together
in a positive manner to work out their issues. I have seen a
good number of water settlements in Montana and I know how much
easier it is that these settlements can be accomplished if
everyone is working together to find solutions to reach common
goals. Senator Flake will be joining us shortly, I hope, to
talk about this bill and the benefits it will provide to all
the parties involved.
And finally, we will discuss S. 2465, the Albuquerque
Indian School Land Transfer Act. The Albuquerque Indian School
provided education to Indian students for nearly a century.
After closing down in the 1960s, sections of the property have
been transferred to 19 Pueblos which own the land jointly.
Together, the Pueblos have used this property for economic
development activities including a hotel and an Indian Pueblo
cultural center. The cultural center has become a tourist
attraction in Albuquerque and provides education and cultural
activities related to the Pueblos. S. 2465 would transfer a few
more acres of land jointly to the Pueblos.
I want to thank everybody for being here, everybody who is
going to be testifying today. And with that, I would ask
Senator Barrasso if he has an opening statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
holding today's hearing. I want to welcome my friends to the
Committee, Senator Walsh, and I understand Senator Flake will
be joining us shortly.
For Indian tribes, natural resources provide significant
economic, cultural and social benefits to the communities. As I
have stated in prior hearings, on some reservations, oil and
gas or coal reserves represent by far the number one best
opportunity for prosperity. So we should be asking, what can
Congress and the Administration do to help tribes and their
members make use of these resources, if in fact that is what
they want to do. For that reason, I have introduced S. 2132,
the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act
Amendments of 2014. That is a bill, Mr. Chairman, that we can
get signed into law this year and kick start tribal energy
development.
Reducing excessive and unnecessary regulations, reforming
outdated approval processes and working with, not against,
tribes that want to develop their resources I believe is a good
starting point. We must also be sensitive to the barriers that
the energy-producing tribes face getting the resources to
viable markets, both domestic and foreign. Access to pipelines,
to rails, to refiners and shipping ports is critical. Congress
can and will need to play a role to ensure that tribes not only
have the ability to make their resources and develop their
resources but also have access to the markets.
So I welcome the witnesses and look forward to the
testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
We are going to now hear testimony from Senator Walsh and
hopefully before you get done, Senator Walsh, Senator Flake
will be here to explain the Bill Williams Water Rights Act.
But for now, Senator Walsh, my colleague from Montana, who
is the chief sponsor of S. 2442, the Northern Cheyenne Lands
Act, the floor is yours to talk about this bill. Senator Walsh.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. WALSH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

Senator Walsh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Tester,
Vice Chairman Barrasso, for the honor of testifying before this
illustrious Committee.
I am here today to provide testimony in support of S. 2442,
the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act. This is an important bill for
the Northern Cheyenne, a tribe in southeast Montana. I
appreciate Chairman Tester's co-sponsorship of this
legislation.
I also want to thank Northern Cheyenne President Fisher for
his leadership on this issue and look forward to his testimony.
In my second week as a United States Senator, I traveled to
the Northern Cheyenne Reservation and heard directly from
tribal leadership about the importance of fixing a century-old
wrong that has significantly reduced the tribe's ability to
pursue economic development opportunities on their reservation.
I also heard about a variety of land consolidation challenges
and trust responsibilities on the reservation that could be
improved.
In 1900, when the original boundaries of the Northern
Cheyenne Reservation were expanded, the Federal Government
failed to acquire the underlying mineral rights for the tribe.
Approximately 5,000 acres of coal and other mineral rights were
lost to the tribe. Currently, Great Northern Properties holds
these mineral rights underlying the tribe's land. This bill
provides a long-overdue solution. The Northern Cheyenne Lands
Act conveys to the tribe 117 million tons of coal under about
5,000 acres held by Great Northern Properties. Once the
conveyance is completed, these mineral rights will be held in
trust on behalf of the tribe. In exchange, Great Northern
Properties will receive 112 million tons of federally-owned
coal on the Bull Mountains and the East Fork area.
Our bill keeps surface owners in the Bull Mountains whole
under current law. This bill also clears the way for a revenue
sharing agreement where the tribe will receive royalty payments
from Great Northern Properties on any revenues the company
earns through the development of Federal coal tracts conveyed
in this legislation.
Senate Bill 2442 also directs the Secretary of the Interior
to take into trust 1,567 acres of land for the tribe. These
lands hold significant cultural value for the Northern
Cheyenne. This is a simple fix that will allow the tribe to
consolidate more of its land for its members, promote tribal
self-governance and protect culturally-important sites.
This bill also transfers important trust funds to the tribe
and aims to reduce fractionation on the reservation, including
through the Interior Department's land buyback program.
In conclusion, I strongly urge the Committee to support the
Northern Cheyenne Lands Act in order to consolidate land
ownership, correct a century-old wrong, create jobs and revenue
and promote tribal self-governance. Thank you again, Mr.
Chairman, for this opportunity. I appreciate your support.
[The prepared statement of Senator Walsh follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. John E. Walsh, U.S. Senator from Montana

Thank you Chairman Tester and Vice Chairman Barrasso for the honor
of testifying in front of this illustrious committee. I am here today
to provide testimony in support of Senate Bill 2442, the Northern
Cheyenne Lands Act. This is an important bill for the Northern Cheyenne
Tribe in southeast Montana and I appreciate Chairman Tester's co-
sponsorship of this legislation.
I also want to thank Northern Cheyenne President Fisher for his
leadership on this issue and look forward to his testimony.
In my second week as a United States Senator, I travelled to the
Northern Cheyenne Reservation and heard directly from tribal leadership
about the importance of fixing a century old wrong that has
significantly reduced the tribe's ability to pursue economic
development opportunities on their reservation. I also heard about a
variety of land consolidation challenges and trust responsibilities on
the reservation that could be improved.
In 1900, when the original boundaries of the Northern Cheyenne
Reservation were expanded, the federal government failed to acquire the
underlying mineral rights for the tribe. Approximately 5,000 acres of
coal and other mineral rights were lost to the tribe. Currently, Great
Northern Properties holds these mineral rights underlying the tribe's
land.
This bill provides a long overdue solution. The Northern Cheyenne
Lands Act conveys to the Tribe 117 million tons of coal under about
5,000 acres held by Great Northern Properties. Once the conveyance is
completed, these mineral rights will be held in trust on behalf of the
Tribe. In exchange, Great Northern Properties will receive 112 million
tons of federally-owned coal in the Bull Mountains and the East Fork
area. Our bill keeps surface owners in the Bull Mountains whole under
current law.
This bill also clears the way for a revenue sharing agreement,
where the Tribe will receive royalty payments from Great Northern
Properties on any revenues the company earns through the development of
federal coal tracts conveyed in this legislation.
Senate Bill 2442 also directs the Secretary of the Interior to take
into trust 1,567 acres of land for the tribe. These lands hold
significant cultural value for the Northern Cheyenne. This is a simple
fix that will allow the tribe to consolidate more land for its members,
promote tribal self-governance, and protect culturally important sites.
The bill also transfers an important trust fund to the Tribe and
aims to reduce fractionation on the reservation, including through the
Interior Department's Land Buy-Back Program.
In conclusion, I strongly urge the Committee to support the
Northern Cheyenne Lands Act in order to consolidate land ownership,
correct a century-old wrong, create jobs and revenue, and promote
tribal self-governance.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify.

The Chairman. Senator Walsh, thank you for your testimony.
We appreciate your leadership on this bill. Thank you for
taking time out of what I know is a very busy schedule to come
introduce this bill to the Indian Affairs Committee.
As they would say in elementary school, you are dismissed
and we will bring up the next panel. Thank you very much,
Senator Walsh.
Our next panel is going to be Mike Black, and what we are
going to do, Mike, we have five bills up here today. We are
going to give you ten minutes, if you need all ten, use all
ten. If you need a little more, we will give you a little bit
of flexibility. Typically we hold people to five minutes for
their full testimony but I don't think you can get through
these bills in that amount of time. Because we want to hear the
Department's opinion.
What we are going to do is, we will let you get started
here in a moment. If Senator Flake shows up, we will find out
how busy he is, we might kick it over to him and then back to
you again.
With that, we have Mike Black, who is the Director of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Department of Interior. Your
entire written statement will be a part of the record.
With that, I appreciate your coming up. I know you are
busy. But I appreciate your coming up to visit with us about
these five bills.
With that, the floor is yours.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL S. BLACK, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN
AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Black. Good afternoon, Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman
Barrasso and members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony for the Department of Interior
on the five bills that are the subject of this legislative
hearing.

Regarding S. 2442, the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act, the
Department of Interior appreciates the diligent work of the
entire Montana Congressional delegation to seek an equitable
solution to a vexing and complex situation regarding ownership
of the mineral estate underlying Northern Cheyenne Indian
Reservation. The Department supports the goals of the
legislation and would like to work with the sponsor and the
Committee on modifications to the bill.
The issues in this bill are complex. The Department
recognizes the unique role Congress can play in arbitrating
difficult situations. The department recognizes that we have a
unique trust responsibility to the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and
therefore we are committed to finding an equitable solution
consistent with the Federal Land Policy Management Act and
departmental policy.
S. 2442 reflects the dedication of the Montana delegation
and the stakeholders to resolve this complex situation. First,
by directing the Secretary of Interior to take approximately
1,567 acres of tribally-owned fee lands into trust for the
tribe. Second, the bill conveys 5,007 acres of subsurface coal
and iron mineral estate currently held by Great Northern
Properties within the reservation to the tribe, while
transferring federally-held coal interests to GNP in
compensation. The mineral estates conveyed to the tribe would
be held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the
tribe.
S. 2465, the Albuquerque Indian School Land Transfer Act,
directs the Secretary for the Department of Interior to
transfer four parcels of land, or approximately 11.11 acres of
federally-owned lands located in Albuquerque, New Mexico into
trust for the benefit of the 19 Pueblos in New Mexico. S. 2465
also provides that these lands, once transferred into trust,
shall be used by the 19 Pueblos for the educational, health,
cultural, business and economic development of the Pueblos and
any private or municipal encumbrance, right-of-way restriction,
easement of record or utility record or utility service
agreement in effect on the enactment of this bill shall remain.
The bill also prohibits Class I, Class II and Class III
gaming.
The Department supports S. 2465, but has concerns regarding
the bill as it is currently drafted. While the bill does
provide a definition of the property in Section 3, the
Department has a map and legal description of the land referred
to in the bill that is more specific, and we recommend that the
language be inserted into the bill to reflect this map and
legal description.
Also, the Department is concerned that the limitations and
conditions language in Section 3(e) of the bill is not specific
enough and we would like to work with the Committee and sponsor
and others to ensure that we have access to certain parcels of
those lands which are currently used by the Southern Pueblos
Agency for a warehouse and equipment storage yard.
S. 2479, the Moapa Band of Paiutes Land Conveyance Act,
directs that approximately 26,000 acres of public land in
southern Nevada be held in trust for the Moapa Band of Paiutes.
The Department supports S. 2479 and would like to work with the
sponsor and the Committee on modifications concerning energy
transmission corridors, recreational opportunities and
protection of sensitive species.
S. 2480, the Nevada Native Nations Lands Act, provides for
the Secretary of Interior to hold various lands in trust for
the benefit of a number of federally-recognized tribes in
Nevada subject to valid and existing rights. These lands,
totaling nearly 93,000 acres, are currently primarily managed
by the Bureau of Land Management. The bill also includes a
conveyance of BLM-managed lands to Elko County, Nevada for
public purposes.
Placing land into trust for tribes is a top priority of
this Administration. The Department of Interior supports S.
2480 with a few concerns explained in my written testimony. In
particular, we would like to work with the sponsor and the
Committee on amendments which would address concerns about
mineral development as well as a few boundary modifications.
S. 2503, the Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement
Act of 2014, would authorize, ratify and confirm two agreements
which together result in a number of issues in the Bill
Williams River Basin, including issues relating to a southern
transfer of water rights to serve Freeport Minerals Corporation
mining operation in the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species
Conservation Program, as well as resolving certain water rights
issues among Freeport, the United States and the Hualapai
Tribe. While the Administration supports the goals of the bill,
we have significant concerns about the waiver of sovereign
immunity provisions that must be resolved before the
Administration can fully support the bill. We look forward to
working with the parties, the bill's sponsors and this
Committee to address the issue.
This concludes my statement and I will be happy to answer
any questions the Committee may have. I assumed I only had five
minutes.
[Laughter.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Black follows:]

Prepared Statement of Michael S. Black, Director, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior
S. 2442, Northern Cheyenne Lands Act

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you
for inviting the Department of the Interior to provide testimony on S.
2442, the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act. The Department of the Interior
appreciates the diligent work of the entire Montana congressional
delegation to seek an equitable solution to a vexing and complex
situation regarding the ownership of the mineral estate underlying the
Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation. The Department supports the goals
of the legislation and would like to work with the sponsor and the
Committee on modifications to the bill.
S. 2442 includes significant improvements over an earlier version
of the proposal on which we testified during the 112th Congress. We
appreciate the efforts of the delegation to address many of the issues
previously highlighted by the Department. The issues in this bill are
complex and the Department recognizes the unique role Congress can play
in arbitrating difficult issues. The Department recognizes that we have
a unique trust responsibility to the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and
therefore we are committed to finding an equitable solution consistent
with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and Department
policy.

Background
The Northern Cheyenne's relationship to these lands is without
dispute. Despite the Tribe's forced relocation from this area to
Oklahoma in 1877, the Northern Cheyenne walked back to southeastern
Montana to reclaim their ancestral lands, and the reservation was
established a few years later in 1884. Today, the tribe has
approximately 10,000 enrolled members; about 5,000 of those members
live on the reservation. Beyond some agriculture pursuits such as
cattle ranching, there are few economic opportunities for Tribal
members.
In 1900, approximately 5,000 acres of the mineral estate underlying
eight sections of land remained in private ownership when the
boundaries of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation were expanded.
Great Northern Properties (GNP) is the holder of this mineral estate
underlying tribal lands, which was acquired from the Northern Pacific
Railway. All other mineral interests underlying the Reservation are
held by the Federal Government in trust for the Tribe.

S. 2442
S. 2442 reflects the dedication of the Montana delegation and the
stakeholders to resolve this complex situation. First, S. 2442 directs
the Secretary of the Interior to take approximately 1,567 acres of
Tribal-owned fee-lands into trust for the Tribe. Second, the bill
conveys 5,007 acres of subsurface coal and iron mineral estate
currently held by GNP within the Reservation to the Tribe, while
transferring Federally-held coal interests underlying 7,952 acres in
the ``Bull Mountains'' tracts and 1,420 acres in the ``East Fork''
tracts to GNP in compensation. The mineral estates conveyed to the
Tribe would be held in trust by the United States for the benefit of
the Tribe. The bill also includes provisions for revenue sharing and
waiver of legal claims and precludes mining except by underground
techniques on the ``Bull Mountains'' and ``East Fork'' tracts until
written consent of the surface owner is obtained and except as
determined in the BLM's Billings Resource Area Resource Management
Plan. Finally, the bill authorizes transfer of the Northern Cheyenne
Trust Fund to the Tribe's Permanent Fund.
As the Committee is aware, restoring tribal homelands is one of
this Administration's highest priorities. S. 2442, Section 4, directs
the Secretary of the Interior to take approximately 1,567 acres of land
into trust for the Tribe. A portion of these lands are within the
Tribe's current reservation, but two other locations are outside the
Tribe's current reservation and are located in the state of South
Dakota. The Department supports taking these lands into trust. S. 2442
refers to two maps, the ``Northern Cheyenne Land Act--Fee-to-Trust
Lands,'' dated April 22, 2014, and the ``Northern Cheyenne Land Act--
Fee-to-Trust Lands--Lame Deer Townsite,'' dated April 22, 2014,
evidencing the lands to be taken into trust for the Tribe by the
Secretary of the Interior. While the legislation references the maps by
title, the Department highly recommends the use of legal descriptions
to describe the property to be taken into trust for the Tribe.
In accordance with FLPMA and Department policy, we require equal
value exchanges and completion of an appraisal consistent with Uniform
Appraisal Standards when the Department enters into exchanges of land
or interests in lands. S. 2442 seeks to address equalization based on
estimated coal tonnage without standard appraisal practices or a
mechanism for adjusting the acreage to achieve equal value. While the
Department understands that S. 2442 seeks to address tribal settlement
issues that are beyond the scope of FLPMA and Department of Justice
regulations on equal value exchanges, we would like to work with the
sponsors to ensure that the principle of equal value is maintained, and
appraisals are consistent with Uniform Appraisal Standards.
The Department notes that the Federal coal interests referred to as
the ``East Fork'' tracts may encompass part of an alluvial valley floor
which may complicate the conveyance and the future development of these
tracts. Under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, coal
parcels occurring under or near an alluvial valley floor qualify for an
exchange of the affected fee coal for unleased Federal coal if certain
conditions are met. Alluvial valley floor exchanges would be processed
pursuant to FLPMA. Completing such an exchange can be a lengthy and
complicated process.
It should also be noted that the 60-day deadline for conveyance of
mineral rights is not sufficient to complete the necessary analysis
under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Department suggests
changing this to a minimum of 120 days. Additionally, the Department
suggests rephrasing Sec. 5(a)(1)(A) to avoid directing a private entity
to complete a conveyance, and instead ensure that any exchange is
optional on the part of the private party.
Finally, Section 7 of the bill directs the Secretary, in
consultation with the Tribe, to prepare and submit to the Committee an
inventory of fractionated land interests held by the United States in
trust for the benefit of the Tribe or individual Indians on the
Reservation, and to provide periodic reports regarding obstacles to
consolidating trust land ownership on the Reservation.
The Department, through the BIA, currently inventories the
fractionated lands held in trust for the Tribe and held in trust for
individual Indians of the Tribe. The BIA has provided such inventory to
the Department's Land Buy Back Program for Tribal Nations (Buy-Back-
Program), the Northern Cheyenne Agency Superintendent and the Northern
Cheyenne Tribal Outreach Coordinator. The inventory identifies the
lands that are suitable for agriculture on the Northern Cheyenne
Reservation. The majority of the trust lands suitable for agriculture,
which include allotted and Tribal owned lands, are currently leased and
if the lands are not leased then they are being used by their owners
primarily for agriculture.
The Buy-Back-Program has been collaborating with the Tribe to
address the land fractionation issue on the Northern Cheyenne Indian
Reservation (Reservation). The Buy-Back Program purchases fractional
interests in trust or restricted land from willing sellers at fair
market value for immediate transfer and consolidation of those
interests for the tribe with jurisdiction over those interests. The
Buy-Back Program, which was created as a result of the Cobell
Settlement and authorized by the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, has
been working closely with the Tribe since the fall of 2013 and has
completed extensive mapping of the Reservation, land valuation work,
and has entered into a cooperative agreement with the Tribe for the
Tribe to perform educational outreach to Northern Cheyenne landowners.
The Buy-Back Program intends to begin purchasing fractional interests
at the Reservation in the fall of 2014. The work being done, in
consultation with the Tribe, already includes preparing some form of an
inventory of fractionated land interests, especially for those lands
that potentially may be bought by the Tribe through the Buy-Back
Program from willing sellers. The Department would like to work with
the Sponsor, the Committee, and the Tribe on ways to achieve the goals
of Section 7 of the bill without duplicating efforts already underway.
Conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on the Northern
Cheyenne Lands Act. The Department strongly supports efforts to find a
fair and equitable solution to the long-standing issues facing the
Northern Cheyenne Tribe and is committed to continuing to work
cooperatively towards this end. The Department welcomes the opportunity
to resolve these issues for the benefit of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe.

S. 2465
Good afternoon Chairman Tester and Vice Chairman Barrasso, and
Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide
testimony on behalf of the Department on S. 2465, a bill to require the
Secretary of the Interior to take into trust four (4) parcels of
Federal land for the benefit of certain Indian Pueblos in the State of
New Mexico.
S. 2465 deals with the status of certain lands as they directly
relate to the Secretary of the Department's authority to receive
through a transfer of federal lands and take such lands into trust for
federally recognized Indian tribes. President Obama committed to work
with the federally recognized Indian tribes on a government-to-
government basis on matters that affect such federally recognized
Indian tribes. It is in the spirit of this commitment that the
Department looks forward to the opportunity to work with this Committee
and members of Congress, the nineteen (19) Pueblos in New Mexico, as
identified in S. 2465 to achieve the goals of S. 2465.
S. 2465 directs the Secretary for the Department of the Interior to
transfer four (4) parcels of land into trust for the benefit of the
nineteen (19) Pueblos in New Mexico, as defined in the bill, comprising
approximately 11.11 acres of Federal land located in Albuquerque, New
Mexico. S. 2465 also provides that these lands, once transferred into
trust, shall be used by the nineteen (19) Pueblos for the educational,
health, cultural, business, and economic development of the nineteen
(19) Pueblos, and any private or municipal encumbrance, right-of-way,
restriction, easement of record, or utility service agreement in effect
on the date of enactment of S. 2465, shall remain. The bill also
prohibits Class I gaming, Class II gaming, or Class III gaming. The
Department supports S. 2465, but has several concerns regarding the
bill as it is currently drafted.
The nineteen (19) Pueblos, as defined in the bill, were previously
transferred similar parcels of federal land, approximately 8.4 acres,
in trust for their benefit in 2008. Public Law 110-453. While S. 2465
does provide a definition of the property in Sec. 3, the Department
does have a map and legal description of the land referred to in S.
2465 that is more specific and recommends that language be inserted
into S. 2465 to reflect this map and legal description. The Department
appreciates the opportunity, provided in the bill, to conduct a survey
satisfactory to the Secretary of the Department to determine the exact
acreage and legal description of the land.
The Department is concerned that the ``limitations and conditions''
language in Sec. 3(e) of S. 2465 is not specific enough for the Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA), to continue utilizing those parcels while the
parcels are held in trust for the nine (19) Pueblos. The BIA currently
utilizes one parcel to house the fire program for the Southern Pueblos
Agency and the other parcel has a warehouse and an equipment storage
yard, again for the Southern Pueblos Agency. The warehouse and yard
store construction and transportation equipment for the BIA Roads
Program and Natural Resources Program in the BIA Southwest Regional
Office. The Department recommends inserting language that allows the
BIA to continue to utilize these parcels for current BIA purposes.

S. 2479, Moapa Band of Paiutes Land Conveyance Act
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 2479, which directs
that approximately 26,565 acres of public land in southern Nevada be
held in trust for the Moapa Band of Paiutes. The Department supports S.
2479 and would like to work with the Sponsor and the Committee on
modifications concerning energy transmission corridors, recreational
opportunities, and protection of sensitive species.

Background
The Moapa Band of Paiute Indians (Tribe) is a federally recognized
Indian tribe that resides on the Moapa River Reservation (Reservation).
The Reservation was initially set aside in 1874, and is currently
comprised of approximately 71,954 acres in southern Nevada.
The lands proposed in S. 2479 to be held in trust for the Tribe are
adjacent to the existing Reservation. Most of the lands are currently
managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Las Vegas Field Office
under its 1998 Las Vegas Resource Management Plan (RMP). This RMP is
under revision to address renewable energy development, energy
transmission, sensitive species, cultural resource protection, and
recreation issues. The draft RMP is currently expected to be available
for public review later this year and a Record of Decision is expected
by early 2016.

S. 2479
Subject to valid existing rights, S. 2479 transfers approximately
26,565 acres of public land currently administered by the BLM and the
Bureau of Reclamation to be held by the United States in trust for the
Tribe. Under the bill, the Secretary of the Interior would be required
within 180 days of enactment to complete a survey to establish the
boundaries of the land to be held in trust. S. 2479 provides that this
land shall not be used for class II or III gaming, and can be used only
for traditional and customary uses, stewardship conservation for the
benefit of the Tribe, residential or recreational development, or
renewable energy development. Any other use would require the Tribe to
pay to the Secretary the fair market value of the lands, as determined
by standard appraisal practices. Application of this process to land
taken into trust is not a familiar approach, and the Department would
need to conduct additional review and analysis before taking a position
on this portion of the legislation.
Currently, several important rights-of-way cross the lands proposed
to be held in trust in S. 2479, including the West Wide Energy Corridor
which crosses the western portion of the proposed lands. The Old
Spanish Trail, a national historic trail, crosses the southern portion
of the proposed lands, and many of the lands identified are also
important recreation areas. The southern portion of the proposed lands
is also habitat for the three-corner milkvetch, a BLM-sensitive plant
species, listed by the State of Nevada as ``critically endangered.''
All of these matters are being addressed in the RMP revision, which
will cover 3.1 million acres in southern Nevada, including all of the
acreage identified to be held in trust in S. 2479.
The Department supports S. 2479, and recommends it be amended to
address the land management concerns identified above regarding energy
transmission. To ensure that this area continues to be an important
corridor for renewable energy development and transmission in the
future, we recommend that energy transmission be an identified use of
the lands under the bill.
The Department would also like to have further discussions with the
Sponsor and Committee regarding the fair market value provisions in
Sec. 3(d)(2)(B). We would be glad to work with the Sponsor and the
Committee on proposed amendments to the bill.

Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of this
legislation which will provide important benefits to the Tribe.

S. 2480, Nevada Native Nations Lands Act

Thank you for the opportunity to provide the views of the
Department of the Interior (Department) on S. 2480, the Nevada Native
Nations Lands Act. S. 2480 is a bill that provides for the Secretary of
the Interior to hold in trust for the benefit of a number of Federally-
recognized tribes nearly 93,000 acres of Federal lands managed by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the United States Forest Service in
Nevada. The bill also provides for the conveyance of about 275 acres of
BLM-managed lands to Elko County for public purposes. Placing land into
trust for tribes is a top priority for this Administration. The
Department of the Interior welcomes opportunities to work with Congress
on lands to be held in trust and supports S. 2480, with a few concerns
noted below. The Department defers to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture regarding National Forest System Lands.
Some of the parcels identified in this legislation contain lands
that are Preliminary General or Preliminary Priority Habitat for the
Greater Sage-Grouse. The potential listing of the Greater Sage-Grouse
under the Endangered Species Act is a serious concern of the Federal
Government. That decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is
expected in 2015. Additionally, most of the lands proposed to be held
in trust occur within existing grazing allotments, and transfer of
jurisdiction over these lands would likely affect the current
permittees.

S. 2480
Following is a discussion of the provisions of the bill by title
with an explanation of the Department's views as they relate to each
contemplated transfer.

Elko Motocross Land Conveyance, Title I
Title I of S. 2480 would convey approximately 275 acres of BLM-
managed lands to Elko County, Nevada, for a public motocross park. The
conveyance would be subject to valid existing rights. The land is to be
used only for purposes consistent with the Recreation and Public
Purposes (R&PP) Act and includes a reversionary clause if the lands are
used for other purposes. The bill requires the county to pay all
administrative costs associated with the transfer. The BLM regularly
works with local governments and non-profits to lease or convey public
lands for recreational and other public purposes at very low cost. The
BLM supports the transfer of this parcel of land to Elko County for a
motocross park.
We recommend the addition of a clause allowing the Secretary to add
reasonable terms and conditions to the transfer. For example, it might
be necessary to include in the conveyance documents a provision for
maintenance access by a right-of-way holder to an existing oil and gas
pipeline in the lands to be conveyed. A ``terms and conditions'' clause
would allow us to address this and similar situations. Additionally,
the Department of Justice recommends that Section 102(a) of the bill be
revised to make absolutely clear that the city or county would have to
agree to the proposed conveyance, which is what we understand the
sponsor intends. Finally, we recommend clarifying that the conveyance
is subject to compliance with other federal laws, such as the National
Environmental Policy Act.

Conveyance of Land to Indian Tribes, Title II
Title II of S. 2480 provides that seven areas of public lands are
held in trust for specific Native American Tribes in Nevada. The bill
includes a provision requiring surveys of the lands within 180 days of
enactment. S. 2480 also provides that land shall not be used for Class
II or III gaming, and can be used only for traditional and customary
uses, stewardship conservation for the benefit of the Tribe,
residential or recreational development, renewable energy development,
or mineral development. Any other use would require the Tribe to pay to
the Secretary the fair market value of the land, as determined by
standard appraisal practices. Application of this process to land taken
into trust is not a familiar approach, and the Department would need to
conduct additional review and analysis before taking a position on this
portion of the legislation.
The Department and the BLM strongly believe that open communication
between the BLM and tribes is essential in maintaining effective
government-to-government relationships. In this spirit, the BLM has had
a cooperative working relationship with the Tribes and the Department
is pleased to support the provisions concerning lands to be held in
trust for the benefit of these Tribes. In general, the Department would
like to discuss further with the sponsor and Committee the fair market
value provisions in Sec. 202(b)(2)(B) and (C). We would be glad to work
with the sponsor and the Committee on proposed amendments to the bill.
Specific comments about each proposed area follow.

(a) Trust Land for Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada
(Elko Band)
Section 201(a) provides that approximately 373 acres of BLM-managed
lands are to be held in trust for the benefit of the Te-Moak Tribe of
Western Shoshone Indians, Elko Band, subject to valid existing rights.
These lands are adjacent to an existing parcel held in trust for the
Elko Band and are identified in the BLM's Elko Resource Management Plan
as suitable for disposal. The Department supports holding these lands
in trust for the Elko Band.

(b) Trust Land for Fort McDermitt Paiute & Shoshone Tribe
Section 201(b) provides that approximately 19,094 acres of BLM-
managed lands are to be held in trust for the benefit of the Fort
McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe of the Fort McDermitt Indian
Reservation, subject to valid existing rights. These lands are adjacent
to and surrounding the existing Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation. The
BLM notes that this area contains Preliminary General Habitat for the
Greater Sage-Grouse. The Department supports holding these lands in
trust for the benefit of the Tribe, but would like to work with the
sponsor on minor technical and boundary amendments.

(c) Trust Land for Shoshone Paiute Tribes
Section 201(c) provides that approximately 82 acres of land are to
be held in trust for the benefit of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the
Duck Valley Indian Reservation, subject to valid existing rights. The
lands to be held in trust under this section are currently managed by
the United States Forest Service, and the Department of the Interior
defers to the Forest Service on the current management of those lands.

(d) Trust Land for Summit Lake Paiute Tribe
Section 201(d) provides that, subject to valid existing rights,
approximately 941 acres of BLM-managed lands are to be held in trust
for the benefit of the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe. These lands would
expand the existing Summit Lake Indian Reservation to entirely surround
Summit Lake. The Department supports holding these lands in trust for
the benefit of the Tribe.

(e) Trust Land for Reno-Sparks Indian Colony
Section 201(e) provides that approximately 13,434 acres of BLM-
managed lands are to be held in trust for the benefit of the Reno-
Sparks Indian Colony, subject to valid existing rights. The lands are
adjacent to the current reservation. The Department supports the
proposed land transfer in Section 201(e), but would like to work with
the sponsor to address boundary modifications to ensure manageability.
In particular, the BLM notes that the proposed configuration would
isolate some BLM-managed land. Isolated, irregularly shaped parcels
like these are difficult to manage, especially in terms of public
safety, recreation, energy development or transmission, grazing, and
fire suppression.

(f) Trust Lands for Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe Land
Section 201(f) provides that three areas comprising approximately
30,669 acres of BLM-managed land are to be held in trust for the
benefit of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, subject to valid existing
rights. The three areas to be held in trust are adjacent to the current
reservation, which surrounds the southeast portion of Pyramid Lake.
Section 201(f) would consolidate land-administration. The Department
supports holding these lands in trust for the Pyramid Lake Paiute
Tribe.

(g) Trust Land for Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone (South Fork Band)
Section 201 (g) provides that three areas totaling approximately
28,162 acres of BLM-managed land are held in trust for the benefit of
the South Fork Band. The two northern areas identified for transfer are
near or adjacent to portions of the existing reservation. The third
parcel is primarily composed of the Red Spring Wilderness Study Area,
which would be released by the bill.
The Department supports holding these lands in trust, especially
the interspersed lands in the northern parcels, where the proposal
would consolidate checkerboard lands, improving land management. We
note, however, that there is currently great interest in oil and gas
development on and near the southern parcel, and the impact of the
exception provided in Section 201(g)(2)B(ii) on future development is
unclear. We would like to further discuss these provisions with the
sponsor and Committee.

Conclusion
The Department of the Interior welcomes opportunities to work with
Congress and tribes on holding lands in trust. We support the intent of
the legislation and look forward to working with the Sponsor and the
Committee to address the issues we have outlined in this testimony.

S. 2503, Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Act of 2014
Good afternoon, Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and
Members of the Committee, I am Michael Black, Director of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior. I am pleased to
provide the Department of the Interior's views on S. 2503, the Bill
Williams River Water Rights Settlement Act of 2014. S. 2503 would
authorize, ratify and confirm two agreements which together resolve a
number of issues in the Bill Williams River basin, including issues
related to a sever and transfer of water rights to serve Freeport
Minerals Corporation's mining operation and the Lower Colorado River
Multi-Species Conservation Program as well as resolving certain water
rights issues among Freeport Minerals Corporation (Freeport), the
United States and the Hualapai Tribe. While the Administration supports
the goals of the bill, we have significant concerns about the waiver of
sovereign immunity provision in S. 2503 that must be resolved before
the Administration can support the bill. We look forward to working
with the parties, the bill's sponsors, and this Committee to address
this issue.

Background
The Hualapai Tribe's main Reservation of approximately 1 million
acres is located on the south side of the Colorado River and includes
Grand Canyon lands. The main Hualapai Reservation is the home of the
famous Grand Canyon West Skywalk and other tourist facilities that are
a significant source of the Tribe's economic development. In addition
to its main Reservation, the Tribe has a smaller Executive Order
Reservation of approximately 60 acres along the Big Sandy River,
located in the Bill Williams River basin.
The Hualapai Tribe claims water rights in the Colorado, Verde, and
Bill Williams River basins. Negotiations regarding potential settlement
of the water rights claims of the Hualapai Tribe in Arizona have been
ongoing since 2011, when the United States established a negotiating
team to negotiate a comprehensive settlement of all of the Tribe's
water rights within the State of Arizona One matter addressed in the
negotiations has concerned applications filed in 2010 by Freeport to
sever and transfer certain water rights in the Bill Williams River
basin for the benefit of mining operations at its Bagdad Copper Mine.
The Department of the Interior protested those applications to protect
federally reserved water rights, including water rights that the
Department holds in trust for the Hualapai Tribe and rights associated
with lands held by the Department's Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and
Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
S. 2503 would approve two agreements in which, among other things,
Freeport agrees to confirm the Tribe's water rights claims related to
the small Executive Order Reservation. Initially, the Tribe's primary
objective was to negotiate a comprehensive settlement for both its main
Reservation and its smaller Executive Order Reservation. Early in the
negotiations, however, serious technical issues were identified with
respect to water infrastructure projects proposed for the main Hualapai
Reservation that required the investigation of additional alternatives
before the Tribe's water rights in the Colorado River basin could be
resolved. At the same time, the Hualapai Tribe, Freeport, and the
United States decided that negotiations over certain time sensitive
issues related to Freeport's sever-and-transfer application should
proceed.
As a result, the originally contemplated comprehensive settlement
was split into two phases. The first phase, which is the subject of S.
2503, focuses on resolution of certain water rights issues in the Bill
Williams River basin involving the Tribe, the Department of the
Interior, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, and Freeport. It is
expected that future negotiations, to which all the parties, including
Freeport, have committed, will address additional water rights of the
non-tribal parties in the Bill Williams River basin, as well as a
comprehensive settlement of all the Tribe's water rights claims for its
main Reservation.

Legislation and Agreements
S. 2503 would authorize, ratify, and confirm two agreements, the
Big Sandy River-Planet Ranch Water Rights Settlement Agreement and
Hualapai Tribe Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Agreement
and direct the Secretary of the Interior to execute both agreements.
These Agreements would waive the objections of the settling parties to
Freeport's sever-and-transfer application in return for securing
various benefits to the Tribe and the United States. There is no on-
going general water rights adjudication in this basin to provide a
mechanism by which all of the water rights users in the basin could be
bound. Consequently, the Agreements are settlements among only some of
the water users in the Bill Williams River basin, including most
importantly Freeport, which claims significant, if not the largest,
water rights in the basin. I will summarize the key features of each of
these two agreements.
First, the Big Sandy River-Planet Ranch Water Rights Settlement
Agreement would facilitate the severance and transfer of certain water
rights owned by Freeport on property known as ``Planet Ranch'' along
the Bill Williams River. The Agreement would resolve pending objections
by Interior Department bureaus and the Arizona Game & Fish Commission,
enabling a portion of Freeport's water rights on Planet Ranch to be
moved upstream to a well field owned by Freeport along the Big Sandy
River, a tributary to the Bill Williams River. Freeport pumps water
from the well field and transports it to Freeport's Bagdad Mine located
approximately 25 miles from the Big Sandy River. Under the Agreement,
Freeport would agree to a ``diversion limitation'' or cap on its
withdrawals from the well field and other specified groundwater wells
at its historic maximum pumping level of 10,055 acre-feet per year.
This cap would provide an important measure of predictability regarding
future flows in the Big Sandy River, where downstream federal interests
include wilderness areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management and
the Bill Williams National Wildlife Refuge administered by the Fish &
Wildlife Service. Importantly, water that is not transferred to the
well field would remain at Planet Ranch. The Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) would lease some of that water along with Planet Ranch
lands for the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program
(MSCP). The leased water rights and land would provide important
environmental protection in furtherance of the MSCP. Under the
Agreement, the lands leased by Reclamation would be permanently donated
by Freeport to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission.
Next, the Hualapai Tribe Bill Williams River Water Rights
Settlement Agreement would secure a number of benefits and protections
for the Tribe, including non-Federal funding of certain measures that
could lay groundwork for a later comprehensive settlement of all of the
Tribe's water rights in the State of Arizona. This Agreement provides
that Freeport will agree to reserved water rights of 694 acre-feet per
year for the approximately 60 acres of land that the Department holds
in trust for the Tribe and 560 acres it holds in trust for allottees in
the Bill Williams River basin. Freeport would also implement certain
protections for the Tribe's water uses on culturally significant lands
that the Tribe holds in fee. Finally, the Tribe would receive a
substantial contribution from Freeport into the Tribe's Economic
Development Fund, which would be used to help meet water related needs
on the Tribe's main Reservation on the Colorado River. Freeport would
contribute an additional $1 million to enable completion of the ongoing
study of water supply alternatives for the main Reservation, which is
an important pre-requisite to, and a key step facilitating, the Tribe's
goal of reaching a final settlement of its Colorado River claims in the
future.

Remaining Concerns and Conclusion
S. 2503 provides a number of benefits for all of the parties--the
Hualapai Tribe, the Interior Department, the Arizona Game & Fish
Commission, and Freeport Minerals Corporation--as well as the many
parties that are participants in the Lower Colorado River Multi-species
Conservation Program. The parties have negotiated intensively within
the last year to reach agreement on the two settlement agreements
addressed in S. 2503 and have resolved many issues. However, there is
still one important issue and a few smaller matters to be worked out
with respect to both these agreements. As a result, the Administration
cannot support the legislation as introduced, but we would support an
amended bill that adequately addresses our concerns.
Most significantly, we oppose the bill's inclusion of a new, ad hoc
waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States. These
Agreements, like other settlements that the United States enters into,
can be enforced against the United States through existing avenues,
including general waivers of sovereign immunity, such as those provided
in the Tucker Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the McCarran
Amendment.
Piecemeal waivers of sovereign immunity for particular matters do
not aid in the uniform resolution of underlying disputes but tend to
promote wasteful litigation and may lead to conflicting outcomes. There
are few standards to guide the application of such waivers, creating
the prospect of resource-intensive litigation over procedural and other
matters that are well-established in the context of existing sovereign
immunity waivers. Nor is it clear how various state or federal forums
will understand such waivers in relation to existing administrative and
judicial review processes, creating the possibility of conflicting
results.
While several Indian water rights settlement acts include sovereign
immunity waivers, those settlements comprehensively quantified and
resolved tribal water rights claims with finality. In
contrast, this bill resolves no tribal water rights with finality
and will not result in a court-approved water decree determining basin-
wide water rights. Moreover, the bill does not reach all trust or other
federally reserved claims in the basin and otherwise lacks the
hallmarks of a traditional Indian water rights settlement. In addition,
the waiver of sovereign immunity in S. 2503 is in some ways broader
than any waiver to date in an Indian water rights settlement, for the
first time expressly extending to suits filed in state court against
the United States relating to particular settlements.
The United States has repeatedly communicated its concerns about
the waiver of sovereign immunity to the parties, and proposed
alternative ways to address the parties' enforcement concerns. Although
the parties and the United States have not reached agreement on an
alternative to the proposed waiver of sovereign immunity as of this
time, we are committed to continue working with the parties and the
Committee to find solutions to this issue.
In addition, the Department has concerns about the language and
scope of the proposed waivers of claims. Language in the waivers and in
other provisions concerning the ``capacity'' in which the United States
is acting in various instances must be refined. The two agreements
include different water rights confirmations, waivers, and reservations
of rights, which apply differently to the United States depending on
the capacity it is acting in, so it is important that this it be
accurately described. We are currently working with the parties to
revise language to address our concerns regarding the various
capacities in which the United States is participating in the
agreements. Finally, the waivers do not expressly specify that the
United States is not waiving claims concerning impacts to water quality
as opposed to water rights injury, as we believe is necessary. There
are also some additional important technical changes in the agreements
and bill that must be resolved.
The Department looks forward to working with the parties, the
sponsors, and the Committee to fix the one remaining significant issue
in the legislation so that the United States can support the bill.
Thank you.

The Chairman. That is pretty efficient. I hope the next
panel takes note of how efficient you were. That is good. You
got through those five bills pretty well, and I appreciate your
testimony.
I have some questions on each one. I understand the
reasoning behind the Administration's reluctance to endorse S.
2442, Senator Walsh's bill, without an appraisal of the value
of coal located on the parcels that we are talking about. Such
an appraisal could be lengthy, it could be cumbersome. And as
the Administration notes in the testimony, we have been dealing
with this issue for some time. This is not a new issue.
Is the Department taking the efforts to assess the value of
the mineral interests since the mineral conveyance was first
contemplated about a decade ago?
Mr. Black. I don't believe there has been a full evaluation
and appraisal at this point. I do understand there has been a
contractor that worked with GNP and the tribe to evaluate the
actual tonnage that is involved here. There are a lot of other
factors, including the value of the actual coal in the
different areas as well as the marketability and other things
that would require a lot more analysis on our part at this
point.
The Chairman. How long do you think that analysis would
take if you were to start?
Mr. Black. That I don't have a good feel for right now. I
will be happy to get back to you on that.
The Chairman. Okay. And just curious, it is not like this
issue is going to go away, 100 years ago, as Senator Walsh
said, promises were made but not fulfilled. Why isn't the
Department being a little more proactive on the appraisal?
Mr. Black. I think at this point there hasn't been anything
necessarily for us to appraise. There were some other parcels
that were included in previous bills, it has been changed
somewhat over the last year or two. So I think undertaking a
fully extensive and expensive process at that point would not
necessarily best serve the process.
The Chairman. In your opinion, does appraisal have to
happen for this bill to move forward?
Mr. Black. In accordance with departmental policy and the
Federal Land Policy Management Act, yes, we would be required
to do that. We are required to do a value for value type
transaction.
The Chairman. Is Congress required to do that?
Mr. Black. I think if Congress, whatever Congress puts in
the bill, that is what we are going to have to do.
The Chairman. Okay. On S. 2479 and S. 2480, your testimony
that you submitted states that the Administration would like to
see some small changes in the Nevada transfer bill, mostly
making sure that the boundaries are correct and that certain
Federal conservation efforts or access rights are maintained. I
don't want to put words in your mouth but that is about what we
read. Does the Administration have draft language that it has
prepared to be able to share with us, the Committee, or do you
have a time frame? If you don't have the language, do you have
a time frame on when that language might be ready?
Mr. Black. I don't have an exact time frame right now. But
we can have that to you fairly quickly. I do know our staff has
been working with the various Congressional offices to ensure
that we are working through some of these. I don't think
anything is a major issue. There are some boundary issues and
survey issues that we need to address, as well as some of the
other things you mentioned, energy corridors, et cetera.
The Chairman. Okay. Well, what I would just ask, I don't
know what a reasonable time is. We are dealing with five bills
today, we are going to have a markup on a number of bills at
the end of this month if they are ready to be moved. So if you
have language that would be pretty easy to get done, if you
would get it to us and we could get agreement from the bill
sponsors, then we might be able to move this bill out at the
end of the month.
On S. 2480, the Nevada Land Transfer Act, transfers 93,000
acres out of your control. Are there other departments or
agencies that you would suggest that the tribes look to for
assistance in planning and using these lands, the Office of
Indian Energy at the Department of Energy, as an example?
Mr. Black. I think all of the above would be worthwhile for
the tribes to look at for assistance as they move forward with
how they are going to manage those lands. The lands wouldn't
come out of our control, they basically come from BLM ownership
over to Bureau of Indian Affairs ownership, on behalf of the
tribe.
The Chairman. Is the BIA prepared to assist the tribes?
Mr. Black. Certainly.
The Chairman. And S. 2480 would release the Red Spring
Wilderness Study Area from further study. Give us some more
information on the details of that release and what that means
for the land being transferred to the tribe.
Mr. Black. Basically that would take the land out of that
WSA, or I forget the exact term, but it takes it out of that
WSA. The only people that can do that is Congress. So if
Congress does that, and we are supportive of that at this
point, there is another WSA right there in the area that we
would continue to work with.
The Chairman. Okay, that is good. On the Albuquerque
conveyance, your statement on S. 2465 mentions a concern with
the restrictions in 3(e) that may prevent the BIA from
continuing its operations on the land. Section 3(e) does say
that any existing restrictions already in effect shall remain
in effect. So I am a little bit confused by the concern.
Mr. Black. Our concern there primarily is that it is
addressing rights-of-way and other easements and encumbrances.
Right now we currently use those two parcels that I mentioned
in my testimony for Southern Pueblo Agency. We just want some
assurance, or maybe language that will give us a little more
comfort. Talking with the Pueblos and others, I don't think
that is going to be a problem. It is just something we wanted
to make sure we noted.
The Chairman. Have you talked to Senator Udall about this?
Mr. Black. No, not at this point, but we certainly will.
The Chairman. That would be good.
Mr. Black. It is a very simple thing.
The Chairman. You don't see this as a major blockage?
Mr. Black. No.
The Chairman. It is just a simple fix. Good.
Mr. Black. We look forward to being able to transfer the
remainder of those lands over to the Pueblos.
The Chairman. That is perfect. I think this is another one,
all five of these, frankly, if we can work out the problems
that are there, we might be able to get something done,
hopefully in this Congress.
On the sovereign immunity provisions in S. 2503, the Water
Rights Settlement, your testimony states concerns with the
sovereign immunity and claims waiver provisions in S. 2503. Can
you tell us how these issues could be resolved?
Mr. Black. Honestly, I can't, sir, I am an engineer, not a
lawyer. That is a question I am definitely going to have to
defer to our solicitors in DOJ to provide a written response to
you. And we are happy to do that.
The Chairman. Are discussions currently going on at this
point?
Mr. Black. Yes, they are.
The Chairman. So this is not new to them?
Mr. Black. No, not at all.
The Chairman. Okay. So the same kind of deal as the
previous question, if you can get us that information it will
enable us to move forward.
Mr. Black. Yes.
The Chairman. And if you want a time lines, I could say
have it here in two weeks or three weeks, or one week, or
tomorrow. But I won't do that to you because I know you, Mike,
and I know you will get them here as quickly as possible.
Mr. Black. Yes. I will do everything I can.
The Chairman. Your testimony also recognizes that this is
unique settlement and that the Administration is insisting on
specific sovereign immunity language more consistent with past
water rights settlements. Your testimony refers to these
provisions as ad hoc provisions. But if this is a unique
settlement, can we really use the standard boilerplate language
that has been used in past settlements?
Mr. Black. Again, I am going to have to get back to you on
a more specific answer for that, as it relates to the water
rights settlement and the sovereign immunity provisions.
The Chairman. Okay, that sounds good. That is all I have,
but since we have two members here, I will defer to them to see
if they have any questions. Senator Crapo, do you have
questions for Mr. Black?

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

Senator Crapo. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman, I just want to
thank you for holding this hearing and I have a statement that
I will just put into the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Crapo follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Crapo, U.S. Senator from Idaho
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing today.
S. 2503 is a particularly innovative approach to Indian water
rights settlements.
Similar to the 2004 Snake River Act that approved Idaho's Nez Perce
Agreement in the Snake River Basin Adjudication, this Phase One Indian
water rights settlement brought together the Federal Government, an
Indian Tribe, the State and non-federal water users to advance
interests on all sides.
Both are pioneering examples of collaboration that illustrate how
Indian water rights can secure long-term future relationships between
the Federal Government, Indian country, the State and non-federal water
users.
I am encouraged to see these types of negotiations succeed in Idaho
and now Arizona.
Thank you.

The Chairman. Thank you for being here, Senator Crapo.
Senator Udall, do you have anything? I just got done
thoroughly grilling Mike Black on your bill. Do you have any
questions you would like to ask him?

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

Senator Udall. Thank you, first of all, Chairman Tester,
for thoroughly grilling him and asking him all about it. I
understand he has some concerns and we look forward to working
with him to resolving those and making the Committee
comfortable with the bill.
The Chairman. So then you know, he looks forward to working
with you, too.
Senator Udall. Good.
The Chairman. That is good.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. So with that, Mike, thank you very much for
being here. We very much appreciate the time that you spent in
front of the Committee. We will be working with you to get the
issues on your concerns on your concerns and with all these
issues.
Mr. Black. Thank you.
The Chairman. You bet.
Now we are going to ask the third panel to come to the
table. We are going to hear from Northern Cheyenne President
Llevando Fisher, then we are going to hear from Chairwoman
Aletha Tom of the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians, Chairman Arlan
Melendez of the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, both from Nevada.
Chairwoman Sherry Counts of the Hualapai Tribe has joined us
from Arizona, and finally, Mike Canfield, President of the
Indian Pueblos Cultural Center has come to us from New Mexico.
Each witness today will discuss the bills that are impacting
their tribes. We have five bills, we have five witnesses and we
have five minutes per witness.
I would ask that you try to stay as close to that five
minutes as you possibly can. The reason is because if you do
that, it will give us more time for questions, which are always
very beneficial. I want to thank you all for traveling, for the
most part, a long distance to get here. We thank you for being
willing to testify in front of this Committee.
Before we start with you, President Fisher, I would kick it
over to Senator Udall, if he would like to introduce Mr.
Canfield.
Senator Udall. Chairman Tester, thank you very much. I
would like to introduce Mr. Canfield and say a few words about
the bill, too.
I am pleased to see Mike Canfield here testifying on behalf
of S. 2465. He is a member of the Laguna Pueblo. Mike has more
than 35 years of experience working in Indian Country and
providing leadership and organization development expertise to
tribal governments and tribally-owned organizations across the
Country. I think he has done a very good job there.
Mike became involved with the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center
in Albuquerque almost 20 years ago as a board member. He
transitioned into the CEO role in 2011. The corporation
currently employs 180 people and is responsible for over $30
million in annual revenue. The bill Mike is testifying on
behalf of is a small, yet important land transfer to the 19
Pueblos of New Mexico. In 1884, a tract of land in New Mexico
was set aside for the construction of what became the
Albuquerque Indian School. The school provided an education to
Pueblo and other Indian students until the 1960s when the
United States determined land was no longer needed for Federal
Indian school purposes. In 1969, the United States began a long
process of transferring the land into the jurisdiction and
control of the 19 Pueblos of New Mexico. S. 2465 finalizes that
process with the transfer of 11 acres consolidating several
small parcels of contiguous land with the 44 acre tract that
has been held in trust for the Pueblos since 1993. The Indian
Pueblo Cultural Center property itself has been held in trust
for the Pueblos since 1978.
The Indian Pueblo Cultural Center is a real jewel and
Chairman Tester, I would invite you out to the North Valley in
Albuquerque to see that. It is on the development of the former
Albuquerque and Indian School Reserve. It is instrumental for
the economic development, and Mike knows this very well, the
economic development of the 19 Pueblos. Mike has stated that
the vision of the Albuquerque Indian School District is to
become a self-sustaining district that they can manage as a
micro-economy, a district where the Pueblo can conduct
government-to-government relations, a central location for
celebrating Pueblo arts and culture and a district that will
provide significant economic development opportunities for the
local community, including the 19 Pueblos of New Mexico. So I
am proud to support the legislation and proud to have Mike as a
friend and look forward, as we move through this, to asking him
some questions.
Thank you very much for letting me introduce him.
The Chairman. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Before we get to President Fisher, I would like to
introduce a couple folks who came with President Fisher from
the great State of Montana, Tracey Robinson and William Walks
Along, welcome to both of you, to the Senate Indian Affairs
Committee.
With that, President Fisher, you are up.

STATEMENT OF HON. LLEVANDO FISHER, PRESIDENT, NORTHERN CHEYENNE
TRIBE

Mr. Fisher. Chairman Tester and Committee members, I am
Llevando Fisher, President of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of
Montana. It is my second term as president and I have served
many terms on the council.
I would like to thank Senator Walsh for introducing S. 2442
and thank the Committee for holding the hearing. I ask that my
written statement be included in the record.
Land is everything to the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. It is
vital to us culturally, spiritually and to provide food and
shelter. Our reservation is about 450,000 acres. Thanks to the
courage and sacrifice that has been made, the tribe controls 95
percent of its surface and all but 5,000 acres of the
subsurface on the reservation.
At the same time, the tribe has many economic and social
challenges. The Northern Cheyenne Lands Act is designed to
address these challenges by giving the tribe more control over
the land, mineral and trust fund. This bill is a tribal bill.
Over 20 years ago, during my first term as tribal president, I
approached Great Northern Properties about the possibility of
GNP transferring the rights to the tribe. Since then, many
times, our resources have been dedicated to reaching agreement.
Section 4 of the bill transfers the fee land to the United
States in trust, north of the land or on our reservation. The
reservation is good economic development for truck stop
business facilities to support our program. The rest of the
land is in South Dakota, adjacent to Bear Butte, a land that is
sacred to our tribe, where our prophet Sweet Medicine received
the sacred arrows from Bear Butte, along with the cultural ways
of our people. Placing that land into trust will protect the
land from commercial development and preserve its spiritual
uses for our tribe and other Indian tribes who worship there.
Section 5 will correct the error that over 114 years ago a
Federal agent followed to follow the direction of Congress to
acquire ownership of 5,000 subsurface acres within the
reservation to the tribe. To correct the error, the Great
Northern Properties will transfer these coal tracts to the
tribe, a total of 117 million ton of coal. In return, the
United States will transfer tracts containing 112 million tons
of Federal coal to GNP. The tribe would waive all claims
against the United States for the failure to acquire the 5,000
acres for the tribe before.
The tribe and GNP have agreed that the tribe would get 40
percent of any revenue that GNP receives from the development
of coal. This would be the first time the tribe has received
any funds from coal mining surrounding our homeland.
Section 6, transfer of $5 million of trust fund, was
created by the tribe in 1992 water settlement to the tribe. The
tribe can get a better transfer of the investment than the
Office of Special Trust with a government fund that has been
successful for many years. The principal of the funds will be
invested in revenue and used for tribal programs such as
education, heating bills and burial services. In exchange, the
tribe will waive claims against the United States for
misfunding the trust fund.
Section 7 concerns land consolidation and agriculture.
There is very little farm land on the reservation to do our
tribal farm. A large area with suitable conditions must be in
place. We have not been able to identify the place because our
land is too fractionated. Section 7 would require Secretary of
Interior to report to the Committee about the nature of the
land consolidation on the Northern Cheyenne where agriculture
is a possibility there. The tribe has worked with the Montana
delegation introducing bills in previous Congresses to
accomplish some of the goals in the current bill. This bill is
35 percent different than the other bills incorporated in many
other tribal compromises. The bill does not provide the tribe
with the $7 million of funds addressed in the mineral
development where our reservation is the primary recipient. The
current bill does not include Federal coal that is about to be
mined by the previous resident.
The current bill involves Federal tracts near existing
mines that are not controversial on more [indiscernible] that
are identified in the [indiscernible]. This bill kind of
protects the surface rights owner of that Federal tract for the
first time. However, the tribe would like to work with the
Committee on the language of Section 5 of S. 2442 that prevents
surface mining in the tract subject to a 1984 BLM resources
management plan. We believe that the current language will
limit the tribe's income from these tracts if it was developed.
In conclusion, S. 2442 is a tribal bill supported by the
National Congress of American Indians, Montana tribal leaders,
and the State land board. It will address many of the
longstanding unjust suffering from the tribe at the hands of
the Federal Government and give the tribe additional tools to
enhance self-governance and economic development opportunities.
We look forward to working with the Committee. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fisher follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Llevando Fisher, President, Northern
Cheyenne Tribe

Chairman Tester and Committee Members, I am Llevando Fisher,
President of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of Montana. Some people call
me ``Cowboy.'' I was elected as President by vote of our Tribal
membership and my term expires in November 2016. Prior to that, I was
elected by the people to serve as President in 1992 and to multiple
terms on our Tribal governing body, the 11-person Northern Cheyenne
Tribal Council. I am pleased to be here today to testify on behalf of
the Northern Cheyenne Tribe in strong support of S. 2442, the Northern
Cheyenne Lands Act. Today, I am accompanied by Tribal Councilmembers
Eloise Snow and Tracy Robinson and Tribal Administrator William
Walksalong. I want to thank Senator Walsh for introducing S. 2442 and
thank the Committee for holding this hearing.
If S. 2442 is enacted, several long-standing paramount issues for
the Northern Cheyenne will finally be resolved and the Tribe's ability
to control its land, mineral resources, and trust funds will be greatly
enhanced. This will improve the Tribe's ability to self-govern and
control its own destiny and will provide sorely needed economic
development opportunities. I want to stress that the Northern Cheyenne
Lands Act is a Tribal bill. The bill has four key elements.
Summary of S. 2442
First, S. 2442 directs the Secretary of the Interior to take
certain fee lands owned by the Tribe into trust. As authorized by
Section 4, certain land that the Tribe has acquired in fee over the
years with its very limited resources would be transferred into trust
status. Most of the land is on-Reservation, with two of the parcels
adjacent to other land near the Reservation already held in Trust for
the Tribe. The remaining land is located very close to our most
precious sacred site, Bear Butte in South Dakota. By transferring those
lands into trust status, the Tribe would strengthen the permanency of
its land holdings, eliminate jurisdictional ambiguities, increase
economic development opportunities, and protect an important sacred
site. On the lands in Montana, the Tribe would attempt to engage in
economic development, such as a convenience store and truck stop, and
build facilities for important social programs. For the sacred lands in
South Dakota, trust status will ensure their protection from commercial
development.
Second, Section 5 of the bill directs the Secretary to accept eight
subsurface sections owned by Great Northern Properties (GNP) and
located within the Reservation into trust for the Tribe. The Secretary
is directed to transfer sections of federal coal to GNP as compensation
for the on-Reservation tracts. Our Reservation will finally be made
whole by rectifying an error made by the United States over a century
ago. Congress directed the acquisition of land to expand the
Reservation and the federal agent charged with this responsibility
failed to acquire 5,000 subsurface acres of prime coal on our
Reservation. Those subsurface acres would be transferred to the Tribe
by the private company that currently owns them, GNP. This would
fulfill commitments made to the Tribe in 2002 by the Montana
Congressional delegation, other federal officials, and the State of
Montana when the Tribe dismissed a lawsuit against the United States.
GNP would receive coal from the United States and the Tribe would be
granted a 40 percent interest in any revenue GNP receives from that
coal if it is ever developed. This would be a badly needed revenue
stream which would help mitigate the many impacts of the mineral
development that has encircled our Reservation and our people for many
years.
Third, the Secretary is directed to transfer to the Tribe a trust
fund that was created for the Tribe and is currently held by the United
States Office of Special Trustee (OST). As authorized by Section 6, a
fund that originated from the Northern Cheyenne Reserved Water Rights
Settlement Act of 1992 would be transferred to the Tribe's permanent
fund and held in perpetuity to fund important basic services such as
educational programs, home energy bills, elderly needs and burials, all
of which often go unfunded due to lack of resources. The fund is
currently held for the Tribe's benefit as the ``Northern Cheyenne Trust
Fund'' by OST and its earnings are credited to the Tribe.
Fourth, Section 7 directs the Secretary to prepare an inventory of
fractionated lands within the Northern Cheyenne Reservation that the
United States holds in trust for the Tribe or individual Indians and to
provide information about the suitability of those fractionated lands
for agricultural purposes. The Tribe believes that agriculture could be
an important source of income, employment, and pride to Tribal members
in the future; however, there is very little farming on the Reservation
today. The inventory called for by Section 7 will help the Tribe direct
its land consolidation efforts toward creating Tribal-owned tracts
suitable for agriculture, which would create another source of income
and employment for the Tribe and its members. Section 7 also directs
the Secretary to periodically report the Tribe's progress toward land
consolidation and economical agricultural use of trust land, including
``lessons learned'' in the process, to this Committee and the House
Committee on Natural Resources no less than once per year for the next
five years.
Attached to my written statement is a document that summarizes the
Northern Cheyenne Tribe's dramatic struggles over the past 40 years
with coal-related development, which provides perspective on why the
enactment of the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act is just and appropriate. I
also attached copies of a letter signed by each member of the State of
Montana's Board of Land Commissioners (consisting of the State's five
top elected officials), a resolution of the Montana-Wyoming Tribal
Leader's Council, and a resolution of the National Congress of American
Indians, each supporting S. 2442 and urging its passage. Finally, I
have included two maps--one showing how our Reservation has been
encircled by coal-related development projects, and another showing our
Reservation, its communities and the network of on-Reservation roads
serving those off-Reservation projects. As discussed in greater detail
herein, these projects force extensive unmitigated impacts onto our
Reservation and people, while the Tribe and its members are excluded
from the compensating benefits (impact funding, employment, and
commercial opportunity) of such development. I request that all these
documents be included in the hearing record.

Preserving and Protecting Tribal Land is of Paramount Importance to the
Northern Cheyenne
We Northern Cheyenne cherish our land. To us, our land is
everything. It has provided for our families for centuries. After we
were forcibly relocated to the Oklahoma Territory in 1878 as
retribution for our resistance to non-Indian domination and our
participation in the Battle of the Little Bighorn (the Custer Battle),
we (uniquely among all other tribes so relocated) trekked back to our
historic homeland in Montana. This journey came at great cost to the
Tribe--death, imprisonment and other deprivations--as we were hounded
along the way by thousands of hostile U.S. military soldiers and
settlers. We eventually made it back to Montana to reclaim our homeland
and the Northern Cheyenne Reservation was later formally established by
Presidential Executive Order in 1884.
Today, the Northern Cheyenne Reservation is bordered on the west by
the much larger Crow Indian Reservation and on the east by the Tongue
River. Our Reservation is truly the homeland of the Northern Cheyenne.
The Reservation population is approximately 90 percent Northern
Cheyenne. Non-Indian presence on the Reservation is minimal. A majority
of our approximately 10,000 Tribal members reside on the Reservation.
Traditional Cheyenne values and culture still thrive on the Reservation
and the Cheyenne language is still spoken. The Reservation remains
culturally distinct from the surrounding land and communities.
Of its 447,000 acres, over 95 percent of the Reservation surface is
owned, controlled and used by the Tribe and its members. The primary
land uses are cattle grazing, some timber harvesting, and ceremonial
and subsistence use. Non-Indian use of Reservation lands is minimal.
Despite the Tribe's success in controlling much of the Reservation,
there are a few areas where the Tribe strongly desires to shore up
control and ownership, and those areas are addressed in the Northern
Cheyenne Lands Act.
Despite extremely limited resources, the Tribe has continued to
prioritize land acquisition within the Reservation and purchased
approximately 1600 acres of land it now owns in fee. Section 4 of S.
2442 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to transfer that fee land
into trust status. Much of that land is located in areas that could be
commercially developed in our population center of Lame Deer. By
transferring the Reservation lands into trust, the Tribe's jurisdiction
to regulate those lands would never be questioned and Tribal beneficial
ownership of that land would be essentially permanent for future
generations because it is more difficult to convey trust land than fee
land.
The legislation also authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to
take into trust 635 acres adjacent to the Bear Butte State Park in
South Dakota which the Tribe purchased. Bear Butte is on the National
Register of Historic Places and a National Historic Landmark. Bear
Butte is considered by many Native Americans, including members of the
Northern Cheyenne Tribe, as a sacred place. Bear Butte is our Mount
Sinai. It is where our prophet Sweet Medicine received the Sacred
Arrows along with the ceremonies and cultural ways of our people. The
Sacred Arrows remain protected by our traditional leaders to this day.
These lands also serve as a base for tribal pilgrimages. By placing the
lands in trust, the United States would be furthering the Tribal goal
of protecting Bear Butte from commercial development that is
inconsistent with its spiritual importance. Placing the lands into
trust will preserve their spiritual use by our Tribe and other Indians
who worship there.

The Tribe's Ownership of the Reservation Mineral Estate is Plagued by a
Century-Old Federal Error
The entire Reservation mineral estate--except for the eight
sections that are the subject of Section 5 of S. 2442--is owned by the
Tribe as a single entity. Because of the paramount importance to us of
our land, we have a sacred duty to pursue ownership of the eight
sections. Securing ownership of those eight sections has been a
priority of the Northern Cheyenne for decades, including when I served
as Tribal President 20 years ago, and S. 2442 will finally accomplish
that goal.
The eight sections of subsurface are also of great commercial
value. The coal is very high quality and relatively easy to mine
economically. Several decades ago, those subsurface rights were leased
to Peabody Coal Company for valuable consideration by the then-owner,
Burlington Northern Railroad. Although those leases are no longer in
force, we don't want to repeat that experience again. But, without
ownership of that subsurface, we at best have limited power over, and
would suffer impacts and gain scant benefits from, the development of
the coal.
We have been continuously deprived of ownership of the eight
subsurface sections since 1900 because of a federal error. In 1900,
because of hostilities and violence between Northern Cheyenne, non-
Indian settlers and illegal squatters on or adjacent to the Tribe's
1884 Reservation, Congress directed Indian Inspector James McLaughlin
to purchase the legal and illegal non-Indian interests on and near the
Reservation so that the Reservation could be enlarged eastward to the
middle of Tongue River. Inspector McLaughlin proceeded to do so, paying
the legal and illegal settlers between $1500 and $2000 per claim. In
contrast, Inspector McLaughlin paid only $25 per family to Northern
Cheyennes then living on federal land previously allocated to them east
of the Tongue River. The Reservation was then expanded eastward to mid-
channel of the Tongue River by Presidential Executive Order in 1900.
In performing his duties, Inspector McLaughlin made a critical
error. Although he purchased all lands within the Reservation (as
expanded) then owned by Northern Pacific Railway, Inspector McLaughlin
missed eight sections of subsurface owned by the Railway. For 114
years, the United States has failed to remedy this error by not
acquiring this valuable mineral estate for the Tribe. Approximately 20
years ago, Great Northern Properties purchased the entire inventory of
railroad subsurface in Montana, including the eight sections within the
Northern Cheyenne Reservation. If the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act is
passed, the Tribe would waive all claims related to this error.

A Tribal Initiative to Rectify the Federal Error Which Could Result
in Much-Needed Tribal Income from Off-Reservation Mineral
Development
The Tribe, on its own initiative, approached GNP with a proposal to
resolve by agreement the 114-year old federal error which deprived the
Tribe of ownership of the eight sections of Reservation subsurface now
owned by GNP. The beginning of this process is documented in a 1993
letter from the Tribe's mineral consultant to the Tribe's attorney
reflecting a conversation with GNP's President, who was receptive to
the idea. A copy of that letter is attached and I request that it be
included in the hearing record. The Tribe successfully negotiated and
drafted a written agreement with GNP committing GNP to deed its eight
sections of Reservation subsurface to the Tribe if GNP receives off-
Reservation federal coal reserves in Montana as compensation for the
transfer. An updated version of that agreement is near completion. With
the willing cooperation of GNP and the Tribe, the United States is now
in a position to remedy an ongoing federal mistake that greatly impacts
the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. The Northern Cheyenne have waited many
decades for this opportunity.
The Tribe--GNP agreement also provides that the Tribe will receive
40 percent of the net revenue from the off-Reservation coal that is
subbituminous and 24 percent of the net revenue from the off-
Reservation coal that is lignite. The federal coal tracts, which have
been identified for the transfer and are depicted in maps referenced in
S. 2442, consist of tracts in the vicinity of the Bull Mountains and
East Fork mine areas. Despite their relative proximity to those mine
areas, current development plans are such that the coal in this
sections would not be mined for at least 10 to 15 years. The Tribe's
royalty interest in the Bull Mountains and East Fork tracts would
provide desperately-needed revenue to the impoverished Northern
Cheyenne Tribe. Those Tribal royalty interests would, if the tracts
were ever mined, yield the only source of funding available to the
Tribe to deal with the impacts of the mining of those tracts near the
Reservation. All of these tracts contain subbituminous coal and the
Tribe would therefore hold a 40 percent interest in the royalties
derived from the future development.
The royalty revenue would help redress continued economic
imbalances and burdens imposed on the Tribe by off-Reservation coal
development. The Northern Cheyenne Reservation lies in the heart of
Montana's Powder River coal region. As shown in the attached maps, the
Reservation is surrounded on all sides by major existing and proposed
coal-related projects and includes a network of roads used by these
offReservation projects to travel through the reservation and the
region. This pattern of development produces major influxes of
newcomers to the area and leads to undesirable socioeconomic effects on
the Tribe, including on-Reservation crime, traffic and accidents.
Because our Tribal government lacks adequate legal authority and
resources to deal with these non-Indian incursions, there are
heightened tensions between Tribal members and non-Indian visitors.
Public services and facilities on the Reservation have long been
grossly inadequate, both in absolute terms and in marked contrast to
off-Reservation communities. The surrounding development increases
pressures on those public services and facilities. Severe deficits have
been documented in Reservation housing, water and sewer, solid waste,
education, health care, law enforcement, fire protection, and
transportation. Those deficits increase as on-and offReservation
populations increase with development.
With no tax base and minimal on-Reservation economic development,
the Tribe thoroughly lacks the financial resources to address these
socio-economic impacts and respond to the increased demands caused by
the off-reservation coal development. In contrast, the surrounding
development produces tremendous public revenues (lease bonuses, rents
and royalties, state production taxes, real and personal property
taxes, and other exactions) for the United States, the State of Montana
and the counties and municipalities that adjoin the Reservation. The
Tribe is privy to none of these public revenues. We suffer the impacts
of development but receive no revenues that would allow us to minimize
the ills inflicted by this development.
Also, while the Northern Cheyenne suffer chronic unemployment rates
averaging over 60 percent, very few Northern Cheyenne are employed in
these off-Reservation projects. Indeed, Reservation unemployment rates
have not improved during the course of the development of coal mines
and power plants in the vicinity of the Reservation. Historically,
Native American employment in Montana's Powder River Basin mines has
averaged approximately 3.5 percent of the total labor force, absent any
special hiring-agreement mandates. State law does not authorize the
holders of State mining leases to offer any employment preference to
local Native Americans. The bottom line is that average per-capita
income on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation is a minor fraction of that
in surrounding communities, and the Tribal unemployment rate is many
multiples of the off-Reservation rate.
In summary, because of the very weak economic ties between the
Reservation and surrounding off-Reservation communities, the Northern
Cheyenne have not shared in the economic gains from regional coal
development. The Reservation does not benefit significantly in terms of
jobs, construction contracts, general business activity, or increases
in Tribal governmental revenues from the regional increase in economic
activity generated by additional off-Reservation coal development.
Thus, the Northern Cheyenne suffer an array of major adverse impacts
from the off-Reservation (largely federally-sponsored or facilitated)
coal-related development and enjoy few, if any, of the compensating
benefits enjoyed by the United States, the State and surrounding
communities and residents. However, the Tribe may be able to share in
those compensating benefits someday via a revenue sharing agreement
that will only be possible if the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act becomes
law.

The Tribe Settled its Claims Over the Otter Creek Coal Transfer in
Exchange for Promises to Support the Goals Contained in S. 2442
The Congressionally-directed transfer of the massive federal Otter
Creek Coal Tracts to the State of Montana in 2002 perpetuates and
exacerbates the existing economic and social inequities between the
Reservation and surrounding communities. The Otter Creek Tracts
comprise about 8,000 acres of coal lands along both sides of Otter
Creek south of Ashland, Montana, and just east of the Northern Cheyenne
Reservation. The Tracts are estimated to contain 533 million tons of
recoverable coal reserves checkerboarded with more than 700 million
tons of private and other State coal. The result is the single largest
block of currently available, developable coal reserves in Montana.
Those resources have now been entirely leased to a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Arch Coal, Inc., the Nation's second largest coal mining
company, and Arch is aggressively proceeding toward development. The
surface rights to the Otter Creek Tracts are held by private
landowners, the State of Montana and the Bureau of Land Management.
Otter Creek is a tributary to the Tongue River, which forms the eastern
boundary of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation.
The Tribe, in extensive correspondence and meetings with all major
interests, strongly and repeatedly expressed opposition to the proposed
transfer of the Otter Creek tracts by the Secretary of the Interior to
the State without accompanying measures to mitigate the enormous
negative economic and social impacts that development of the Otter
Creek tracts would have on the Reservation. The Tribe filed a lawsuit
in Federal District Court in Washington, D.C. to enjoin the Secretary's
transfer of the Otter Creek Tracts to the State.
In an effort to achieve a settlement of its claims, the Tribe met
with members of Congress, the Governor, the other top elected officials
of the State, the Secretary of the Interior, BLM, BIA, industry and
other interested parties. As a result, the Montana State Land Board
agreed to support the enactment of Federal legislation providing impact
funding to the Tribe, directing the transfer of the GNP-owned
subsurface tracts within the Reservation to the United States and
compensating GNP with a transfer of federal coal, and providing the
Tribe with an economic interest in the development of the coal received
by GNP. In return for the foregoing State commitments, the Tribe agreed
to, and did, dismiss with prejudice its federal lawsuit. Features of
that settlement are in the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act; namely, the
provisions related to clearing title to the 5,000 subsurface acres
currently held by GNP and the accompanying revenue sharing opportunity
for the Tribe in revenue generated from the tracts to be transferred to
GNP.
In negotiating its Otter Creek settlement with all parties from
beginning to end, the Tribe worked closely and with the encouragement
of the Montana Congressional delegation and BLM's Montana State Office.
The understanding reached was that federal impact funding of $10
million per year for seven years would be sought through legislation,
structured in a way to assure that that financial resource would be a
permanent resource, available to the Tribe to fund on-Reservation
public services, facilities and other governmental matters, as new
development projects proceeded within 25 miles of the Reservation. In
fact, $70 million of impact funding was included in a 2004 iteration of
the bill.
The Tribe, in good faith, relied on all of these commitments in
consummating the Otter Creek settlement and dismissing its litigation
against the Otter Creek transfer. However, the impact funding has not
been included in S. 2442 in light of the current difficulties in
securing any direct funding from Congress. Someday, we hope to secure
such funding. As things currently stand, therefore, the proceeds of the
proposed Tribal 40 percent interest in the GNP royalties stand as the
only potential source of impact funding available to the Tribe to cope
with the accrued and future impacts of surrounding coal-related
development, including the massive development envisioned for the Otter
Creek tracts.
In addition to foregoing tens of millions of dollars of impact
funding, the Tribe has addressed several concerns raised in prior
versions of the bill. First, the location of the federal tracts GNP
would receive is in proximity to existing mines. Prior iterations of
the bill included tracts in pristine and highly controversial areas,
such as the Otter Creek area. Second, in contrast to other tracts in
prior bills, the tracts GNP would receive are not within any mine plan
or scheduled for development. Currently, the tracts would not be
developed for at least 10-15 years. It is entirely possible the tracts
are never mined given current coal market conditions. Third, the
concerns of the owners of the surface lands over the federal minerals
are addressed. The bill includes a provision retaining the federal
right of surface owners to control whether mining occurs below their
lands even after the federal tracts are transferred to GNP. Prior
iterations of the bill did not include this element either.
However, for several reasons, the Tribe would like to work with the
Committee to address the inclusion of Section 5(a)(2)(A)(ii) in S.
2442, which prohibits surface mining on federal tracts conveyed to GNP
if those tracts were not ``determined to be acceptable for further
consideration for leasing'' in the 1984 BLM Billings Resource
Management Plan (RMP). First, as mentioned above, Section 5(a)(2)(A)(i)
already protects the rights of surface owners by retaining the federal
right of surface owners to control whether mining occurs below their
lands even after the federal tracts are transferred to GNP. Second,
prohibiting surface mining on tracts based on the 1984 RMP could limit
the Tribe's ability to earn income on these tracts if they are ever
developed. As part of the exchange agreement between the Tribe and GNP,
the Tribe will receive a significant income derived from the royalties
paid from the mining of coal underneath the tracts affected by the 1984
RMP provision. In the future, if it is determined that those tracts
could be surface mined, appropriate mining permits are issued and
surface owner consent is obtained, the RMP provision would limit the
Tribe and GNP from monetizing the resources they own under the affected
tracts. As discussed above, the Tribe has already compromised by
agreeing to forgo $70 million in impact aid at this time. Thus, the
Tribe's royalty interest in the Bull Mountains and East Fork tracts is
the only funding in the bill available to assist the Tribe in dealing
with the impacts of off-Reservation coal development. Therefore, it is
important to the Tribe that it receive the maximum return possible on
its royalty interest to provide desperately-needed income.
The Tribe is Entitled to Manage its Own Water Rights Trust Fund
Section 6 of S. 2442 concerns a $5 million trust fund account,
referred to as the ``Northern Cheyenne Trust Fund,'' which is currently
held on behalf of the Tribe by the OST. The earnings are applied for
the benefit of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. The principal amount in the
Fund originated from the 1991 Water Rights Compact between the United
States, State of Montana, and the Tribe.
These same parties reached a settlement agreement in 1999 which
states that the principal of the Fund shall remain in perpetuity, that
the earnings of the Fund are to be paid to the Tribe, and that the
Tribe may transfer the Fund from federal to private management. OST has
paid the earnings from the Fund to the Tribe, including over the last
few years. However, in 2008, OST took a position inconsistent with the
settlement agreement: because the appropriation could only be used for
purposes expressly authorized by Congress, the principal account
balance must remain under federal control. The Tribe strongly disagrees
and believes that it is entitled to transfer the funds to private
management, as originally agreed upon by the parties. This issue would
be resolved if Congress directed OST to transfer the funds to the
Tribe's permanent fund for private management.
The Tribe's Permanent Fund Plan states that the principal must be
held in perpetuity and only a certain percentage of the earnings may be
used each year, specifically: 5 percent of the average quarterly market
value of the Permanent Fund during the immediately preceding four
fiscal years. The earnings can be used for a limited number of uses:
law enforcement, education, youth or elderly programs, burial, public
services, culture, land acquisition, natural resources, economic
development, Reservation district allocations, and governmental
services. By directing the Secretary to transfer the fund to the
Tribe's Permanent Fund, the funds would be held in perpetuity and the
earnings would be used for these vital services.
The Permanent Fund is a very secure vehicle for these funds. The
Permanent Fund plan cannot change without a vote of the Tribe's
membership and the membership has repeatedly shown that it is reluctant
to make any changes to this fund. The fund has grown by several
millions of dollars in its almost two decades of existence.
The United States has failed to manage the Northern Cheyenne Trust
Fund in compliance with its fiduciary responsibilities, resulting in a
very low rate of return. This gives rise to claims against the United
States for trust fund mismanagement. Such claims would be waived by the
Tribe under S. 2442.

The Tribe Would Benefit from Consolidating Fractionated Trust Lands
That Are Suitable for Agriculture
The final section of S. 2442, Section 7 directs the Secretary to
prepare an inventory of fractionated lands within the Northern Cheyenne
Reservation that the United States holds in trust for the Tribe or
individual Indians and to provide information about the suitability of
those fractionated lands for agricultural purposes. The Secretary is
also directed to submit the land inventory to this Committee, as well
as the House Committee on Natural Resources, within 180 days of
enactment. The Tribe is interested in creating additional income and
employment opportunities on the Reservation through agriculture. The
Tribe hired a consultant several years ago to examine the Reservation's
potential for agriculture. The consultant determined that the Tribe
would need at least 6,000 contiguous acres under Tribal ownership, with
the correct conditions to operate a Tribal farm within the Reservation.
We have not been able to identify locations on the Reservation that
could support a farm because many tracts suitable for agriculture are
highly fractionated. Obtaining leases from the individual owners of
fractionated lands is hindered by the often extreme number of heirs who
must consent to a lease. The inventory called for by Section 7 of the
bill would help the Secretary and the Tribe identify the extent of
fractionation as it relates to agricultural lands, which will help the
Tribe determine how to consolidate fractionated interests into Tribal
ownership to create tracts suitable for agriculture.
Section 7 of the bill directs the Secretary to prepare periodic
reports regarding obstacles to consolidating trust land ownership on
the Reservation, the Tribe's progress toward making agricultural use of
trust land economical, and any outcomes or lessons learned by the
Secretary and the Tribe as a result of the Tribe's land consolidation
efforts. These reports shall be submitted to this Committee and the
House Committee on Natural Resources no less than once per year for the
next five years. As one of the first tribes to sign a cooperative
agreement with the Department of the Interior Land Buy-Back Program for
Tribal Nations, the Tribe is excited to share news of its land
consolidation obstacles and achievements with Congress.

Conclusion
The Tribe has pursued passage of S. 2442 with integrity and honor.
S. 2442, if enacted, would achieve the following constructive results:

(1) Consolidate the Tribe's land base and the Tribe's ability
to self-govern.

(2) Enhance the Tribe's opportunity for economic development
on the Reservation.

(3) Protect the area around Bear Butte, which is sacred to the
Northern Cheyenne and other tribes.

(4) Remediate the federal government's 114-year error which
has deprived the Tribe of ownership of eight sections of
Reservation subsurface. As S. 2442 provides, in return for the
mineral conveyances provided for in the bill, the Tribe would
release any and all claims it may have against the United
States for that error.

(5) Prevent GNP (or anyone else) from developing the eight
sections without Tribal consent or benefit, irrespective of the
long-standing Tribal concerns about Reservation coal
development.

(6) Provide a potential revenue stream to the Tribe to help
the Tribe cope with the accrued and future impacts of adjoining
off-Reservation coal-related development.

(7) Address the long-standing injustices suffered by the Tribe
from federallysponsored and facilitated coal-related
development in areas near the Reservation, while the Tribe's
trustee financially benefits from such development.

(8) Secure the Northern Cheyenne Trust Fund to be held in
perpetuity to fund vital Tribal programs for the youth, elderly
and other underprivileged Tribal members. The Tribe would
release the United States from liability related to management
of the Fund.

(9) Reward the Tribe for its self-generated, steadfast and
honorable effort to resolve these matters by agreement rather
than litigation.

(10) Give the Tribe an inventory of fractionated trust lands
that will allow the Tribe to direct its land consolidation
efforts toward achieving a Tribal-owned land base suitable for
agriculture.

(11) Provide Congress with helpful information on lessons
learned by the Secretary and the Tribe during the trust land
consolidation process.

Again, Chairman Tester and Committee Members, I want to thank you
for your consideration of S. 2442, the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act.
Enactment of this bill will help address many wrongs that have been
done to the Northern Cheyenne by the United States over the centuries.
The Tribe did not create the situation we now find ourselves in. We
implore Congress and the Administration to do the right thing and
enable the Northern Cheyenne to control their own lands and trust
funds, and therefore control their own destiny.
Attachments
Northern Cheyenne Lands Act--Historical Perspective--May 7, 2014
Struggle for the Reservation. The Northern Cheyenne cherish their
land. To them, their Reservation is everything. It has provided for the
Northern Cheyenne for centuries. Northern Cheyenne bands made their way
back to the Tribe's original lands in Southeast Montana after the
notorious massacres at Sand Creek and Washita. Later, they were
forcibly relocated to the Oklahoma Territory in 1878 as retribution for
their resistance to White domination and their participation in the
Battle of the Little Bighorn (the Custer Battle), and then (uniquely
among all other tribes relocated to the Oklahoma Indian Territory)
fought their way back to their historic homeland in Montana. The
journey came at great cost to the Tribe--death, imprisonment and other
deprivations--hounded along the way by thousands of hostile military
and settlers. The Northern Cheyenne eventually made it back to Montana
to reclaim their homeland.
1884 Reservation. In 1884, by Executive Order, President Arthur
established a 371,200 acre reservation for the Northern Cheyenne Tribe
extending westward from the eastern border of the Crow reservation to
10 miles east of the Tongue River in Montana. \1\ The Reservation
included non-Indian settlers within its boundaries. A number of Tribal
members living east and west of the Tongue River were not encompassed
within the Reservation. Violent conflicts arose between Tribal members
and early white settlers. Pending resolution of the situation, the
Secretary of the Interior withdrew additional lands in 1886, including
lands between the Reservation's eastern boundary and the Tongue River,
as well as land to the east of the Tongue River. \2\ These withdrawals
further heightened the hostilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Exec. Order of Nov. 26, 1884.
\2\ See Brief for the Northern Cheyenne Tribe as Amicus Curiae
Supporting Defendants-Appellees, Fidelity Exploration & Production Co.
v. U.S., 506 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1900 Expansion of Reservation. In 1898, Congress directed the
Secretary to investigate and report on the situation and, specifically,
to determine whether it was feasible to relocate the Northern Cheyenne
to the adjacent Crow Reservation. \3\ In November, 1898, U.S. Indian
Inspector James McLaughlin reported to Congress that the Tribe was
unwilling to move to the Crow Reservation and the Crows were unwilling
to receive them. McLaughlin recommended that ``if the reservation were
cleared of white settlers, who occupied much of the best land on the
reservation, and if a sufficient amount of other desirable land could
be added to the reservation, many of the difficulties of the Northern
Cheyenne could be eliminated.'' \4\ He also reported on his
negotiations with the white settlers (legal and illegal) for the
acquisition of their lands within the expanded limits of the
Reservation so as to entice those Northern Cheyenne living east of the
Tongue River to relocate to the expansion area. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id. at 4. See also Opinions of the Solicitor of the Department
of the Interior, M-34758, Validity of Patents Issued to Northern
Cheyenne Indians (September 5, 1947).
\4\ Id. at 1469.
\5\ Id. See also James McLaughlin, My Friend the Indian 302
(Houghton Mifflin Co. 1910). In his biographical novel, McLaughlin
noted that in implementing the expanded Reservation he ``found it
necessary not only to buy out ranchers and individual settlers on a
small scale, but actually to buy up the town of Hutton, Montana, which
had been located on the reservation lands, through the incorrectness of
a map of the portion of Custer County.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a second report issued in February 1900, McLaughlin recounted
his negotiations with the Northern Pacific Railway Company for the
purchase of the railway holdings within the expansion area. The Railway
held checkerboard sections of public lands (surface and subsurface)
under prior Acts of Congress \6\ intended to induce westward Railway
expansion. In early 1900, McLaughlin reported that he had reached
purchase agreements with the Railway and persons who had purchased
surface land from the Railway within the expansion area. \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Northern Pacific Land Grant Act, July 2, 1864 (13 Stat. 365);
Joint Resolution 67, May 31, 1870 (16 Stat. 378).
\7\ Opinions of the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, M-
34758 at 1469.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 19, 1900, President McKinley by Executive Order expanded
the Reservation as McLaughlin had recommended. The boundaries of the
Northern Cheyenne Reservation now ran from the Crow Reservation on the
West to the middle of the Tongue River on the East. \8\ On May 31,
1900, Congress appropriated the funds necessary to pay for lands
purchased by McLaughlin, including those of the Railway and its
successors. The Secretary then revoked 1886 withdrawal orders covering
the public lands east of the Tongue River. \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Exec. Order of March 19, 1900.
\9\ Opinions of the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, M-
34758 at 1469.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GNP's 5,000 Acres of Subsurface. The Railway had previously sold
some of its surface lands within the Reservation expansion area to
others, while retaining ownership of about 5,000 acres of the
underlying subsurface. In purchasing from the railway, McLaughlin
unfortunately neglected to acquire that underlying Railway subsurface.
In 1992 (92 years later), Great Northern Properties (``GNP'') purchased
those subsurface lands from a subsidiary of the Railway. This split
estate (between Tribal surface ownership and third party subsurface
ownership), subsists 112 years after Congressional direction to
purchase the private in-holdings within the expanded Reservation in
trust for the Tribe. These 5,000 acres are the only subsurface within
the Reservation not owned by the Tribe.
Tribal Homeland. Today, the Northern Cheyenne Reservation is
bordered on the west by the 4-5 times larger Crow Indian Reservation
and on the east by the Tongue River. The Northern Cheyenne Reservation
is truly the homeland of the Northern Cheyenne. The Reservation
population is a 90 percent Northern Cheyenne. Non-Indian presence on
the Reservation is minimal. A majority of the Tribe's almost 10,000
Tribal members reside on the Reservation. Traditional Cheyenne values
and culture still thrive on the Reservation and the Cheyenne language
is still spoken. The Reservation remains culturally distinct from the
surrounding land and communities.
Significantly, the Northern Cheyenne Reservation was the last
Reservation to be allotted by Congress. Because of that very late
Allotment Act, the Tribe's reverence for the Reservation, and a long-
standing Tribal buy-back program, almost all of the Reservation surface
is held in trust for the Tribe as an entity and its members.
Furthermore, the Reservation surface is overwhelmingly controlled and
used by the Tribe and its members. The primary land uses are cattle
grazing, timber harvesting (entirely suspended for years due to adverse
market conditions), farming, and ceremonial and subsistence use. The
entire Reservation mineral estate--except for the 5,000 acres that are
the subject of the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act--is owned by the Tribe
as a single entity. Because of the paramount importance to them of the
Reservation, the Northern Cheyenne feel a sacred duty to pursue
ownership of the 5,000 acres of Reservation subsurface held by GNP.
GNP Leases 5,000 Acres to Peabody. In 1965, the coal industry began
to express interest in the Northern Cheyenne Reservation. Encouraged by
BIA and USGS (and without benefit of any independent expertise), in an
effort to alleviate its abject poverty the Tribe authorized BIA and
USGS to prepare documents necessary to conduct a public lease sale of
its coal reserves. \10\ In three successive coal sales (1966, 1968 and
1971), the vast bulk of the Reservation was carved up by a collection
of the Nation's leading energy companies and speculators, all on
unconscionable terms. During this episode, the Railway separately and
independently leased its 5,000 acres of Reservation subsurface to
Peabody Coal Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Hearings before the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Indian
Affairs on S. 2126--A Bill Relating to Certain Leases Involving the
Secretary of the interior and the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation,
90th Cong. 32-39 [''S. 2126 Hearing''] (testimony of Allen Rowland,
President of the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancellation of Reservation Coal Transactions. Realizing that it
had lost control over about 70 percent of the Reservation, in 1973 the
Tribe submitted a 600-page petition to the Secretary of the Interior
seeking cancellation of the permits and leases encumbering the
Reservation. The Tribe argued: (1) the royalty rate of 17.5 cents per
ton (reduced to 15 cents if the coal, as most companies intended, was
processed on the Reservation) was unconscionable; (2) the 25,000-30,000
lease options granted by the BIA-approved exploration permits grossly
exceeded the 2,500 acre limitation specified in federal regulations;
(3) the United States performed no prior environmental analyses before
approving the coal transactions; (4) the documents contained no
significant environmental protection or restoration provisions; and (5)
the BIA leasing process was otherwise littered with regulatory and
statutory violations.
The Secretary responded to the Tribe's petition by suspending all
further coal development under the transactions, recognizing that the
United States had effectively turned over the Reservation to the coal
industry and speculators. To restore the balance of power to the Tribe,
and in the hope that the transactions would be renegotiated, the
Secretary declined to cancel the permits and leases outright, but
assured the Tribe that ``the terms and conditions upon which mineral
development may proceed on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation will
require [the Tribe's] joint agreement and support prior to any further
approval by [the Secretary].'' \11\ In the ensuing years, the Tribe
remained so traumatized and deeply offended by what had been done, that
it rejected all overtures of the involved coal companies and
speculators to renegotiate the transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Report from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
on S. 2126 (September 23, 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressional Solution. In approximately 1978, the Tribe approached
the coal companies with a proposal to seek federal legislative action
which would facilitate the companies' voluntary relinquishment of their
claims on the Reservation. Recognizing that their development prospects
on the Reservation were nil, the companies joined with the Tribe in a
cooperative effort to seek legislation. At the request of the Tribe and
the companies, in 1979, S. 2126 entitled ``A Bill Relating to Certain
Leases Involving the Secretary of the Interior and the Northern
Cheyenne Indian Reservation'' was introduced. The final bill
incorporated the concepts of noncompetitive leases and ``bidding
rights'' as compensation for expenditures on the Reservation. S. 2126
as enacted authorized the Secretary to negotiate with the Tribe and
each affected party for a ``cancellation agreement'' under which the
permit or lease would be cancelled in exchange for either (a) a much
smaller noncompetitive lease for federal coal adjacent to an existing
mining unit that was unlikely to be mined separately, or (b) a
certificate of bidding rights. \12\ The final bill also established the
value of the bidding rights at a level equal to the amount of the
permit holder's or lessee's actual cash investment plus interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ A Bill Relating to Certain Leases Involving the Secretary of
the Interior and the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Pub. L. No.
96-401, 94 Stat. 1707 (1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 2126 was enacted on October 9, 1980. \13\ Over the next year,
separate cancellation agreements among the Department of the Interior,
the companies, and the Tribe were entered into, except as to the tracts
secured by the speculators, whose claims on the Reservation were
therefore cancelled by Congressional fiat as provided in the Act. \14\
The speculators then sued the United States for a Fifth Amendment
``taking'' in the U.S. Court of Claims. \15\ That suit was essentially
unsuccessful. The Court gave token judgment by ordering reimbursement
by the United States of the very minimal bonuses they had paid for the
permits. \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Id. at 4.
\14\ The speculators offered to pay the Tribe an initial payment
and an overriding royalty on the federal coal (located in the Tongue
River Valley) they sought, if the Tribe would sign the necessary
cancellation agreement. The Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council rejected
that offer.
\15\ NRG Co. v. U.S., 24 Cl. Ct. 51 (1991).
\16\ NRG Co. v. U.S. (``NGR II''), 30 Fed. Cl. 460 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I Air. In the late 1970s, utilities owning the Colstrip power
plants about 15 miles north of the Reservation sought to greatly expand
the size of that project. The Tribe was very concerned about the likely
adverse effects on Reservation air quality and the pattern of exclusion
of Northern Cheyenne from employment in the power plants,
notwithstanding appalling unemployment rates on the Reservation (the
area's largest local community). To address these issues, the Tribe
took the bold and unprecedented step of reclassifying the air quality
standard above its Reservation to Class I--the most pristine standard
under federal law. \17\ The Tribe was the first governmental entity of
any kind in the Country to do so. EPA granted the reclassification and
litigation challenging it was unsuccessful. \18\ The end result was an
agreement between the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and the power plant
owners providing for the adoption of enhanced air quality control
technology for the plant expansion, employment and other commercial
opportunities for the Northern Cheyenne, and funding for Tribal
government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Redesignation of Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation for
Prevention of Significant Deterioration, 42 Fed.Reg. 40695 (August 11,
1977).
\18\ Nance v. EPA, 645 F.2d 701 (9th Cir. 1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powder River Coal Sale. In 1982, Secretary of the Interior James
Watt authorized the largest federal coal lease sale in history. The
Power River Basin Sale included tracts to the north, east and south of
the Reservation, as well as tracts in Wyoming. The Montana tracts
included so-called tracts for an existing mine in Colstrip 15 miles to
the north, tracts for the Decker mines 25 miles to the south, and
tracts for new mines to be established to the east in the Tongue River
Valley.
The Tribe made extensive efforts to resolve its concerns with this
enormous coal lease sale without litigation. Those efforts were spurned
by the Secretary and industry and, on the eve of the Powder River Basin
lease sale, the Tribe filed suit against the Secretary asking that any
leases issued in the forthcoming sale be voided on the ground that the
leasing process essentially ignored or minimized the very adverse
effects on the Northern Cheyenne. The Tribe's claims were filed under
the federal coal leasing statues and regulations, the federal trust
responsibility, and NEPA. The Tribe based its claims on exclusion of
the Tribe from impact funding, the physical and socio-economic on-
Reservation impacts such development would engender, and the historic
pattern of exclusion of Northern Cheyenne from employment opportunities
at existing off- Reservation coal-related projects.
In federal District Court, the Tribe won a sweeping victory on all
counts. All leases, including those authorizing new production tracts
in the Tongue River Valley, were voided. \19\ The United States and the
involved companies appealed only the remedial provisions of the
District Court decision. \20\ Ultimately, the new production tract
leases in the Tongue River Valley were terminated and the Tribe
negotiated a mitigation agreement with the Colstrip mine (which had
initially received tracts in the 1982 sale) that provided, among other
items, jobs for Tribal members and some Tribal impact funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel, 12 Ind.L.Rep. 3065 (D. Mont.
1985).
\20\ Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel, 851 F.2d 1152 (9th Cir.
1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Termination of Montco Project. In the 1980s, federal mining permits
were issued for the proposed Montco Mine project in the Tongue River
Valley, adjacent to the Reservation. While the Tribe had concerns about
the project from its inception, a lack of resources prevented the Tribe
from taking legal action to challenge it, although the Northern Plains
Resource Council (NRPC) and others tried unsuccessfully to block the
project. In the 1990s when the Montco Project was applying for yet
another renewal of its mining permit (after several prior renewals),
the Tribe finally decided to legally challenge the project.
The Tribe was successful in administrative proceedings. Montco
appealed to the District Court, which reversed the administrative
decision. The Tribe then appealed to the Montana Supreme Court.
Although NPRC was a party to the proceedings, the Tribe took the lead
in preparing the pleadings, writing the briefs, and arguing the case.
In a case of first impression, the Montana Supreme Court agreed with
the Tribe's position and denied further renewal of the Montco permit.
\21\ Since then, there have been no efforts to resuscitate the Montco
Project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Montco v. Simonich, 285 Mont. 280, 947 P.2d 1047 (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Otter Creek. In 1989, Crown Butte Mines proposed a precious metals
mine--the New World Mine--on private and U.S. Forest Service lands
located approximately 3 miles from the border of Yellowstone National
Park. During the federal environmental review process for the New World
Mine, several issues arose about the impact of mining on the
surrounding area, including the Clark's Fork of the Yellowstone River,
and the permitting process for the mine became extremely controversial.
With this controversy and the increasing likelihood that the New
World Mine would never receive the necessary federal permits,
negotiations began between Crown Butte Mines, local environmental
groups and the Council on Environmental Quality as to how to buy-out
the valid existing rights held by Crown Butte Mines. In August 1996,
President Bill Clinton announced an agreement between the United States
and Crown Butte Mines which, among other items, committed the United
States to pay $65 million for patented and unpatented mining claims
held by Crown Butte Mines.
In April 1997, the United States proposed to fund this $65 million
payment with either a diversion of federal royalties from currently
producing coal, oil, and gas operations in Montana or an exchange of
other federal assets. To identify appropriate revenue streams, Montana
Governor Marc Racicot commenced the Montana Initiative to identify
federal coal and timber lands in Montana. \22\ Ultimately, for various
reasons, none of the revenue streams or exchange property identified by
the State of Montana or the United States was workable as payment to
Crown Butte Mines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral
Resources of the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives,
New World Mine Proposed Buyout, H.Rpt. 105-40 (May 20, 1997); CRS
Report for Congress, New World Gold Mine and Yellowstone National Park,
No. 96-669 ENR (August 27, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the Fiscal Year 1998 Balanced Budget Agreement entered
into by Congressional leadership and President Clinton included $300
million for ``high priority land acquisitions.'' \23\ This total
included $65 million for the purchase by the United States of Crown
Butte Mines' interests in patented and unpatented mining claims. \24\
Despite their inclusion in the Balanced Budget Agreement, the
Republican Congress did not wholeheartedly endorse the ``high priority
land acquisitions'' identified by President Clinton. The Senate
Appropriations Committee included money for ``high priority land
acquisitions'' in the Fiscal Year 1998 Appropriations Bill for the
Department of the Interior provided that separate legislation was
enacted authorizing the acquisition while the House Appropriations
Committee did not include any funding for the acquisitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33 (Aug. 5,
1997).
\24\ It also included $250 million for the Headwaters Forest
acquisition in northern California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the fall of 1997, negotiations began in earnest between the
White House and Congressional Republicans on the Fiscal Year 1998
Appropriations Bill for the Department of the Interior. Congress
eventually decided to fund and authorize the Administration's ``high
priority land acquisitions'' including $65 million for the New World
Mine property. The authorization for the New World Mine acquisition
included a number of terms and conditions insisted upon by the
respective authorizing Committees in the House and Senate. \25\ It also
included two items of particular importance to the State of Montana:
(1) $12 million for the maintenance and rehabilitation of the Beartooth
Highway through Wyoming into Montana and (2) $10 million in federal
mineral rights to the State of Montana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ An Act Making Appropriations for the Department of the
Interior and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1998 and for other purposes, Pub. L. No. 105-83 (Nov. 20, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the transfer of the federal mineral rights to the State of
Montana, the Act authorized that the Secretary of the Interior to
convey to the state ``without consideration'':

$10,000,000 in mutually agreeable federal mineral rights in
the State; or

all federal mineral rights in Otter Creek tracts 1, 2, and
3.

Over the next four years, the State and the federal government
failed to identify mutually agreeable federal mineral rights to convey
to the State. \26\ Thus, the Secretary was obliged to convey the Otter
Creek tracts 1, 2 and 3 to the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The Montana Mineral Exchange: H.R. 2107, Section 503 of the
Department of Interior & Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998,
Briefing & Information Packet (January 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Otter Creek Settlement. Throughout this time, the Northern Cheyenne
Tribe repeatedly expressed concerns to the State of Montana and the
Department of the Interior about transferring the Otter Creek tracts to
the State of Montana. The Otter Creek tracts are approximately 3-4
miles from the Tongue River, the eastern boundary of the Northern
Cheyenne Reservation. The Tribe was worried that transfer of the
property from federal to state ownership would adversely impact the
Reservation if the tracts were developed, since the Tribe would lose
federal trust protections and the environmental protection requirements
of the federal coal leasing program would no longer apply. The Tribe
met on numerous occasions with the Montana Congressional delegation,
representatives of the Department of the Interior, the Governor, other
State officials, and Great Northern Properties (GNP), to work out a
settlement.
In January 2002, Montana Governor Martz formally requested that the
Secretary of the Interior Norton transfer the Otter Creek tracts 1, 2
and 3 to the State. The Tribe met with Secretary Norton, to present its
concerns and request time to negotiate a multi-party settlement.
Shortly after that meeting, the Tribe was advised that the Secretary
would withhold action on the transfer pending such settlement
discussions. The Department then ``withheld action of the transfer of
any federal mineral rights to the State of Montana in order to support
the discussions between the State of Montana and the Northern Cheyenne
Tribe.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Draft Environmental Assessment for Compliance with Section 503
of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation
Act of 1998, Public Law 105-83 at pp. 17--19 (Feb. 4, 2002). It is
unclear if a final EA was ever issued for the transfer of the Otter
Creek Tracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the eve of a public hearing before the State Land Board to
consider and consummate an Otter Creek Settlement Agreement negotiated
by the Tribe and the State, the Tribe learned that, notwithstanding the
Secretary's stand-still assurance, the Otter Creek transfer would go
forward virtually immediately. Within two business days, the Tribe
filed suit against the Secretary in federal District Court in
Washington, D.C. to enjoin the transfer. \28\ The Tribe's settlement
discussions with Governor Martz, the Montana State Board of Land
Commissioners, the Montana Congressional delegation and Great Northern
Properties (the owner of the private coal checkerboard in Otter Creek)
to resolve its litigation and objections to the Otter Creek transfer
were ultimately successful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Norton, Docket # 1:02-cv-00146-TPJ
(D.D.C. 2002). The Tribe's complaint was filed on January 25, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the settlement, the Land Board and the Congressional
delegation agreed to support the enactment of federal legislation which
would provide impact funding to the Tribe and resolve the Tribe's
claims against the United States arising from the Otter Creek transfer
and the 1900 failure to acquire 5,000 acres of subsurface rights within
the Reservation. The State Land Board agreed to require any lessee of
the Otter Creek tracts, in close consultation with the Tribe, to
fashion Operating Plans which would provide employment and commercial
opportunity to the Northern Cheyenne, enhance environmental protection
for the Reservation, require project workforce and truckers to meet
conduct codes while on the Reservation, and protect Tribal historic,
cultural and religious interests and values in the Tongue River Valley.
The Land Board also agreed to support efforts to improve off-
Reservation roads to lessen resulting traffic loads on the Reservation,
new cooperative law enforcement arrangements, and Congressional
enactment of federal legislation to facilitate federal impact funding
to the Tribe. In exchange, the Tribe agreed to dismiss, with prejudice,
its judicial challenge to the Otter Creek transfer.
The Settlement Agreement was signed by the President of the
Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Governor Martz, Montana Secretary of State
Brown, and Montana Director of Natural Resources and Conservation
Clinch in February 2002. \29\ The Bureau of Land Management issued the
State of Montana a patent for the Otter Creek tracts on April 10, 2002.
\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Settlement Agreement by the Montana State Board of Land
Commissioners and Northern Cheyenne Tribe (Feb. 19, 2002).
\30\ State of Montana, Office of the Governor, Executive Order No.
12-02, Executive Order Certifying Transfer of Title to Federal Property
Interests (May 28, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legislative Follow-Up on Otter Creek Settlement. Consistent with
the terms of the Otter Creek Settlement, in 2004, Senator Burns
introduced the Montana Mineral Conveyance Act. \31\ The 2004 Montana
Mineral Conveyance Act was cosponsored by Senators Baucus and Campbell.
As introduced, the bill conveyed to the United States the Northern
Cheyenne Reservation tracts owned by Great Northern Properties for
other coal reserves owned by the United States in Montana. The Northern
Cheyenne Tribe agreed to waive its breach of trust claims against the
United States. The legislation also authorized a $70 million impact
assistance fund for the benefit of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. No
hearings were held on the 2004 Montana Mineral Conveyance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ S. 2225, 108th Cong., 2d Sess. (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1158 was introduced in 2011, as was a similar bill in the
Senate, S. 647. Another iteration of the bill was introduced in the
Senate as S. 2110. In contrast to the predecessor 2004 Bill and the
negotiated Otter Creek Settlement, neither H.R. 1158 nor the Senate
bills provided the promised $70 million in federal impact funding to
the Tribe. This provision was removed in light of federal budget
realities and to increase the likelihood of enactment. H.R. 1158 was
reported favorably by unanimous consent out of the House Indian and
Alaska Native Affairs with a recommendation that it would pass. No
hearing was held in the Senate.

The Chairman. Thank you, President Fisher.
We had a number of members show up, and Senator Flake is
here. I promised when Senator Flake showed up he could
introduce the bill that he is a sponsor of, and Senator McCain.
Then you are free to stay or go, whatever you want, Senator
Flake. So go ahead.

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF FLAKE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA

Senator Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. I really appreciate this opportunity to testify in
support of S. 2503, the Bill Williams River Water Rights
Settlement Act of 2014.
This is an important piece of legislation for Arizona. I
would like to recognize the Chairman of the Hualapai Tribe, Ms.
Sherry Counts, who will be testifying today. Both her efforts
and those of the Hualapai Tribal Council on this measure are
appreciated, and I am happy to join her in advancing this
legislation.
Also I want to thank my colleague from Arizona, Senator
McCain, for his long role in addressing Indian water rights in
Arizona, and for his co-sponsorship of this bill. It is rare to
find a piece of legislation that that can garner bipartisan,
bicameral support from the entire State congressional
delegation. I am happy to report that Congressman Gosar and the
entire Arizona delegation have introduced a companion measure,
H.R. 4924. At its core, this legislation seeks to resolve a
dispute between the Hualapai Tribe, the mining company Freeport
Minerals Corporation, the United States as trustee for the
tribe and the allottees, and the Arizona Game and Fish
Commission, and the Arizona Department of Water Resources
related to competing interests and shared water resources in
the Bill Williams Basin.
Basically this legislation would recognize the Hualapai
Tribe and the allottees' right to 694-acre feet of water in
three parcels. It establishes protections for the tribe's
culturally significant interests in the Cofer Hot Springs and
it caps Freeport's water use at Wikieup well field at 10,055
acre feet per year. It facilitates the transfer of a portion of
land known as Planet Ranch to the Arizona Game and Fish
Commission for use as part of a Lower Colorado River Multi-
Species Conservation Plan, or MSCP, which provides endangered
species related mitigation enabling current and future water
management activities along the Colorado River in Arizona,
Nevada and California. It secures non-Federal contributions
from Freeport to the Hualapai Tribe and toward a future
settlement of water disputes in two other river basins. It also
ensures enforceability of the settlement only occurs after any
objections by the non-settling parties have been resolved in a
final non-appealable decision.
Due to the statutory time requirements requiring parties to
use or potentially lose water rights within five years, there
is a sense of urgency to passing this legislation quickly. But
also I would like to note that as a legal settlement of claims
where parties are negotiating sensitive deal terms, the
settlement negotiations were subject to a confidentiality
agreement among the parties. The practice is not unusual. It
enables the parties to negotiate with each other in good faith.
However, with the introduction of the legislation at
today's hearing, the public vetting process has begun. A lot of
people have been concerned that they haven't been involved in
the process. This is the beginning of the process and they will
be involved.
To that end, I understand there are some concerns that have
been raised by Mojave County and La Paz County in reviewing
this settlement. I further understand the Department of
Interior and Department of Justice will raise some issues at
today's hearing. I look forward to working with all interested
stakeholders on improving the bill.
With regard to the Department's testimony on the limited
waiver of sovereign immunity, I would note that the parties to
the settlement must have the ability to enforce the terms of
the agreement. In light of the Supreme Court precedents, I
believe the waiver must be express and unequivocal. The waiver
included in this legislation is not unprecedented; it is
similar to the waiver included in the White Mountain Apache
Settlement authorized by Congress in 2010. I believe this
settlement will mark an important step for Arizona. I am
pleased to join Senator McCain and the entire House delegation
and the Hualapai Tribe to advance this bill. I appreciate the
Committee's support in that effort.
Finally, with the Committee's indulgence, I would ask that
my written statement, the Hualapai Tribe Resolution 40-2014 in
support of the settlement, letters in support from the Governor
of Arizona, Jan Brewer, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and
Industry, the Nature Conservancy, written testimony in support
of S. 2503 from Freeport Minerals Corporation, as well as a
letter and statement in opposition from Mojave County, be
entered into the legislative record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you,
Senator Flake.
[The prepared statement of Senator Flake follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jeff Flake, U.S. Senator from Arizona

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, and Members of the Committee, I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to testify in
support of S. 2503, the Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Act
of 2014. Thank you for scheduling this hearing on what I believe is an
important piece of legislation for the state of Arizona. I would also
like to recognize the Chairwoman of the Hualapai Tribe, Ms. Sherry
Counts, who will be testifying today. Both her efforts and those of the
Hualapai tribal council on this measure are appreciated, and I am happy
to join her and the Tribe in advancing this legislation. Finally, I
would like to thank my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, for his
long-held role in addressing Indian water rights in Arizona and his
cosponsorship of this settlement.
It is rare to find a piece of legislation that can garner the
bipartisan and bicameral support of an entire state congressional
delegation, but in this instance we appear to have a confluence of
seemingly disparate interests flowing in the same direction. With the
introduction of S. 2503, as well as Congressman Gosar's companion
measure, H.R. 4924, Congress has an opportunity to resolve a water-
rights dispute among the Hualapai Tribe; a mining company, Freeport
Minerals Corporation; and the United States, as trustee for the Tribe
and Allottees. Better yet, we can resolve this dispute without
authorizing any new federal spending. In addition, the bill would
enhance the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Plan or
MSCP--a program that provides endangered species related mitigation
enabling current and future water-management activities along the
Colorado River in Arizona, Nevada, and California.
The dispute this legislation resolves arose over competing
interests in shared water resources in western Arizona. There, the
Hualapai Tribe and Allottees own parcels of land along the Big Sandy
River. The Big Sandy River is a tributary of the Bill Williams River,
which flows into the Colorado River at Lake Havasu. Nearby, Freeport
owns and operates a large copper and molybdenum mine in Bagdad,
Arizona. Like the Tribe, the company draws its water for that operation
from wells located in the Big Sandy River watershed.
In an effort to safeguard its water uses against potential legal
challenges that could disrupt mining operations, Freeport purchased
land and water rights associated with two properties in the basin known
as Planet Ranch and Lincoln Ranch. The company then sought to shift a
portion of the water rights associated with those ranches to its
wellfield. However, a number of parties, including the United States,
as trustee for the Tribe and the Allottees, the Arizona Game and Fish
Commission, and Mohave County filed objections. Due to a statutory time
clock regarding surface water in Arizona, Freeport has five years
before it must either use or potentially lose those water rights they
purchased for the express purpose of safeguarding their economic
activity in that part of the state. That time clock creates a sense of
urgency for passing this legislation, otherwise Freeport would be
required to make significant investments in irrigation infrastructure
or risk losing water rights.
With prompt passage, this legislation would resolve much of the
dispute among the Tribe, Freeport, the United States as trustee for the
Tribe and the Allottees, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, and the
Arizona Department of Water Resources. Specifically, the settlement
would:

Recognize the Hualapai Tribe's and the Allottee's right to
694 acre-feet of water on three parcels in the Big Sandy River
basin;

Establish protections for the Tribe's culturally significant
interest in Cofer Hot Springs;

Cap Freeport's water use at the Wikieup Wellfield at 10,055
acre-feet per year;

Facilitate the transfer of a portion of Planet Ranch to the
Arizona Game and Fish Commission for use as part of the MSCP;

Secure a non-federal contribution from Freeport to the
Hualapai Tribe toward a potential future settlement of water
disputes in two other river basins; and

Ensure that enforceability of the settlement only occurs
after any objections of non-settling parties have been resolved
in a final and non-appealable decision.

As a legal settlement of claims, where parties are negotiating
sensitive deal terms, these negotiations were subject to a
confidentiality agreement among the parties. This practice is not
unusual, particularly in the context of Indian water rights
settlements, as it enables the parties to negotiate with each other in
good faith. However, with the introduction of legislation, where
Congress is ratifying and confirming the agreements negotiated by those
parties, the settlement enters a new phase of public review. As such, I
see introduction of this bill and today's hearing as the beginning of
the public vetting process. To that end, I understand that some
concerns have been raised by Mohave and La Paz counties as they begin
to review the settlement. I further understand that the Department of
the Interior and the Department of Justice will raise some issues in
today's testimony. I look forward to working with those and all other
interested stakeholders in finding ways that we can improve this
legislation.
I would like to take a minute to just briefly discuss one of the
issues raised in the Department's testimony that could garner
attention: the limited waiver of sovereign immunity. I believe the
parties to this settlement must have the ability to enforce the terms
of the agreements amongst each other. As this Committee is aware, the
Supreme Court's recent decision in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian
Community, confirms that Congress must ``unequivocally'' express its
intent to waive tribal immunity in the context of such agreements.
Likewise, the Supreme Court in Orff v. United States, concluded that
waiver of the United States' sovereign immunity must be explicit.
The waiver included in this legislation would expressly allow the
parties to enforce the terms of the settlement against each other. It
is not unprecedented; in fact, a similar waiver was included in the
White Mountain Apache Settlement authorized by Congress in 2010. I am
concerned by the Department's suggestion that instead Congress should
employ existing waivers in the Tucker Act, Administrative Procedure
Act, or the McCarran Amendment. I will continue to work with the
Department to find a path forward, but I believe the relevant Supreme
Court precedent requires an unequivocal statement by Congress regarding
the parties' ability to enforce the settlement.
I would like to conclude by noting that last year the Arizona
Department of Water Resources issued a report highlighting that of
Arizona's 22 federally recognized Indian tribes, 13 have enacted
settlements that either partially or fully resolve water rights
disputes. I believe the Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Act
would mark another important step in that long tradition. As such, I am
pleased to join Senator McCain, the Arizona House delegation, and the
Hualapai Tribe in trying to advance this bill, and I appreciate the
Committee's support in that effort.
Thank you.

The Chairman. Before we go back to the tribal witnesses,
Senator McCain, do you have anything you would like to add?

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA

Senator McCain. I am grateful that the Committee is holding
this hearing. The Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement
Act, and I am proud of the leadership of my colleague, Senator
Flake. He, as you know, Mr. Chairman, has succeeded Senator
Kyle, who was a leader on numerous water rights settlements in
our State.
I am also glad to hear our Committee testimony from the
Chairwoman of the Hualapai Tribe, Ms. Sherry Counts. Welcome.
And Mr. Chairman, there are many, many beautiful Indian lands
in this Country. But I would argue that if you have the chance
to go down to the Hualapai Tribe, it is really incredibly
magnificent beauty. I am sure that, Chairwoman Counts, you
would invite a Democrat down there, wouldn't you? I think so,
yes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Udall. This Democrat has been down there before.
[Laughter.]
Senator McCain. They didn't want you back, though.
[Laughter.]
Senator McCain. Actually, Senator Udall's father was a key
element in so many of not only the water rights settlements,
but settlements amongst Native Americans. In his eight-year
tenure, his outstanding tenure as Secretary of Interior, an
incredible legacy that he has passed on to his son.
Senator Flake described the legislation, I hope to
everyone's satisfaction. So I won't repeat it. But it isn't a
full settlement of the Hualapai Tribe's water rights claims.
But it does offer the tribe a path forward for a future
comprehensive settlement using the million dollars provided by
Freeport. I would like to thank all the parties involved for
working together to reach a speedy agreement.
I understand that the Interior Department has some
concerns, and we look forward to working those out. The issue
of the 21st century in the Southwest, including my State of
Arizona, is water. We have to conclude our Native American
water rights settlements if we are going to have a predictable
supply of water for Indians and non-Indians alike. We have to
give the highest priority to settling these Indian water rights
issues rather than see years and years of litigation that go on
and benefit only lawyers.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I couldn't agree with you more, Senator
McCain. Thank you for your endorsement of the bill.
With that, we are going to go back to our tribal witnesses.
Aletha Tom, you have the floor, and know that as with everyone
else, your full written testimony will be a part of the record.
Go ahead, Aletha.

STATEMENT OF HON. ALETHA TOM, CHAIRWOMAN, MOAPA BAND OF PAIUTE
INDIANS

Ms. Tom. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, good
afternoon. I am Aletha Tom, Chairwoman of the Moapa Band of
Paiutes.
The tribe strongly supports S. 2479, and we deeply
appreciate the efforts of the many people who have helped us
move this forward, especially Senator Reid and also Congressman
Horsford, who has introduced a companion bill in the House.
The bill would restore about 26,000 acres to our
reservation. These are desert lands adjacent to our reservation
that are currently managed by BLM and Bureau of Reclamation.
The lands were all part of our original Southern Paiute
homeland and were part of the original Moapa Reservation, which
once comprised over 2 million acres. Unfortunately, pressures
from miners and settlers led Congress to shrink our reservation
in 1875 from over 2 million down to 1,000 acres. Our
reservation remained tiny until 1980, when Congress restored a
small portion of our lands, about 70,000 acres, back to our
reservation.
The current bill would continue this process by restoring
around 26,000 additional acres. The lands addressed in the bill
are particularly important to us. One portion, about 7,500
acres, is located near where most of us live on the
reservation. These additional lands will be directly useful for
housing and community needs for our people. Right now, housing
is extremely scarce and many of our young adults must move off
the reservation. These lands would give our young people an
opportunity to stay home and contribute to our community.
A second portion, about 11,500 acres, is located just south
of our main commercial development, a travel plaza with a
convenience store and gas station. We see using these lands to
enhance outdoor recreation and conservation opportunities. The
plaza area is located along the natural path to Las Vegas'
growth, on Interstate 15, by an exit which leads to the Valley
of Fire, Nevada's oldest and largest State park.
A third portion, around 4,500 acres on the north side of
the reservation, has special significance to the tribe and
would be preserved for cultural purposes. The remaining lands
are purely desert areas that would be very useful for our solar
energy development. Our tribe already has three solar projects
in different stages of development. Our reservation is uniquely
situated to provide solar power in the region. We are located
near power lines and substations, as well as major markets
which need extra energy exactly when the sun is shining most
brightly, for air conditioning.
Again, solar development would benefit both the tribe and
the greater community, and would increase the tribe's stake in
the prosperity of the region.
The bill specifically endorses these purposes, housing,
recreation and renewable energy development, as well as
traditional and cultural uses and environmental stewardship.
The bill also provides that the land would not be used for
gaming. We have no problem with that, although Indian gaming is
not really an issue in Nevada.
We again want to thank Senator Reid and the Committee. Not
only would this bill help rectify past injustices, but it also
gives in very practical ways hope to our future of our tribe.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tom follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Aletha Tom, Chairwoman, Moapa Band of Paiute
Indians

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Good afternoon. I'm Aletha Tom, Chairwoman of the Moapa Band of
Paiutes. The Tribe strongly supports Senate Bill 2479, and we deeply
appreciate the efforts of the many people who have helped us move this
forward, especially Senator Reid, and also Congressman Horsford, who
has introduced a companion bill in the House.
The bill would restore about 26,000 acres to our Reservation. These
are desert lands adjacent to our Reservation that are currently managed
by BLM and the Bureau of Reclamation.
The lands were all part of our original Southern Paiute homeland,
and were part of the original Moapa Reservation, which once comprised
over 2,000,000 acres. Unfortunately, pressures from miners and settlers
led Congress to shrink our Reservation in 1875 from over 2,000,000 down
to only 1,000 acres. Our Reservation remained tiny until 1980, when
Congress restored a small portion of our lands--about 70,000 acres--
back to our Reservation. The current bill would continue this process
by restoring around 26,000 additional acres.
The lands addressed in the bill are particularly important to us.
One portion, about 7,500 acres, is located near where most of us
live on the Reservation. These additional lands will be directly useful
for housing and community needs for our people. Right now, housing is
extremely scarce, and many of our young adults must move off the
Reservation. These lands would give our young people an opportunity to
stay home and contribute to our community.
A second portion, about 11,500 acres, is located just south of our
main commercial development, a travel plaza with a convenience store
and gas station. We see using these lands to enhance outdoor recreation
and conservation opportunities. The plaza area is located along the
natural path of Las Vegas's growth, on Interstate 15, by an exit which
leads to the Valley of Fire, Nevada's oldest and largest state park.
A third portion, around 4,500 acres on the north side of the
Reservation, has special significance to the Tribe and would be
preserved for cultural purposes.
The remaining lands are purely desert areas that would be very
useful for solar energy development. Our Tribe already has three solar
projects in different stages of development. Our Reservation is
uniquely situated to provide solar power in the region. We're located
near powerlines and substations, as well as major markets which need
extra energy exactly when the sun is shining most brightly, for air
conditioning. Again, solar development would benefit both the Tribe and
the greater community, and would increase the Tribe's stake in the
prosperity of the region.
The bill specifically endorses these purposes--housing, recreation,
and renewable energy development--as well as traditional and cultural
uses and environmental stewardship. The bill also provides that the
lands would not be used for gaming. We have no problem with that,
although Indian gaming is not really an issue in Nevada.
We again want to thank Senator Reid and the committee. Not only
would this bill help rectify past injustices, but it also gives, in a
very practical way, hope to our people for the future.

The Chairman. Thank you, Aletha, for your testimony.
Chairman Melendez, the floor is yours.

STATEMENT OF HON. ARLAN MELENDEZ, CHAIRMAN, RENO-SPARKS INDIAN
COLONY

Mr. Melendez. Good afternoon, Chairman Tester, Vice
Chairman Barrasso and distinguished members of the Committee.
My name is Arlan Melendez, and I have been the Chairman of the
Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Paiute, Washoe and Shoshone People,
for the last 23 years.
I am honored to be speaking today for all the tribes in S.
2480, who comprised the Nevada Tribal Lands Coalition. I would
also like to express our heartfelt thanks to Senators Reid and
Heller for their bipartisan sponsorship of this bill, and to
the Committee for scheduling today's hearing.
I also wish to thank Congressmen Mark Amodei and Don Young
and Congresswoman Dina Titus for introducing companion
legislation in the House. A few weeks ago, the House Committee
on Natural Resources unanimously reported the bill to the
Floor. The membership numbers of our tribes are growing, and
the caring capacity of our current lands is very limited. With
limited exceptions, the majority of tribes in Nevada have very
small land bases. Some are so small they don't even show up on
State maps.
As see in the chart on the easel to my right, the
comparison to the large land bases of other tribes in many
western States is dramatic. It is unrealistic to expect that we
can thrive, manage our natural resources, practice traditional
culture, provide housing and encourage economic development on
so little land. It is only by being able to expand and
consolidate our lands that our tribes and cultural practices
can thrive. Each of our tribes has specific reasons for seeking
to expand our lands. We are united in our need for better
management and more effective use of these lands.
Over 80 percent of the land in our State is Federal land.
BLM administers nearly 48 million acres of land in Nevada. Even
with these transfers, BLM lands would still comprise 67 percent
of the land base in Nevada. The transfers would only reduce
BLM's total percentage of land owned statewide by around 2
tenths of a percent. Yet the transfer of this tiny percentage
of land to BIA to be held in trust could be one of the most
important developments for our tribes in a generation. The
positive impact will be experienced by our peoples for
generations to come.
The other tribes will be submitting statements for the
record, but let me quickly summarize these situations. For the
South Fork Band of the Te-Moak Tribe, the bill would transfer
BLM land to expand grazing and agriculture, develop housing and
cultural and agricultural areas. Currently reservation lands
are checkerboarded. Their population has tripled since the
1940s, but their land base is the same size.
For the Elko Band of Te-Moak Tribe, a small parcel of land
would be transferred to the Elko Band who have sought to expand
their current small land base for 17 years for housing,
cultural activities, recreation, economic development and
gravesites. The bill would also transfer 275 acres of BLM land
to Elko County to establish a motocross track, which is also
supported by the tribes. For the Fort McDermitt Paiute and
Shoshone Tribe, the bill would transfer BLM land to resolve
checkerboard land issues. This would address law enforcement
and emergency personnel jurisdictional questions as well as
enable housing development.
Planned land use and development of natural resources will
also ensure environmental biodiversity and ensure better public
health and safety. For the Shoshone Paiute Tribe of the Death
Valley Reservation, this bill would transfer a small parcel of
Forest Service land, a longstanding goal. When the Forest
Service located a district headquarters, housing units were
abandoned. The tribes would like to renovate these units to
address chronic housing shortages and to help recruit medical
professionals, law enforcement and conservation personnel.
For the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, the bill would accomplish
a long-sought transfer of BLM land for protection and
management of Summit Lake's natural resources and fish
population and unify the reservation, which surrounds the lake
except in one area. Summit Lake is home to the cutthroat trout,
which was integral to the tribe's culture and a vital food
source. The transfer will allow for improved management and
habitat restoration.
For the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, the bill would transfer
BLM land to expand the reservation boundary to fully
incorporate the watershed of Pyramid Lake. Other sections near
the lake would be used for potential economic development and
management efficiency.
For my tribe, the Reno-Sparks India Colony, the bill would
alleviate the strain caused b the small size of our
reservation, because we simply need land for housing, cultural
preservation and development. For decades the colony members
were residing on just 27 acres in Reno, Nevada. In 1986, due to
overcrowding, then-Nevada Congresswoman Barbara Vucanovich
assisted us in acquiring a parcel of land in Hungry Valley near
Reno. She said if we needed more land in the future, we should
come back to Congress and ask for it.
In closing, we have made the best use the limited parcel.
We have constructed housing, a water system with production
wells and other facilities, such as a community center. We have
purchased mining claims within the area, proposed to be
transferred, and the wells in the Hungry Valley community are
also within the proposed transfer plot. BLM has told us they
don't have enough staff to effectively monitor all the
activities and the urban interface adjacent to Hungry Valley.
As a result, our people have suffered from many adverse
activities such as recreational shooting, including the use of
assault weapons near residential areas, creating a dangerous
safety situation; illegal dumping; unauthorized creation of a
dirt bike race track; disruptive bike events; heavy off-road
vehicle activities harming the land. While we are not against
off-road vehicles or recreational shooting, we are concerned
with the intensity of the activities adjacent to our community
and homes and its impact on our quality of life.
The legislation will move it a safe distance away and allow
for growth. Our tribes are fully capable of being effective
stewards of these lands. Thank you for this opportunity to
testify and I would be happy to answer any questions that you
may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Melendez follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Arlan Melendez, Chairman, Reno-Sparks Indian
Colony

Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Barrasso and distinguished Members
of the Committee on Indian Affairs. I am pleased to submit this
testimony in support of S. 2480, legislation introduced by Nevada
Senators Harry Reid and Dean Heller. We are also pleased that nearly
identical legislation (H.R. 2455), introduced in a bi-partisan fashion
by Congressmen Mark Amodei (RNV), Dina Titus (D-NV) and Don Young (R-
AK) has been introduced and was unanimously reported out of the House
Committee on Natural Resources a few weeks ago.
Thank you for accepting this testimony of the Reno-Sparks Indian
Colony (the Colony) on S. 2480 and for considering our views. My
remarks herein are mostly specific to the Colony's land expansion
needs. The other tribes in this bill may be submitting their own
written statements for the record, and their statements should be
relied upon for more specific details pertinent to their land transfer
requests. However, there are common themes among all our tribes which I
would like to share. In my oral testimony I will be speaking not just
on behalf of the Colony but on behalf of all the tribes in this
important bill. I am honored speak on behalf of the Nevada Native
Nations Lands Act Tribal Coalition, consisting of the following tribes:

Elko Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians
South Fork Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone
Indians
Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe
Duck Valley Shoshone Paiute Tribe
Summit Lake Paiute Tribe
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe
Reno-Sparks Indian Colony
Expansion of Our Reservations Critical to Preserve Our Futures
Our tribes' membership numbers are growing and the carrying
capacity of our current lands is very limited. It is only by being able
to expand and consolidate our lands for housing, preservation and other
purposes that our tribes and cultural practices can continue to thrive.
While each tribe in S. 2480 has specific reasons for seeking to expand
the lands of our reservations we are united in our need for better
management and more effective use of these lands. We are fully capable
of assuming these responsibilities.
We would also ask that you examine almost any map of Indian
reservations in this country and you will see that through historic
quirks of fate, the majority of land bases of the tribes in Nevada,
particularly when compared to the land bases of many other tribes, are
so small as to border on being non-workable. There are numerous million
plus acre reservations in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Washington, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona and New Mexico and many more
reservations that are hundreds of thousands of acres in size yet the
majority of Paiute and Shoshone tribes of the Great Basin ended up with
almost nothing. In many instances our existing homelands are so small
they don't even show up on some state maps. For instance the Elko Band
has just 193 acres. The principal so-called ``downtown'' Reno-Sparks
Indian Colony lands constitute a mere 27 acres. These are not viable
land bases. We cannot house our people; we cannot attract business or
engage in economically viable agriculture.
S. 2480 would put to effective use by tribes lands that are greatly
underutilized and not being adequately managed. With the exception of a
small parcel owned by the Forest Service, the lands in question are
presently controlled by the Bureau of Land Management so transferring
title to a different agency within the Department of Interior (Bureau
of Indian Affairs) is not going to, for instance, affect the local tax
bases. In many instances Indian tribes have been able to undertake
economic activities that have benefited both reservation and off-
reservation economies and helped create jobs.
Nevada Native Nations Lands Act Preserves BLM Control Over Vast Area of
Nevada
BLM administers nearly 48 million acres of public land in Nevada.
We would like to emphasize that even with these lands transfers, BLM
lands would still comprise 67 percent of the total land base of the
state of Nevada, and that does not include the large percentage of land
controlled by other federal agencies. In the aggregate over 80 percent
of the land in our state is owned by the federal government. The
transfers would only reduce BLM's total percentage of land owned state-
wide by 0.20 percent (two tenths of one percent). Yet the transfer of
this tiny percentage of land from BLM to BIA to be held in trust for
our tribes would be one of the most important developments for our
tribes in a generation. And the positive impact will be experienced by
our peoples for generations to come.
Background on Reno-Sparks Indian Colony
In the 1880's, an urban Indian settlement made up of landless
Indians from the regional Washoe, Shoshone and Paiute tribes started
along the Truckee River next to the City of Reno. A land base of 20
acres was purchased in 1917 by the Federal Government to provide a
permanent home for this urban settlement. The Colony population grew
along with the City of Reno. In 1934, the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony was
established as a federally recognized Tribal government under the
Indian Reorganization Act. By the mid-1980's, the City of Reno had
grown and eventually engulfed the undersized lands of the Colony. The
land base of the Colony, near downtown Reno, is now just 27 acres of
densely packed homes in the residential area as well as additional
commercial property. Less than three percent of the land base is
designated as park and open space. The residential area is totally
built out and could not accommodate another home.
In 1986, pursuant to a bill introduced by former Representative
Barbara Vucanovich (R-NV), Congress transferred three sections of land
north of Reno from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the Colony to
address the need for additional community housing. Currently, this
area, known as the Hungry Valley community, houses approximately half
the Colony's population. The Hungry Valley community is seven miles
west of the Spanish Springs community and 10 miles north of the City of
Reno. The Colony has spent millions of dollars in public improvements
and community development. For example, we have built homes; a water
and sewer system; community buildings; and constructed Eagle Canyon
Road from Pyramid Lake Highway to the Hungry Valley community. We also
created a tribal utility district to supply water and sanitary sewer
service to residents. The water system includes production wells, water
tanks and a water treatment facility. The community sewer system
provides for the treatment of all wastewater. The Hungry Valley
Community Center we built is the primary public facility serving
residents, with a volunteer fire department, offices for Housing
Department, Utility District, Head Start Program, a gym, and meeting
rooms.
When Congresswoman Vucanovich got the bill passed establishing the
Hungry Valley Reservation she told us that if at some point in the
future we needed to supplement the Hungry Valley land, that we should
make such a request of the Congress. We are now doing exactly that
after extensive cooperation and coordination with key stakeholders
including Washoe County and the BLM. We are very pleased to have the
support of the Washoe County government for our proposed transfer.
The Need to Supplement the Land Base of the Hungry Valley Residential
Community
The Hungry Valley community is surrounded by BLM public lands to
the west, north, and east. Directly to the south and southeast is an
active open aggregate mining pit which conducts blasting on a regular
basis. Many adverse activities are routinely occurring (in some cases
permitted by the BLM, in other cases in violation of BLM regulations)
on the lands adjacent to our residents' homes in Hungry Valley
including:

Unlimited off highway vehicle (OHV) recreation area.
Loud and disruptive motorcycle events.
Illegal dumping.
Unauthorized creation of motorcycle race tracks.
Military practice operation with simulated explosive
devices. (Hopefully an activity that won't be repeated.)

These are not activities anyone would want to see in proximity to a
residential area. While we are not against off road vehicles, we are
concerned with the intensity of the activities adjacent to our native
community and its impact on our quality of life. A buffer is needed and
will be established by this legislation.
Proposed Land Transfer from BLM to BIA
As shown on the attached map, the Colony is proposing to acquire
through a Congressional transfer approximately 13,434 acres from the
BLM to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to be held in trust for the
Colony in order to expand and consolidate our land base at the Hungry
Valley residential community. These 13,434 acres represent a minute
fraction of the almost 48 million acres of BLM lands in Nevada, lands
that were once the exclusive domain of Paiute, Washoe and Shoshone
tribes of Nevada.
The local BLM staff are overwhelmed and unable to enforce their own
regulations and ordinances in the area around Hungry Valley. BLM has
told us that they don't have enough staff to effectively monitor all of
the activities in the urban interface cover adjacent to Hungry Valley.
Transferring this land to the BIA's jurisdiction to be held in trust
for the Colony is important for the citizens of our tribe and for the
surrounding communities. The current situation is untenable. Our
residents should be able to live in peace and quiet and should not have
to deal with unregulated off-road race tracks carved out near their
homes. We have met with a majority of the Washoe County Commissioners,
including all those who represent the immediately surrounding
communities and as stated above, the County has endorsed our land
transfer request.
In addition to public safety concerns, there are important cultural
reasons why Hungry Valley is of great significance to us. We seek to
manage this land so as to ensure for future generations that the open
natural landscape that provides essential spiritual and traditional
cultural support for our people will continue to be accessible and be
properly managed. It is the intention of our tribe to preserve and
manage these scenic, cultural and natural resources. In the past, the
Hungry Valley region was a traditional link between Pyramid Lake and
the Truckee Meadows. Many camps and cultural resources have been
identified by past archaeological studies. Many elders and residents
continue to use Hungry Valley for spiritual and traditional ways.
Several prominent landscape features in the Hungry Valley area are used
for traditional religious practices and are a source of medicinal
plants.
We are very proud of the many cooperative efforts we have entered
into with the State ofNevada and with the governments that surround our
downtown reservation as well our existing Hungry Valley lands. We
assure the Congress that this spirit of good will and cooperation will
continue and that all parties in the local and surrounding areas will
benefit by this proposal.
Thank you for your consideration of this bill. I am pleased to
answer any questions you might have.

The Chairman. There will be questions. Thank you, Chairman
Melendez.
Chairwoman Counts, your presentation, please.

STATEMENT OF HON. SHERRY J. COUNTS, CHAIRWOMAN, HUALAPAI TRIBE

Ms. Counts. I would like to thank Senator Flake and Senator
McCain for sponsoring this bill for the Hualapai Tribe, S.
2503.
My name is Sherry J. Counts. I am Chairwoman of the
Hualapai Tribe. Thank you for the invitation and opportunity
testify in support of S. 2503, the Bill Williams River Water
Rights Settlement Act of 2014.
I would also like to say, all Democrats and Republicans are
invited to the Sky Walk.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Counts. The Colorado River forms the 108-mile northern
boundary of the Hualapai Reservation through a portion of the
Grand Canyon. Our reservation has no significant surface
streams other than the Colorado River, and it has very limited
groundwater resources. While the tribe is presently able to
supply its main residential community, Peach Springs, with
groundwater, the only feasible water for satisfying the future
needs of the reservation is the Colorado River.
Over the past three years we have been negotiating a
comprehensive settlement of all the tribe's reserved water
rights with the Justice and Interior Departments, the State of
Arizona and major private entities in Arizona. The basic
principles of the settlement have been agreed upon, but the
settlement is not yet ready for submission to Congress, because
the tribe needs to complete a feasibility study of the
alternatives for constructing the infrastructure needed to
deliver Colorado River water to the reservation. In the
meantime, the tribe, along with the United States and Freeport
Minerals Corporation have reached an agreement settling our
water rights claims in the Big Sandy Creek, south of our main
reservation. The settlement faces a deadline, which is why we
and the other parties are seeking enactment of S. 2503 now, in
advance of the comprehensive settlement of our reservation
water rights.
This deadline is imposed by the possible application of
provisions of Arizona State law and could result in the
forfeiture of certain water rights Freeport holds in the Bill
Williams Basin. To meet this deadline, the tribe urges Congress
to enact S. 2503 this year, ahead of considering our
comprehensive water rights settlement.
Let me now describe the important benefits to the Hualapai
Tribe. First, as a result of this legislation, the two major
landholders and water users in the Big Sandy Creek, the United
States and Freeport Minerals Corporation, will confirm
federally-reserved water rights for the tribe totaling 300 acre
feet a year relating to a 60-acre parcel of the reservation
land along Big Sandy Creek. Freeport and the United States will
also confirm federally-reserved water rights totaling 394 acre
feet a year to two off-reservation trust allotments issued to
Hualapai tribal members in the Big Sandy.
Second, the agreements ratified by S. 2503 also provide
vital protections for the tribe's water rights on fee land it
owns along Big Sandy Creek called Cholla Canyon Ranch. This
ranch contains a spring that is sacred to the tribe, Cofer Hot
Spring, the flows of which have diminished in recent years due
to the pumping by Freeport. Freeport has already ceased all but
the most minimal pumping the aquifer that feeds Cofer Hot
Spring. In the agreements ratified and approved by S. 2503,
Freeport agrees permanently to cease pumping more than minimal
amounts from that aquifer. Freeport also gave the tribe a right
of first refusal to purchase nearby lands to protect the flow
of Cofer Hot Spring.
In addition to these important benefits at the Big Sandy
area, Freeport will also immediately contribute $1 million to
the cost of a central engineering study by the tribe that has
been initiated to determine the feasibility and cost of
bringing Colorado River water to the Hualapai reservation. This
contribution from Freeport, in combination with the funding we
have received from the Bureau of Reclamation and the tribe's
own funds will allow the tribe to complete this study, then
finish its ongoing negotiations for a comprehensive Colorado
River water settlement with the Justice and Interior
Departments, the State of Arizona and various private entities
in Arizona.
Lastly, with the timely enactment of this legislation,
Freeport will contribute a substantial additional sum to the
tribe's economic development. These Freeport funds are
designated for the tribe to purchase Colorado River water
rights. These additional water rights to be purchased with the
Freeport contribution are critical to the tribe's ability to
negotiate a comprehensive settlement of our Colorado River
water rights.
For all of these reasons, the tribe strongly supports S.
2503. The tribe is very pleased with the provisions of this
legislation that will protect its water rights and those of
tribal member allottees along the Big Sandy Creek, and lay the
foundation for the tribe to complete its negotiation in the
near future for a comprehensive settlement of all the tribe's
reserved water rights on the reservation. The tribe hopes the
Committee will support S. 2503 and that Congress will speedily
enact it. We do have some technical corrections to the
legislation that are explained in my testimony. I respectfully
the Committee to consider those corrections.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have, and
our tribe will help in any way it can to secure enactment of
this legislation. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Counts follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Sherry J. Counts, Chairwoman, Hualapai Tribe
Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Barrasso and Members of the
Committee, I am Sherry Counts, the Chairwoman of the Hualapai Tribe.
Our Hualapai Tribal Leaders and Members strongly support S. 2503, the
Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Act of 2014. Before I
describe the several critical benefits the Tribe receives from this
legislation, let me briefly inform the Committee of the Tribe's water
needs.
The Hualapai Reservation encompasses approximately 1 million acres
in northwestern Arizona. All lands on the Reservation are tribal trust
lands; there are no allotments or fee inholdings. The Colorado River
forms the 108-mile northern boundary of the Reservation through a
portion of the Grand Canyon.
Our Reservation has no significant surface streams other than the
Colorado River, and has very limited groundwater resources. While the
Tribe is presently able to supply its main residential community, Peach
Springs, with groundwater, the only feasible water supply for
satisfying the future needs of most of the Reservation is the Colorado
River.
The Tribe is in dire need of Colorado River water in order to
realize the opportunities for economic development we have already
undertaken. We have constructed and operate Grand Canyon West, a world
class tourist development on the Reservation on the western rim of the
Grand Canyon. Grand Canyon West currently employs over 250 tribal
members and hosts approximately 700,000 visitors a year. But it is
located a two-hour drive away from Peach Springs, where virtually all
tribal members who reside on the Reservation live. Thus tribal
employees at Grand Canyon West have daily commutes of four hours a day,
and longer in inclement weather.
The Tribe also employs approximately 100 other tribal members in a
tribally-owned hotel in Peach Springs and a seasonal tribal river
rafting enterprise. Without conducting any gaming, our Tribe is moving
towards achieving full employment for our members and economic self-
sufficiency.
The lack of water is the major obstacle to our reaching these
goals. The nearest groundwater to Grand Canyon West is 35 miles away,
and that supply is barely adequate for current operations, and
completely inadequate for growth. With additional water, the Tribe
could take advantage of the potential for further development that
would provide additional jobs to tribal members and revenues to the
tribal government. Water at Grand Canyon West would also support the
development of a residential community there so our tribal members
would not have to commute from Peach Springs to get to their jobs.
Over the past three years, we have been negotiating a comprehensive
settlement of all the Tribe's reserved water rights with the Justice
and Interior Departments, the State of Arizona and major private
entities in Arizona. The basic principles of this settlement have been
agreed upon, but the settlement is not yet ready for submission to
Congress because the Tribe needs first to complete a comprehensive
study of the engineering feasibility of the various alternatives for
constructing the infrastructure needed to deliver Colorado River water
to Grand Canyon West, and a detailed projection of construction and
OM&R costs of those alternatives. We expect that this study will be
ready to submit to the Bureau of Reclamation and other parties to the
negotiations by early next year.
In the meantime, the Tribe--along with the United States and
Freeport Minerals Corporation--have reached an agreement settling our
water rights claims in the Big Sandy Creek, south of our main
Reservation. This settlement faces a deadline, which is why we and the
other parties seek enactment of S. 2503 now, in advance of the
comprehensive settlement of our Reservation water rights. This deadline
is imposed by the possible application of provisions of Arizona state
law that could result in the forfeiture of water rights Freeport holds
in the Bill Williams Basin. Freeport wishes to sever and transfer some
of these water rights upstream to its Wikieup well field, which serves
its nearby copper mine, and contribute the rest of these water rights
to state and federal agencies as part of the Lower Colorado Multi-
Species Conservation Plan.
To meet this deadline, the Tribe urges Congress to enact S. 2503
this year, ahead of considering our comprehensive water rights
settlement. Let me now describe the important benefits the Hualapai
Tribe receives under S. 2503.
First, as a result of this legislation, the two major landowners
and water users in Big Sandy Creek--the United States and Freeport
Minerals Corporation--will confirm federally reserved water rights for
the Tribe totaling 300 acre feet a year (afy) relating to a 60-acre
parcel of land added to our Reservation along Big Sandy Creek by an
Executive Order signed by President Taft in 1911. Freeport and the
United States will also confirm federally reserved water rights
totaling 394 afy to two off-reservation trust allotments issued to
Hualapai tribal members in the Big Sandy. Both of these amounts were
calculated by the Tribe's expert hydrologist using the methodology set
forth in controlling decisions of the United States Supreme Court and
the Arizona Supreme Court. The agreements this legislation ratifies
also require Freeport to provide supplemental water to the tribal and
allotted lands in certain circumstances to ensure the Tribe and
allottees can fully utilize these reserved water rights.
Second, the agreements ratified by S. 2503 also provide vital
protections for the Tribe's water rights on fee land it owns along Big
Sandy Creek called Cholla Canyon Ranch. The Tribe has applied to the
Secretary of the Interior to take the Ranch into trust for it, and
Freeport has agreed to support that application. This Ranch contains a
spring that is sacred to the Tribe, Cofer Hot Spring, the flows of
which have diminished in recent years due to pumping by Freeport.
Freeport has already ceased all but the most minimal pumping in the
aquifer that feeds Cofer Hot Spring, and in the agreements ratified and
approved by S. 2503, Freeport agrees permanently to cease pumping more
than minimal amounts from that aquifer. Freeport also will give the
Tribe a right of first refusal to purchase Freeport's lands at Banegas
Ranch and surrounding land Freeport owns to protect the flow of Cofer
Hot Spring. Once these agreements become effective, Freeport will
record a binding covenant in the county land records that will impose
the same pumping limitations on any future purchaser of any portion of
Banegas Ranch, should Freeport decide to sell and the Tribe decides not
to buy these lands.
Under the agreements, Freeport's pumping at the Wikieup well field
is capped at 10,055 afy. The Tribe has requested the Interior
Department to drop objections it has filed to Freeport's sever and
transfer applications to bring water from Planet and Lincoln Ranches up
to the Wikieup well field, and in these agreements Interior agrees to
do that.
In addition to the important benefits S. 2503 provides for the
Hualapai Tribe in the Big Sandy Creek, Freeport will also immediately
contribute $1 million to the costs of an essential study the Tribe has
initiated (thus far with its own funds and a grant from the Interior
Department Bureau of Reclamation) to determine the feasibility and
costs of bringing Colorado River water to the Hualapai Reservation.
This contribution from Freeport will allow the Tribe to complete this
study, and then to finish its ongoing negotiations for a comprehensive
Colorado River water settlement with the Justice and Interior
Departments, the State of Arizona, and various private entities in
Arizona.
Lastly, with the timely enactment of this legislation, Freeport
will contribute a substantial additional sum to the Tribe's economic
development fund that the Tribe will use to purchase rights to use
Colorado River water. The legislation provides that these two
contributions by Freeport will count as non-federal contributions to
the final comprehensive Colorado River water rights settlement the
Tribe is negotiating with federal and state parties.
For all of these reasons, the Tribe strongly supports S. 2503. We
do, however, request two technical changes that are needed to conform
the bill to the Hualapai BWR Agreement. In Section 6(d)(3)(B), page 26,
line 20, after ``Agreement'' and before the semicolon, the words ``or
the Hualapai Tribe Water Rights Settlement Agreement'' should be
inserted. This would conform the bill to Paragraph 7.1(iii)(b) of the
Hualapai BWR Agreement. And in Section 6(e)(1)(A), page 27, lines 10-
11, after ``relating to,'' the words ``injury to'' should be deleted
and the words ``claims for'' should be inserted. That would conform the
bill to Paragraph 7.3(i)(a) of the Hualapai BWR Agreement.
In conclusion, the Tribe is very pleased with the provisions of
this legislation that will protect its lands and those of tribal member
allottees in the Big Sandy Creek and lay the foundation for the Tribe
to complete its negotiations in the near future for a comprehensive
settlement of all its reserved water rights on its Reservation. The
Tribe hopes that the Committee will support S. 2503 and that Congress
will speedily enact it.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I will
be pleased to answer any questions you may have, and our Tribe will
help in any way it can to secure enactment of this legislation.

The Chairman. Thank you, Chairwoman Counts. We appreciate
your testimony.
Mr. Canfield, you have the floor.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CANFIELD, PRESIDENT/CEO, INDIAN PUEBLOS
MARKETING, INDIAN PUEBLO CULTURAL CENTER

Mr. Canfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Barrasso, distinguished
members of this Committee and also of course my home Senator,
Senator Udall, thank you very much for allowing me to testify
in support of S. 2465, the Albuquerque Indian School Land
Transfer Act.
As was mentioned earlier, my name is Mike Canfield. I am
the President and CEO of the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center,
IPCC, and Indian Pueblo's Marketing, IPMI. Both of these
corporations are owned and operated by the 19 Pueblos of New
Mexico and located on the old Albuquerque Indian School
property.
I am also a very proud member of one of our 19 Pueblos, the
Pueblo of Laguna.
The vision for our organizations that are located on the
property include creating unique and successful businesses,
providing professional and economic advancement opportunities
for our workforce, nurturing self-sustainable developments
while providing financial returns to our Pueblo communities and
promoting Pueblo arts, culture and lifestyles.
In 1969, the United States began the long process of
converting the 1884 Albuquerque Indian School Reserve, which
was the former site of a Federal Indian Boarding School. The
first 11 acres conveyed were used to build the Indian Pueblo
Cultural Center, which was completed in 1976. The Cultural
Center has a long history of successful self-sufficient
operations. In fact, in 2013, we were recognized as the Tribal
Destination of the Year by the American Indian and Alaska
Native Tourism Association. We are also a major contributor to
our State and local economy, as we are one of the top three
most visited attractions in New Mexico, hosting approximately
470,000 visitors per year.
In 1993, the United States placed an additional 44 acres of
the former Indian School property in trust for the 19 Pueblos.
Those 44 acres make up the majority of the former Indian School
property. The Pueblos successfully created land development
protocols with the City of Albuquerque and this potion of the
former Indian School property is now the home to two large
office buildings occupied by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and a
hotel owned by the 19 Pueblos. He Pueblos are proceeding with
additional office and retail development projects that remain
on this property.
In 2008, Congress enacted P.L. 110-453, requiring the
Secretary of Interior to convey an additional 8.5 acres of the
former Albuquerque Indian School Reserve to the 19 Pueblos.
These parcels included the last remaining Indian School
structure. Building 232, which formerly housed the BIA's
Southern Pueblos Agency, was originally built in 1931 and
designed by Architect Joseph Padilla, a tribal member from
Isleta Pueblo. The building had been slated for demolition, but
IPMI was able to save it by financing the renovation project.
The renovated building now houses the Native American Community
Academy, a public school chartered under Albuquerque Public
Schools, that serves approximately 380 Native students.
S. 2465 directs the Secretary of Interior to place an
additional 11.11 acres of land in trust for the 19 Pueblos,
consolidating several small parcels contiguous with the 44 acre
tract that has been held in trust for the 19 Pueblos since 1993
and with the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center that has been held
in trust since 1978.
Mr. Chairman, my written testimony includes a map and a
detailed description of the tracts of land this bill seeks to
convey. My written testimony also includes a letter of support
from the Mayor of Albuquerque, Mayor Richard Berry.
Mr. Chairman, S. 2465 completes the process of transferring
the BIA's portion of the former Albuquerque Indian School
Reserve to the 19 Pueblos. Most importantly, S. 2465 will allow
the 19 Pueblos to continue the achievements of our vision for
this property by providing economic development, educational
and cultural opportunities for our Pueblos, the City of
Albuquerque and the State of New Mexico.
Thank you again to this Committee for inviting me to
testify this afternoon, and I would welcome any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Canfield follows:]

Prepared Statement of Michael Canfield, President/CEO, Indian Pueblos
Marketing, Indian Pueblo Cultural Center
Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Barrasso, my home Senator, Mr.
Udall, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify here today in support of S. 2465, the Albuquerque Indian School
Land Transfer Act.
My name is Mike Canfield: I am president and CEO of the Indian
Pueblo Cultural Center (IPCC) and Indian Pueblo's Marketing (IPMI).
Both of these corporations are owned and operated by the 19 Pueblos of
New Mexico and located on the old Albuquerque Indian School property in
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
The vision for our organizations located on this property include
creating unique and successful businesses, providing professional and
economic advancement opportunities for our workforce, nurturing self-
sustainable developments while providing financial returns to our
Pueblo communities and promoting Pueblo arts, culture, and lifestyles.
In 1969, the United States began the long process of converting the
1884 Albuquerque Indian School Reserve which was the former site of a
Federal Indian Boarding School. The first 11 acres conveyed were used
to build the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center which was completed in 1976.
The Cultural Center has a long history of successful self-sufficient
operations. In 2013 we were recognized as ``The Tribal Destination of
the Year'' by the American Indian Alaska Native Tourism Association. We
are also a major contributor to our state and local economy as we are
one of the top 3 most visited attractions in New Mexico hosting
approximately 470,000 visitors per year.
In 1993, the United States placed an additional 44 acres of the
former Albuquerque Indian School Reserve in trust for the 19 Pueblos.
Those 44 acres make up the majority of the former school property. The
Pueblos successfully created land development protocols with the City
of Albuquerque, and this portion of the former school property is now
the home to two large office buildings occupied by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, and a hotel owned by the Pueblos. The Pueblos are proceeding
with additional office and retail development on the remaining
property.
In 2008, Congress enacted Public Law 110-453 requiring the
Secretary of the Interior to convey an additional 8.5 acres of the
former Albuquerque Indian School Reserve to the United States in trust
for the 19 Pueblos. These parcels included the last remaining Indian
School structure. Building 232, which formerly housed the BIA's
Southern Pueblos Agency, was originally built in 1931 and designed by
Architect Joseph Padilla, a tribal member from Isleta Pueblo. The
building had been slated for demolition, but IPMI was able to save it
by financing a renovation project. The renovated building now houses
the Native American Community Academy, a public school chartered under
Albuquerque Public Schools that serves approximately 380 students.
S. 2465 directs the Secretary of the Interior to place 11.11 acres
of land in trust for the 19 Pueblos, consolidating several small
parcels contiguous with the 44 acre tract that has been held in trust
for the 19 Pueblos since 1993 and the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center
property that has been held in trust for the Pueblos since 1978.
Mr. Chairman, my written testimony includes a map and a detailed
description of the tracts of land this bill seeks to convey. My written
testimony also includes a letter of support from Albuquerque Mayor
Richard Berry.
Mr. Chairman, S. 2465 completes the process of transferring the
BIA's portion of the former Albuquerque Indian School Reserve to the 19
Pueblos. Most importantly, S. 2465 will allow the 19 Pueblos to
continue the achievement of our vision for this property by providing
economic development, educational and cultural opportunities for our
Pueblos, the City of Albuquerque and the State of New Mexico.
I want to thank the Committee for inviting me to testify this
afternoon and I am happy to answer any questions.
Attachments

The Chairman. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Canfield.
Thank you all for your testimony.
I am going to start with you, President Fisher, on the
Northern Cheyenne's struggle with the subsurface rights on the
land. These are subsurface rights that you were supposed to
have but never had them. How long has the tribe been pursuing
this legislation?
Mr. Fisher. For 20 years. We started out in 1993, when we
first approached GNP to transfer those lands to the tribe.
The Chairman. So tell me, if we are able to make this
transfer, what are going to be the impacts on the tribe once it
is done? If we get this transfer done, how will it benefit the
tribe?
Mr. Fisher. The tribe would then own all the subsurface on
the reservation. We own 445,000 acres, and there's only the
5,000 acres in trust. Then it would be beneficial to the tribe,
we can plan what we are going to with our royalties in the
future.
The Chairman. Okay. So there is no other subsurface on
that, on the reservation you guys don't own? This is the only
potion of subsurface rights that the tribe does not have?
Mr. Fisher. Right. The tribe owns all the other subsurface
underneath the reservation.
The Chairman. Okay. Let's talk a little bit about the bill
would transfer control of the Northern Cheyenne Trust Account
into the Northern Cheyenne Permanent Fund. There are some folks
who don't understand how funds are administered by the Office
of Special Trustee and how that works. Where did the funds in
the Office of Special Trustee Account come from and how will
the transfer to the Northern Cheyenne Permanent Fund benefit
the tribe? Why would that be positive?
Mr. Fisher. In 1992, the tribe has a water rights
settlement. There was $30 million set aside to renovate the
Tongue River Dam in Montana. And there was $5,000 left over and
that was placed in a OST trust fund. Since then, the tribe has
been utilizing the interest off that trust fund. When that is
placed in our permanent fund, we would get a better investment
from our permanent fund being utilized for tribal programs.
The Chairman. Got you. In your testimony you also discuss
land near Bear Butte in South Dakota and how it could protect
that land from commercial development. What does the tribe plan
to do with the land it owns near Bear Butte in South Dakota if
those lands are taken into trust?
Mr. Fisher. When we purchase land, land is everything to
the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. We purchased land around Bear
Butte, at the base of our sacred mountain. Many tribes, as well
as the Northern Cheyenne go to fast there, tribes from
Oklahoma, New Mexico, South Dakota all come to fast there and
worship from that mountain. We want to preserve that mountain
from commercial development.
The Chairman. Okay, so just to follow up a little bit, and
we talked about this a little bit yesterday when you were in my
office, but tell us the tribes in South Dakota that you have
worked with on Bear Butte?
Mr. Fisher. We sent letters out to all the tribes in the
State of South Dakota, asking for their support. The only tribe
that gave me support right away over the phone was Rosebud,
South Dakota.
The Chairman. I would like to ask you, President Fisher, as
you get written support for the South Dakota effort, if you
could pass those along to the Committee, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Fisher. I think we can get written support from the
tribes in South Dakota. We just need to have time to get that
information back to you.
The Chairman. Very good, thank you.
With that, Vice Chairman Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
President Fisher, just kind of along the lines of what we
have been talking about here, the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act
would give your tribe the opportunity to benefit from coal
development. And when I kind of look at some of the details in
your testimony, you say there are some requirements out there
going back to 1984. Your testimony indicates that this
requirement could limit the tribe's return on some of the
royalty investment that you should be getting.
Could you tell us a little bit more about how that plan
from back in 1984 would affect the revenue that you would get,
so you wouldn't get as much as you think you should get?
Mr. Fisher. This legislation was passed in 1948. We feel
that it is going to affect us from not getting any revenue from
this coal development for another 10 years or so. We are not
going to receive any revenue from that coal development.
Senator Barrasso. So it would affect it for the next 10
years?
Mr. Fisher. Right.
Senator Barrasso. Your written testimony also describes how
important coal development will be long term for your tribe and
tribal members. There are some potential roadblocks, like
limited access to ports and markets that could limit the
development of these resources. Could you describe how
important foreign markets and domestic markets are for these
resources and how that will affect your tribal economy?
Mr. Fisher. Right now we have no intention for developing
our coal. It is going to be up to the Northern Cheyenne people
to have a referendum vote. I as tribal chair cannot give you an
answer as to whether we are going to develop the coal or not.
It is going to be up to the people by referendum vote if we go
with coal development. So right now, there is no movement for
coal development on the reservation.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Udall?
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Tester. In my
introduction of Mr. Canfield I forgot to recognize the strong
ties he has to the New Mexico community. He serves on a number
of boards. He is on the board of directors of the Native
American Community Academy, the American Indian Chamber of
Commerce, the Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce, Junior
Achievement of New Mexico, University of New Mexico Business
and Advisory Board, the CNM Foundation Board and the New Mexico
State Workforce Board. He stays active, in addition to running
the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center.
Mike, every time I visit the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center,
I am amazed by the breadth and quality of exhibits and the
level of community engagement. Could you talk some about the
events that occur there and the purposes that the Cultural
Center serves in the community?
Mr. Canfield. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Senator Udall. We are
very proud of the Cultural Center as it stands now. As I
mentioned, it is a self-sufficient organization that our
forefathers founded back in the 1970s to create a meeting place
for our people, as well as a place where we could share the
important factors of our culture with all visitors throughout
the world. We think we do a great job in accomplishing that
with our visitors. We have several exhibits, we have a
permanent exhibits which has a display of all 19 Pueblos and
helps visitors understand the importance of our Pueblo
communities.
We also offer special services to all of our Pueblo members
to come in and meet and use the facility. We are also a very
profitable organization. As I mentioned, there are two
corporations. One is a for-profit, Section 17, and the other is
a non-profit. The for-profit, through economic development,
generates all the funds necessary to run the non-profit. So we
haven't had to go out to our Pueblos and ask for contributions
to maintain the level of service that you mentioned. It is an
organization and an area that we are very, very proud of.
Hopefully we are fulfilling the mission that our forefathers
set before us.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much. I believe you were here
when BIA Director Mike Black testified, and the issues he
raised, the one with the fire department and some of the legal
description. Do you see any reason we can't work through those
issues?
Mr. Canfield. Mr. Chairman and Senator Udall, absolutely
not. In fact, I talked with him earlier. Our intent was to
honor that to allow them to still own that land as long as they
needed it. I talked with the area director and he is in support
of that. If we do that through an MOU or through language in
this bill, we are absolutely open to that, and understand that
they should be able to use it as long as they need it.
Senator Udall. Great. Thank you.
Now, you have noted that the Mayor of Albuquerque is
supportive, and I think you said there was a letter that he had
submitted. Did you submit that for the record?
Mr. Canfield. Mr. Chairman and Senator Udall, yes, I did.
Senator Udall. Good. Are there other stakeholders, in
addition to the Mayor of Albuquerque, the city council, others?
Is there any opposition that you see on this?
Mr. Canfield. No, actually the only other party that is
involved might be the neighborhood association itself, of which
I serve on the board there. And they are working very
diligently with us in support of everything that we are doing.
I can't think of anybody that doesn't think this is a great
idea.
Senator Udall. Great. Thank you for all your hard work on
this. We appreciate it. Thank you, Chairman Tester.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Aletha, dealing with economic development, you have S. 2479
that is going to restore about 26,000 acres to your
reservation, adding to the 75,000 that you currently have that
were restored back in 1980. That first reacquisition allowed
the Moapa Paiute to establish within their small land base
housing and commercial opportunities. In your testimony you
state that 11,500 of the 26,000 acres of the proposed
transferred land on the south side of the reservation would be
used for recreation and conservation development. I think that
is great. Tell us more about that.
Ms. Tom. It will provide us a little bit more recreation
opportunities. The bill will also help to address the injustice
that resulted from diminishment of the Moapa and Paiute tribes
in 1875. So it would help develop more opportunities in our
area.
The Chairman. What kind of recreation are we talking about?
Ms. Tom. Similar to tribal tourism area for our tribe.
Something we can do, because we are right off I-15, right off
the major highway.
The Chairman. Good. I want to hear a little bit about the
solar energy production that I think if developed could provide
some necessary energy to surrounding communities, electrical
energy. Could you tell us more about the tribe's proposed solar
projects and where they are in our overall development?
Ms. Tom. Yes. We have three right now, ResSolar, and we
also have ResAmerica and we are working with a smaller
development, Stronghold Solar. We would like to pursue that in
our extra land.
The Chairman. So some of the land proposed for transfer
would be for solar development?
Ms. Tom. Right, exactly. For energy, yes.
The Chairman. I want to talk about that proposed housing
development on 7,500 acres of the proposed land transfer. You
state that housing is hard to come by on your reservation. But
it might be helpful if you explain just how difficult it is for
families to find homes, what are the housing needs of your
tribe, how will this transfer help your tribe meet the housing
needs required.
Ms. Tom. We have two types of housing development on the
reservation, it's with HUD and also with the HIP program, the
Housing Improvement Program. If we did get additional land, we
would be able to provide more housing for our tribe, if we had
additional land there, we would be able to get more housing for
our people.
The Chairman. Do you know how many units you are short
right now?
Ms. Tom. Yes, we are. Our tribal members have to kind of
stand in line in order to get a HUD home.
The Chairman. All right, thank you very much, Aletha.
Chairman Melendez, as you state in your written testimony,
the area devoted to Indian uses in Nevada is smaller than any
of the other western and plain States. Your colony is basically
landlocked by the City of Reno. In 1986, the tribe was able to
get legislation for land expansion in Hungry Valley, in order
to meet the needs of the tribe's housing and other community
development. Could you explain why the tribe needs this
expansion?
Mr. Melendez. Yes. Our tribe originally, we are called
colonies because we are small land bases. We had 28 acres in
downtown Reno. The city has grown up around us. In 1986,
Barbara Vucanovich sponsored a bill which was successful in
gaining nearly 2,000 acres in Hungry Valley. Hungry Valley is
about 30,000 acres of a valley, we are basically 2,000 of the
30,000 acres. It is actually one mile wide by three miles long,
that is the additional land from the Vucanovich legislation in
1986.
We are trying to, our wells out in Hungry Valley, our rural
reservation, are actually on BLM lands. The water is actually
pumped onto the small reservation. So we are trying to
basically widen the reservation so the wells would be on
reservation land, the watershed.
Then we want to get back to the cultural aspect. On 28
acres, we want to teach our culture. We do sweat lodges right
in downtown Reno. We would like to get out to a more rural area
to perform those ceremonies. So I think that to teach our
children about the outdoors and the trails and all the
different things, petroglyphs and different things out in the
area, I think it enhances our culture to really have a larger
land base. That is really significant to us.
The Chairman. In your testimony, you state the BLM is
currently unable to manage this land and transferring it to the
BIA will benefit the administration of this land. Just explain
how the tribe and the BIA will do a better job managing these
lands than the BLM.
Mr. Melendez. It would primarily, we work very well with
the Bureau of Land Management in the state of Nevada. They have
told us that they just don't have the manpower to patrol the
land with all of the littering and the things that are
happening out there, off-road vehicles. I know that the tribe
is probably in a better position in Hungry Valley with our
police officers to really help them.
We have assisted them in some areas identifying people who
have really desecrated the land there. We have helped out. But
I think we could do a better job because we have a little more
manpower than BLM.
The Chairman. Good. Let's talk a little bit about local
support for transfers, because I think they are pretty
critical. Has your tribe worked with the city or local
governments on these transfers, and what has been the reaction?
Mr. Melendez. It has been very good. We worked with the
Washoe County Commission, which has jurisdiction up in the
Hungry Valley area. It has been real positive, we haven't had
any negative feedback from anybody. I think in our economic
development endeavors, in the city of Reno, we have worked very
well with the Mayor. That is one of the reasons we have been
successful, is that we work well with local governments.
The Chairman. That is good. Just curious, maybe you
mentioned it in your testimony, do you have letters of support
from them?
Mr. Melendez. Yes, we do. I believe we have letters from
the county. We do have those.
The Chairman. Perfect. S. 2480 prohibits tribes from Class
2 and Class 3 gaming. How do you feel about that?
Mr. Melendez. Since Nevada is a gaming State, we are not
really into gaming. I think it is a sovereignty right that
tribes believe we should have. It is the same for a lot of
things. But since this bill prohibits gaming, I don't think
that is an issue here.
The Chairman. Good. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Counts, I understand the deadline imposed by the
Big Sandy settlement requires that Congressional ratification
needs to take place sooner rather than later. How would the
enactment of S. 2503, your bill, fit into the comprehensive
agreement you are negotiating with the State and other water
rights holders?
Ms. Counts. It would bring us the ability to gain water
rights. We have been on the Colorado from time immemorial and
the Hualapai Tribe has no water rights. Our goal is to be able
to obtain water rights for the tribe. This bill would fit into
that.
It would also help us to do the infrastructure study that
would bring water up from the Colorado up to our resort, so
that we could expand. Our tribal members travel 57 miles, 100
miles round trip every day, rough roads, just to get to work.
So we want to build a community out there. But in doing that,
we need water.
The Chairman. Got you. Not that this will happen, but if
Congress was unable to act before December, how would that
impact ratification of the Big Sandy and Hualapai agreements?
Ms. Counts. It probably would all go away. All the work
that we have done, it would go away, because of the deadlines
that are existing.
The Chairman. Okay. Based on your written testimony, the
Freeport Minerals Corporation and the tribe have been working
together very closely and effectively to hammer out everyone's
water rights. How have the tribe and the corporation cultivated
this relationship?
Ms. Counts. We have a very good relationship. When I came
into office in August of 2012, they were already working
together. I just came in and there was a table of 30, 40 people
just sitting down working out this agreement. Here we are
today, we have a really good relationship there. Really
friendly to us. They really want to see us achieve the goals
that we have. So our relationship is very good, and we would
like to thank them for all their help.
The Chairman. That is good. I think your ability to be
inclusive is critically important. So we thank you for that.
The Hualapai's development of the Grand Canyon West is
exactly the kind of tribal economic development that I think we
need in Indian Country. I am interested to hear more about the
plans that the tribe has for cultivating business and
cultivating industry. Could you share with us some of the
tribe's business goals and how S. 2503 would help you achieve
those goals?
Ms. Counts. One of our goals is to become a major economic
development for the people to provide resources and also to
become a world class resort. We are working toward those goals.
This settlement will really help us. We are working on
infrastructure out there to Grand Canyon West. We have jumped
through a lot of hoops to get where we are today. We are going
to open our new Diamond Bar Road, which will give better access
to the resort. Those are some of the things we are doing. This
comprehensive settlement will help us achieve the water rights
that we need for the future.
The Chairman. Thank you, Chairwoman Counts. We appreciate
your leadership as well as the leadership of the other folks
from Montana, Nevada and others. So thank you very, very much.
Mr. Canfield, I would be remiss if I didn't at least you
one question. Senator Udall isn't here, he got his questions
in. The Indian Pueblo Cultural Center is one of the most
visited tourist attractions in New Mexico, I am told. It is an
example of what can happen when a tribe, or in this case, all
Pueblos work jointly together with local and State partnership.
I ask this question because I think it sets a good example
for Congress. Maybe we need to pay attention to what you are
doing and maybe we will be a little bit more effective. Can you
describe how the Pueblos are able to work with local
governments so successfully?
Mr. Canfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I can. One of the
unique things we have done at the property is that we have 19
different owners, sovereign owners. So we have formed a
political subdivision of 19 Pueblos, having resolutions from
each tribal council empowering their government to act on their
behalf. So that streamlined the bureaucratic process of passing
ordinances and tax codes and so forth.
We also have a business side and we have a governance side.
The business side is run by a five-person board, myself and our
staff. And then there is a governance side. We understand the
mutual beneficial relationship for both, taxes as well as
commerce, and we have the ability on the business side to
operate as a business without encumbering ourselves with
bureaucratic challenges and government challenges, frankly. So
we are free to do what we need to do to make that business
work. That has been a key to our success there.
The Chairman. Okay. The transfer of this land has taken
place over a reasonably long period of time. Why didn't it all
get transferred?
Mr. Canfield. Mr. Chairman, I am not exactly sure of the
exact reasons. But my opinion is that we probably didn't have a
good plan for everything and a good structure for it. Sometimes
things happen or a reason. So I feel like this last transfer,
we will be better prepared than we ever have been to take
advantage of that. So it kind of completes the BIA transfer and
gives us the ability to develop the entire piece of property,
and now we have resources, plans, support to accomplish that.
The Chairman. So to be clear, these final 11.11 acres means
that all the former Pueblo Indian School Reserve Land will have
been transferred, is that correct?
Mr. Canfield. Mr. Chairman, it does, with the exception of
one small parcel on the map that right now is currently under
GSA ownership. So this does complete the BIA's holdings over to
us, but now our sights are going to be to finish off, we are
going to be working on that.
The Chairman. How big is that?
Mr. Canfield. I think it is probably about 20 acres or so.
I am sorry I don't have the exact coordinates.
The Chairman. It is contiguous with the other parcels of
land?
Mr. Canfield. It is, yes, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. As I said several times
today, I appreciate all your testimony. I appreciate your
willingness to make the trek to D.C. It is not easy for folk
who live in the west. So thank you very, very much.
With that, I will state that the hearing will remain open
for another two weeks for any additional information people
might want to submit. With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:59 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X

Prepared Statement of Hon. Harry Reid, U.S. Senator from Nevada
Thank you Chairman Tester and Vice-Chairman Barrasso for the
opportunity to submit testimony on these two bills that would transfer
land into trust for a total of eight Indian tribes in Nevada.
Nevada's Great Basin has always been home to the Washoe, Paiute and
Western Shoshone Peoples. The first Nevadans have long been a voice for
protecting our wild landscapes and enriching our state through their
language and cultural heritage. I take the many obligations that the
United States has to tribal nations seriously. Land is lifeblood to
Native Americans and these bills provide space for housing, economic
development, traditional uses and cultural protection. I would like to
commend the tribes, whose immense work and collaboration made these
bills possible, and I look forward to continuing to work with our First
Nevadans on protecting homelands.
S. 2479, The Moapa Band of Paiutes Land Conveyance Act
The Moapa Band of Paiute Indians have been in Nevada and the West
since time immemorial and suffered great land losses through federal
Indian policy. When the Moapa River Reservation was established in the
late 1800s, it consisted of over two million acres. In its lust to
settle the West, Congress drastically reduced the reservation to just
1,000 acres in 1875. It wasn't until 1980 that Congress restored 70,500
acres to the reservation. Today the reservation is approximately 71,954
acres.
The Moapa Band of Paiutes Land Conveyance Act, S. 2479, would
direct the Secretary of the Interior to take more than 26,000 acres of
land currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the
Bureau of Reclamation into trust for the Moapa People who live outside
of Las Vegas, Nevada. This legislation would provide much needed land
for the tribe's housing, economic development and cultural
preservation.
Located on I-15, the tribe runs the Moapa Paiute Travel Plaza. The
tribe is the first in Indian Country to develop utility-scale solar
projects on tribal lands. Since southern Nevada has critical habitat
for the desert tortoise, a species listed as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act, the tribe works closely with federal, state,
and local partners, members of the conservation community and
interested stakeholders to develop their community in an
environmentally responsible manner.
S. 2480, The Nevada Native Nations Land Act
The Nevada Native Nations Land Act, S. 2480, would transfer land
into trust for seven northern Nevada tribes--the Elko Band of the Te-
Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians, the Fort McDermitt Paiute and
Shoshone Tribe, the Duck Valley Shoshone Paiute Tribes, the Summit Lake
Paiute Tribe, the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, the Pyramid Lake Paiute
Tribe and the South Fork Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone
Indians. Like S. 2479, the Nevada Native Nations Land Act would allow
these seven tribes to build housing for their members, preserve their
cultural heritage and traditions, and provide opportunities for
economic development.
Since time immemorial, the Western Shoshone have been living in
what is now known as southern Idaho, central Nevada, northwestern Utah,
and the Death Valley region of southern California. The Elko and South
Fork Bands are two of four bands that comprise the Te-Moak Tribe of
Western Shoshone Indians.
The Elko Band's reservation, or colony, is landlocked by the
growing City of Elko, where band members have been coming for mining
and railroad jobs for decades. The colony needs additional lands for
housing and economic development. My legislation would expand the Elko
Band's reservation by transferring 373 acres of BLM-managed land into
trust for the tribe.
S. 2480 would also convey 275 acres, just west of the City of Elko,
to Elko County to provide space for a BMX, motocross, off-highway
vehicle, and stock car racing area.
The South Fork Reservation, home to the South Fork Band, is
comprised of 13,050 acres. The Band was one of the groups of Western
Shoshone that refused to move to the Duck Valley Reservation and stayed
at the headwaters of the Reese River, near the present Battle Mountain
Colony. Established by Executive Order in 1941, the colony was
originally 9,500 acres of land purchased under the Indian
Reorganization Act. In addition to rugged high desert terrain near the
foothills of the Ruby Mountains, the reservation has open range which
is used for open cattle grazing and agricultural uses. The Nevada
Native Nations Land Act would place 28,162 acres of BLM land into trust
for the tribes and release the Red Spring Wilderness Study Area (WSA)
from further study.
The Northern Paiutes made their homes throughout what is now known
as Idaho, California, Utah and Nevada. Due to westward expansion, our
government pushed some Western Shoshones and Northern Paiutes into the
same tribe and onto the same reservation where their descendants
remain.
The Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe now make their home
along the Nevada-Oregon border. Starting as a military fort in 1865,
the military reservation was turned into an Indian Agency in 1889 then
established as an Indian reservation in 1936. The reservation is
currently made up of 16,354 acres in Nevada and 19,000 acres in Oregon.
The Nevada Native Nations Land Act would add 19,094 acres now managed
by the BLM in Nevada to the lands already held in trust for the tribe.
The Duck Valley Indian Reservation is the home of the Shoshone-
Paiute Tribes who live along the state line between Nevada and Idaho.
The reservation is 289,819 acres, including 22,231 acres of wetlands.
The tribes have limited economic opportunities and tribal members have
made their way farming and ranching. This bill would place 82 acres of
U.S. Forest Service land into trust for the tribes. The tribes plan to
rehabilitate structures that were used by Forest Service employees into
much-needed housing on the parcel.
The Summit Lake Reservation is one of the most rural and remote
reservations in Nevada along the Oregon and California borders.
Established in 1913 for the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, the reservation
today is 12,573 acres. The tribe seeks land to maintain the integrity
of its reservation, protect Summit Lake and restore the Lahontan
Cutthroat Trout. S. 2480 would transfer 941 acres of BLM-managed land
into trust for the tribe.
The Reno-Sparks Indian Colony has a very small 28-acre reservation
in Reno, Nevada. The colony has 1,100 Paiute, Shoshone and Washoe
members some of whom live on a 1,920 acre reservation in Hungry Valley,
which is 19 miles north of Reno. The Hungry Valley Reservation is
surrounded by shooting and ATV activities and tribal member have
requested a buffer zone to ensure the safety of their community. The
legislation would transfer 13,434 acres of BLM land into trust for the
tribe.
The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe have made their homelands around
Pyramid Lake, a unique desert terminal lake. Pyramid Lake is one of the
most valuable assets of the tribe and is entirely enclosed within the
boundaries of the reservation. S. 2480 would expand the reservation
with an additional 30,669 acres of BLM-managed land.
This legislation is so important to me and the Indian tribes in
Nevada. Throughout the history of our country, Native Americans have
been removed and disenfranchised from their homelands. They have been
treated so poorly. One of the first pieces of legislation I worked on
when I came to Congress was the historic Pyramid Lake/Truckee-Carson
Water Rights Settlement. This involved two states, several cities, a
lake, a river, endangered species, and two Indian tribes. These Indian
water rights needed to be protected, just as tribal lands need to be
restored especially in Nevada where tribal landbases are smaller and
more rural and remote than any other parts of Indian Country. During my
time in the Senate, I will continue to do what I can to right some of
the many wrongs and help tribes restore their homelands.
I greatly appreciate that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman have made
time for this hearing and I look forward to working with the Committee
to advance these bills.
______

Prepared Statement of the Board of Supervisors of Mohave County,
Arizona
Introduction
Mohave County is located in northwestern Arizona, with its western
boundary being generally the Colorado River and southern boundary being
the Bill Williams River. Our County is approximately 13,500 square
miles in area, which makes it the fifth largest county by area in the
Continental United States. Mohave County is an important gateway to
recreational opportunities in the Grand Canyon, the Lake Mead National
Recreational Area, the Colorado River, and numerous wildlife refuges
and wilderness areas. The Kaibab, Fort Mojave and Hualapai Indian
Reservations also lie within our County.
Our County's largest city is Lake Havasu City, which along with
Bullhead City, is right on the Colorado River. Kingman is our County
seat, and it is a transportation hub that lies at the intersection of
two major highways, Interstate I-40 and U.S. Route 93. Interstate I-40
runs across the Southern United States, connecting Wilmington, North
Carolina, to Barstow, California. Route 93 connects Phoenix, Arizona,
to Las Vegas, Nevada. In the future, proposed Interstate I-11 as
designated by the United States Congress in the 2012 Surface
Transportation Act will generally follow the alignment of U.S. Route
93. When that happens, Kingman and Mohave County will be then at the
intersection of two major interstate highways. Mohave County also is
served by the mainline of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad,
and by several regional airports.
Our population growth over the past twenty years has been dramatic.
In 1990, our population was 93,000--less than half of what it is today.
By 2000, we had grown to 155,000 people, and today, over 200,000 people
currently call Mohave County home. This growth has been accommodated
through coordinated and careful planning by Mohave County, as well as
by the municipalities of Lake Havasu City, Kingman and Bullhead City.
Because Mohave County lies within the Mohave Desert where water is
scarce to non-existent, we are extremely concerned about the wise use
of our water resources--perhaps more than any other crucial factor,
water availability will limit and define how we grow in the future.
With this background in mind, we offer to the Committee on Indian
Affairs our statement opposing Senate Bill S.2503 as currently drafted.
\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As noted above, our comments are also applicable to the current
draft of H.R. 4924.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis for Our Opposition to Senate Bill S. 2503
We have been largely kept in the dark about the status of this
legislation. In 2010, our County filed a protest to an application
filed by Freeport Minerals Corporation (``Freeport'') to sever and
transfer water rights appurtenant to Planet Ranch on the Bill Williams
River to Freeport's well field on the Big Sandy River. On Friday, June
6, we were informed by the Arizona Department of Water Resources that
our objections had been summarily rejected. \2\ Based on that rejection
of our protest, we retained counsel who learned that the introduction
of this legislation was imminent. Initial efforts to obtain even a
draft of the proposed S. 2503 and the two settlement agreements that
are referenced therein were met with resistance, although Senator Jeff
Flake's office did provide a draft copy of the legislation six days
before its introduction on June 19, 2014. Approximately a week after
the introduction of S. 2503, our County received drafts of the two
settlement agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Mohave County has challenged ADWR's rejection of our objections
by filing an administrative appeal with the Arizona Office of
Administrative Hearings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To date, and despite repeated requests, we have not received any of
the numerous exhibits that are referenced in these settlement
agreements, nor do we know if the agreements have been revised or
finalized. As a consequence, we are providing these comments with the
understanding that if and when the exhibits to the settlement
agreements are ever made available to us, we may find it necessary to
submit additional comments.
Loss of Property and Sales Tax Revenue if Land is Taken Into Trust for
the Hualapai Tribe
Our current opposition to S. 2503 as introduced is partly based on
the fact that under this legislation, Mohave County may suffer a loss
of property tax revenues as developable owned land is transferred from
private to Federal ownership for the benefit of the Hualapai Tribe.
Subsection 5(e) of S. 2503 provides as follows:

As provided in section 10.11 of the Hualapai Tribe Agreement,
the parties to the Hualapai Tribe Agreement shall negotiate in
good faith with other parties the terms under which any land
within the State of Arizona held or acquired in fee by the
Tribe may be taken into trust by the United States for the
benefit of the Tribe, with any applicable terms to be
incorporated into a future agreement settling the claims of the
Tribe for rights to Colorado River water, and the Federal law
approving the agreement, subject to approval by Congress.

The Hualapai Tribe Agreement \3\ simply restates this provision-it
does not restrict or limit the current right of the United States to
take additional land into Trust for the benefit of the Hualapai Tribe.
Yet, under the Hualapai Tribe Agreement, the Hualapai Tribe could
acquire several tracts of land from another party to the settlement,
Freeport Minerals Corporation (``Freeport''). These tracts are
identified in Paragraphs 4.2(iii) and 4.2(iv) of the Hualapai Tribe
Agreement simply as the Benegas Ranch and the ROFR Lands (i.e., ``Right
of First Refusal Lands''), respectively. No legal description or
graphic depiction of the ROFR Lands has been provided to us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The entire caption of this Settlement Agreement is, ``Hualapai
Tribe Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Agreement.'' As set
forth above, Section 3 of this Agreement lists numerous exhibits, none
of which have been made available to Mohave County. Because this
Agreement is only available in draft form, references in our comments
to sections or paragraphs of this Agreement are to the 6-23-2014
version of the same. The Banegas Ranch and the ROFR Lands are
referenced as being graphically depicted on Exhibit 2.8 to the
Agreement which again, has not been provided to Mohave County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the worst case scenario, the Hualapai Tribe could acquire the
Banegas Ranch or ROFR Lands (or both) by exercising its rights of first
refusal; the Hualapai Tribe could then ask the United States to take
these lands into Trust for its benefit. Nothing in S. 2503 or the
Hualapai Settlement Agreement precludes this from happening. Under such
circumstances, these lands would no longer be subject to taxation by
Mohave County, and access across such tracts would be restricted by
both the Tribe and United States. Long-term development on lands along
the 1-11 corridor might also be restricted, or if these lands are
developed by the Hualapai Tribe, such development might conflict with
the general plan for Mohave County, and our zoning requirements and our
development criteria. All of this would impose on our residents
additional property tax burdens. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Mohave County is very cognizant of the current dispute between
the Tohono O'Odam Nation and the City of Glendale over land that the
Nation purchased for construction of a casino in the west Salt River
valley. This Board of Supervisors does not wish to replicate that
dispute in Mohave County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of this concern, S. 2503 should be amended to provide that
no additional land within the Big Sandy River watershed will be taken
into Trust without the consent of Mohave County. This amendment does
not necessarily mean that Mohave County would veto any such effort by
the Hualapai Tribe. Indeed, Mohave County supports the Hualapai Tribe
in its efforts to protect Cofer Hot Spring on its Cholla Canyon Ranch
from excessive groundwater withdrawals. It simply means that prior to
any land being taken into Trust, our County and the Hualapai Tribe
would work through and resolve anticipated planning, land use, access
and water issues arising out of that Federal action.
Planet Ranch Access and Water Issues
Our Board has similar issues with the donation of the Planet Ranch
property to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission . The second
Settlement Agreement referenced in S. 2503 is the ``Big Sandy River--
Planet Ranch Water Rights Settlement Agreement'' (``Big Sandy
Agreement''). \5\ Again, our County has not been provided with any of
the exhibits that are referenced in the Big Sandy Agreement,
notwithstanding the fact that at least 30 such exhibits are referenced
in that Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ References are to the 6-23-2014 version of this agreement. We
do not know whether this agreement has been amended or substantially
revised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the somewhat cryptic provisions of Section 5.0 of the Big
Sandy Agreement, Freeport intends to donate to the Arizona Game and
Fish Commission certain unidentified lands in the Planet Ranch area
along the Bill Williams River. As outlined above, any such donation
would remove private land from the Mohave County's tax rolls, thereby
increasing the tax burden that must be shouldered by the other
residents of Mohave County.
In addition, there is no guarantee of access to the Planet Ranch
property once it is conveyed to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission.
Subsection 7(c) of S. 2503 states:

Public Access--Nothing in this Act prohibits reasonable public
access to Planet Ranch or Lincoln Ranch in a manner that is
consistent with all applicable Federal and State laws and any
applicable conservation management plan implemented under the
Conservation Program.

This provision is not an affirmative statement that requires access
to be provided to the public, but instead only states that access will
be provided if State and Federal agencies feel like it. Instead, S.
2503 should affirmatively provide that such lands will be opened to the
public and available for hunting, fishing and other recreational uses.
Finally, there remain substantial questions about the validity of
the Planet Ranch water rights that Freeport proposes to transfer to its
Big Sandy well field . Each Settlement Agreement and S. 2503 includes
numerous representations by the parties about the validity of the
Planet Ranch water rights. Yet, in Subparagraph 4.2.1 (vii) of the Big
Sandy Agreement, Freeport represents that it is installing irrigation
facilities to ``re-irrigate'' the Planet Ranch property to prevent
forfeiture of the water rights by December 13, 2016. That date is five
years after the date that Freeport acquired the Planet Ranch property
from the City of Scottsdale. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The City Scottsdale acquired Planet ranch in 1984 as a water
farm with the intention of transporting Planet Ranch waters from the
Bill Williams area to the City of Scottsdale for municipal use.
Freeport acquired the Planet Ranch from Scottsdale by Special Warranty
and Quitclaim Deed, dated December 8, 2011, and recorded in the records
of Mohave County, Arizona, as Fee Number 2011062804 on December 14,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Arizona law, non-use of a water right for a five year period
may result in a determination that the water right has been lost
through forfeiture. See for example, Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.)
Section 45-141.C. Freeport apparently recognizes that these water
rights have not been used recently, and statements by representatives
of the City of Scottsdale suggest that irrigation entirely stopped on
the Planet Ranch property sometime in 2005. \7\ This statement is
further supported by a quick review of aerial photographs of the Planet
Ranch Property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Peter Corbett, ``Scottsdale Gets $10.15 Million, Water Rights
Worth $18 Million,'' Arizona Republic (December 23, 2011), available
at: http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/2011112/21
120111221 mining-company-agreesacquire-scottsdale-planet-ranch.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The aerial photos and statements by Freeport and others suggest
that these water rights have already been forfeited and/or abandoned
through non-use for more than a five-year period. During a public
hearing before our Board of Supervisors on July 2, 2014, Freeport
mentioned that it had entered into an agreement with Scottsdale to
acquire the Planet Ranch in 2006. Around 2007 both Scottsdale and
Freeport began taking steps to transfer the Planet Ranch water rights
to Freeport's Big Sandy well field for mining purposes. Thus, the
Planet Ranch water rights were abandoned seven or eight years ago when
Scottsdale gave up on its plans to use waters from Planet Ranch for
municipal purposes.
At the same hearing, Freeport also stated that it had about 40,000
acre-feet of water rights that it could use to support its withdrawals
of water from its Big Sandy well field. \8\ If this is indeed the case,
then it is not clear why Freeport even needs to sever and transfer
water rights from Planet Ranch. Instead such rights should be left
where they already are for the support of the riparian community along
the lower reach of the Bill Williams River.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Mohave County does not know anything about these water rights
and therefore does not concede that such water rights remain valid.
Indeed, perhaps they have been abandoned too.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, we oppose the passage of S. 2503
and its companion House Bill, H.R. 4924. As currently drafted, passage
of this legislation may result in the loss of property and sales tax
revenues and accessible public land in Mohave County. Instead, those
parties to the settlement that are pushing this Congress for quick
passage of legislation should provide the numerous exhibits to those of
us in Mohave County and others who have a vested interest in this
settlement, and then work with us to resolve our concerns. Only after
our concerns have been addressed should this legislation become law.
Please include our comments in the Congressional Record in this
matter. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with comments on
S. 2503, and we look forward to working with members of your Committee
to resolve our concerns.
______

Prepared Statement of Hon. Lindsey Manning, Chairman, Shoshone-Paiute
Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation
On behalf of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian
Reservation, I write in strong support of S. 2480, the ``Nevada Native
Nations Land Act,'' and section 201(c) of the legislation which conveys
82 acres of land administered by the U.S. Forest Service to our Tribes
to be held in trust by the United States and made part of the Duck
Valley Indian Reservation. The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes are pleased that
our Senators, Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Dean Heller have
introduced the bill this session. S. 2480 is the companion bill to H.R.
2455, introduced by Congressman Mark Amodei in 2013 which the House
Natural Resources Committee approved for House consideration just last
month.
We thank the Committee for holding a legislative hearing on S.
2480. I join the other Nevada Indian Tribes covered under S. 2480, and
Reno-Sparks Indian Colony Chairman Arlan Melendez, who testified before
the Committee on behalf of all the Nevada tribes, in supporting this
bill. Together with Senators Reid and Heller, I urge the Committee and
the full Senate to approve the legislation this session.
The land transfer is supported by both local and national Forest
Service officials and is not controversial. The property we seek to
have conveyed to us in trust for our benefit, located about 20 miles
from Owyhee, Nevada, the site of our tribal government, is currently
managed by the United States Forest Service within the Department of
Agriculture. The parcel is located approximately ten miles south of our
Reservation and near Mountain City, Nevada.
We seek this parcel of land for the 11 outbuildings, including
housing units, detached garages, a corral and hay shed, for our use and
management. Once renovated, we plan to use the housing units to address
the chronic housing shortage on the reservation and to provide
construction jobs and job training for our members.
The Forest Service abandoned the site and existing structures
located there six years ago when the Service moved its District
headquarters to Elko, Nevada, about 80 miles south of the property. The
82 acre Forest Service parcel constitutes a tiny portion of the 82,000
acres of mostly Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands that would be
transferred to tribal and local government control under S. 2480 and
represents a small portion of the Forest Service's Mountain City Ranger
Station Administrative Site, but the parcel is very important to us.
The modest acquisition we seek will allow us to renovate some nine
homes in close proximity to our Reservation and help us provide much
needed housing, assist us recruit public safety, health professionals
and other personnel to work on the Duck Valley Reservation and provide
construction jobs to our members. Owyhee, Nevada is situated 100 miles
south of Mountain Home Idaho, a city of about 16,000 and 100 miles
north of Elko, Nevada, a city of about 18,000. The ability to provide
housing in close proximity to Duck Valley is immeasurable as
recruitment and retention is difficult for us in light of our housing
shortage and isolation.
The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes' provision is required because the
Forest Service has limited statutory and regulatory authority to convey
lands it manages to an Indian tribe and have such lands be held in
trust by the United States for our benefit. The Service's primary
authorities for conveying land to non-federal parties comes from the
Forest Service Facility Realignment and Enhancement Act of 2005, Pub.
L. 109-54, 119 Stat. 559, as amended (16 U.S.C. 580d), and
legislation authorizing land exchanges. See 43 U.S.C. 1716 (Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended).
Restrictions in both laws limit the quantity of land the Service
may transfer, impose other conditions on the Service's conveyances and
do not clearly provide that conveyance of Forest Service lands when
made to a federally recognized Indian tribe are held in trust by the
United States for the Indian tribe's benefit. Sections 201(c)(2)(A) and
(B) resolve this issue by providing that an the Forest Service parcel
is held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Shoshone-
Paiute Tribes and shall be part of Duck Valley Indian Reservation. We
believe that the provision is entirely consistent with the government-
to-government relationship that exists between the Shoshone-Paiute
Tribes and the United States.
Section 202(b) of S. 2480 requires all lands transferred to the
seven tribes covered under the legislation must use the land for
traditional and customary uses, stewardship conservation, residential
or recreational development, renewable energy or mineral development.
The provisions of this section are consistent with our intended use of
the Forest Service parcel.
S. 2480 correctly references the appropriate map, the ``Mountain
City Administrative Site Proposed Acquisition,'' dated July 29, 2013,
which reflects the corrected boundaries of the Forest Service parcel to
be conveyed to us. We had clarified in our 2013 testimony to the House
Natural Resources Committee concerning H.R. 2455 that the earlier
referenced site map needed to be corrected to reflect that the proposed
acquisition site lies entirely to the east of Nevada Highway 225. We
are pleased to see that the correct map of July 29, 2013, is included
in section 201(c)(1) of S. 2480. Once the bill becomes law, the
Secretary of the Interior will complete a survey of the boundary lines
to establish the boundaries of each parcel taken into trust.
We are a remote, rural reservation that straddles the Idaho-Nevada
border along the Owyhee River. The Reservation was established in 1877
and expanded in 1886 and 1910. Today, the Reservation encompasses 450
square miles in Elko County, Nevada and Owhyee County, Idaho.
About 85 percent of our 2,000 enrolled members reside on the
Reservation. Tribal members make their living as farmers and ranchers,
though many are employed by the Tribes. We are quite proud of the fact
that for nearly two decades we have assumed the duties of the Secretary
of the Interior and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services under Indian Self-Determination Act Self-Governance compacts.
We also carry out federal programs of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development and the Federal Highway Administration under
agreements with those agencies. While we employ many tribal members, we
also employ non-members who require affordable housing in close
proximity to Duck Valley. Unfortunately, infrastructure on the Duck
Valley Indian Reservation is in short supply, especially affordable
housing.
With abandoned improvements only 20 miles from Owyhee that we can
renovate, the Forest Service property would help us address our housing
needs, provide construction and training jobs, strengthen our
governmental services and programs by assisting us retain health care
professionals, law enforcement and conservation officers and other
first responders and personnel and establish a presence on the site
that has been absent for the last six years.
Acquisition of the Forest Service parcel, located close to our
tribal headquarters, elementary and high schools, health clinic, fire
department, tribal court and public safety offices, would provide us
with additional housing units close to the Duck Valley Indian
Reservation. Recent data from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development shows that within our housing formula area, there are 242
Native American households that are overcrowded, 205 Native American
households have housing expenses greater than 50 percent of Median
Family Income and 877 Native American households that earn less than 80
percent of Median Family Income. Median family income in Owyhee, Nevada
is around $30,000 annually.
If enacted into law this session, S. 2480 will permit us to
administer the site, plan and begin renovations to utilize the
improvements for our benefit. The improvements we plan to make would
provide an opportunity to put our members to work. Unemployment on the
Duck Valley Reservation is very high. We plan to utilize the renovation
work as a training exercise through our Tribal Employment Rights
Ordinance (TERO) and implement a youth employment training program to
assist in the renovation of the units and other buildings. The work and
training will benefit our members, as will the required routine
maintenance of the property and improvements. The close proximity of
the property to our Reservation and administrative offices will better
ensure that we properly maintain the site.
In conclusion, conveyance of the approximately 82 acre Forest
Service parcel to the us in trust will assist the Shoshone-Paiute
Tribes address our housing shortage, strengthen our tribal government
programs by helping us retain personnel who need affordable housing
near the Duck Valley Indian Reservation and create construction work
and job training opportunities for our Tribal members. We support S.
2480 and urge its prompt passage.
Thank you for affording the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes the opportunity
to submit testimony to the Committee regarding S. 2480.
______

Prepared Statement of Gerald Temoke, Chairman, Elko Band Council
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. The Elko
Band Council is a constituent band of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western
Shoshone Indians of Nevada. For the last 17 years Elko Band Council has
pursued additional land for expansion of its current land base which is
192.80 acres. Millions of acres within the State of Nevada are under
the authority of the Bureau of Land Management. Elko Band Council is
only requesting a small portion of the lands to be held in trust for
its enrolled membership for housing, cultural activities, recreation,
economic development, and gravesites. Most Tribes throughout the United
States have thousands of acres for their land base to provide for the
needs of their people. Elko Band does not have the adequate land base
to expand and grow with its population which has increased to
approximately 1,500 enrolled members. Elko Band has the largest
population and our land base is the smallest. Additional land is
greatly needed and essential to sustain growth and provide necessary
services to our people.
______

Prepared Statement of Steve Charter, Northern Plains Resource Council
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on S. 2442,
Senator Walsh's Northern Cheyenne Lands Act. My name is Steve Charter.
My family and I ranch above some of the coal proposed for exchange by
this bill. I write on behalf of us and on behalf of Northern Plains
Resource Council, whose board of directors I currently chair.
Northern Plains is a grassroots conservation and family agriculture
non-profit organization based in Billings, Montana. Northern Plains
organizes Montana citizens to protect our water quality, family farms
and ranches, and unique quality of life.
Northern Plains formed in 1972 over the issue of coal strip mining
and its impacts on private surface owners who own the land over federal
and state mineral reserves. Our members care deeply about Montana, its
future, and the issues surrounding coal. Many of our members'
livelihoods as ranchers and farmers depend entirely on clean air and
water, native soils and vegetation, and lands that remain intact. The
strip mining of coal affects us directly.
Given that, I'm writing to express some concerns about this bill.
I'd like to open, however, with what we support.
What Northern Plains Supports:

1. Conveying Coal Beneath the Reservation to the Northern
Cheyenne: We think the Tribe ought to have control of all the
resources above, on, and below their reservation.

2. Surface Owner Consent: This bill seeks to preserve the
intent of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977 (SMCRA) by providing some protections for landowners. That
bill preserved the right of surface owners like me to decide
whether their land will be strip mined if they live above
federal coal. Transferring the coal under me to private
ownership would normally take away that right, threatening the
ranch my family and I have worked for several generations now.
By including a provision in the bill that transfers Surface
Owner Consent with the exchanged Bull Mountain minerals, I at
least maintain some of the existing protections for my ranch
and livelihood.

3. Maintenance of Resource Management Plan Restrictions on
Mining Methods: In addition to SMCRA's provision for Surface
Owner Consent, the Bureau of Land Management's Resource
Management Plan for the area includes a provision that the
federal coal sought for exchange in this bill be mined
exclusively by underground methods. My family and our neighbors
worked hard for that, and it's something we don't want to lose.
There is currently no strip mining in the Bulls. Adding surface
mining to existing longwall mining operations would risk
destroying aquifers, making sustained agriculture in the Bulls
untenable. It would destroy invaluable cultural artifacts
(there are pictographs and other artifacts out here, a product
of many generations of Native American use of these lands). And
it would be a tremendous insult to the history of the families
who live and work here now. My family's ashes are scattered on
this ground. I don't want to see it torn up.
As alternatives to the RMP language currently in the bill, we would
support an outright ban on surface mining of the conveyed Bull Mountain
tracts. We would also be supportive of removing Bull Mountain tracts
from the bill, which would perhaps be progress toward address our
concern detailed below.
What Needs To Be Changed:

1. Any Exchange Should Be More Balanced: This bill proposes a
ton-for-ton trade of coal, giving Great Northern Properties
roughly the same number of tons of coal being conveyed to the
Tribe. Merely operating on a ton-for-ton basis is unreasonable-
that's like trading a house in Shepherd, Montana for a house in
the Hamptons.

The coal that Great Northern Properties would acquire in
this bill is some of the highest-value coal in Montana--
adjacent to existing mines with already-established
infrastructure. The coal in the Bull Mountains where I live is
notably higher BTU than the coal under the Northern Cheyenne
reservation. As the Interior Department struggles to address
evidence that it is already undervaluing federal coal,
taxpayers deserve a hard look at the balance of how much coal
is exchanged in this bill. This bill should convey less coal to
Great Northern Properties in an attempt to make the exchange
more balanced and to avoid unduly transferring public wealth to
a private corporation.

In closing, we strongly agree with the bill's intent to return coal
to the Northern Cheyenne. I more than many know what it's like to have
someone else owning the coal beneath your land. However, as a country,
we should be able to fix this problem and strike a more equitable
balance on behalf of federal taxpayers at the same time.
______

Prepared Statement of Randi DeSoto, Chairwoman, Summit Lake Paiute
Council
On behalf of the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, I wish to thank you for
the opportunity to offer testimony in support of S. 2480, the Nevada
Native Nations Lands Act.
Background
The Summit Lake Paiute Tribe is a federally recognized Indian Tribe
and has a government-to-government relationship with the Federal
Government.
By election on October 24, 1964, the members of the Agai Panina
Ticutta (Summit Lake Fish Eaters) Tribe of the Northern Paiute Nation
gave up their traditional form of government, to conditionally adopt a
form of government suggested by the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934
(see Articles of Association (Constitution) and changed the name of the
Tribe to the ``Summit Lake Paiute Tribe.''
The Tribe's Articles of Association were approved by John A. Carver
Jr., Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior on January
8, 1965.
The Tribe's Reservation is in a very remote location in
northwestern Nevada about 50 miles south of the Oregon state line, and
about 50 miles east of the California state line. Additionally, it
takes 5 hours to travel to the Reservation from Reno, Nevada, with the
final 3 hours on a seasonally impassible dirt road.
Prior to contact with Europeans and Euro-Americans, the Agai Panina
Ticutta controlled at least 2,800 square miles of land including land
that is now in the states of Oregon and California.
At one time, the Reservation was part of a military reservation,
known as Camp McGarry that was established by Executive order in 1867.
The military reservation was abandoned in 1871 and transferred from the
War Department to the Department of the Interior.
The Reservation was established on January 14, 1913 by a
President's Executive Order, number 1681. The Executive Order set aside
about 5,026 acres in trust for the Tribe. Successive actions have added
additional acreage to the Reservation. Today, the total acreage of the
Reservation is about 12,573 acres. The total surface of the lake
fluctuates between 900 and over 600 acres between the run off of snow
melt in spring and dry summer conditions. Reservation lands surround
Summit Lake except in one area on the west side of Summit Lake. S. 2480
would incorporate these public domain lands into the Reservation
thereby restoring the integrity of the Reservation and allowing for
better, more comprehensive management of the Lake and its fish
population.
Summit Lake is home to the federally listed Lahontan cutthroat
trout. As suggested by the translation of the Tribe's name--''Agai
Panina Ticutta''--the ``Summit Lake Fish Eaters'', the trout were and
remain integral to the Tribe's culture and are a vital food source.
Lahontan cutthroat trout were plentiful in the mid-1880s. But as
more people moved to the area and began to use the natural resources,
what was once plentiful became depleted. Overfishing of the lake
populations, introduction of exotic fish and habitat degradation caused
the collapse of the commercial Lahontan cutthroat from nearby lakes
such as Lake Tahoe in 1939 and Pyramid Lake five years later in 1944.
Cooperative efforts to improve the status of Lahontan cutthroat
trout began as early as the 1940's. Habitat improvement projects and
livestock grazing enclosures were initiated as early as 1969.
S. 2480 presents an opportunity to continue efforts to restore
Summit Lake and its fishery. Transfer of the 941 acres of public domain
lands in Township 42 North, Range 25 East, Sections 35 & 36 to the
Summit Lake Paiute Tribe for inclusion in the Summit Lake Reservation--
the only lands that surround Summit Lake which are not a part of the
Reservation--will allow for significantly improved management and
habitat restoration for existing and future Lahontan cutthroat trout
populations.
The Summit Lake Paiute Tribe has long sought these lands which
should have been a part of the Reservation from inception a century
ago.
Transfer of these lands will unify the Reservation, allow the Tribe
to better manage its natural resources and protect Summit Lake and its
fish population thereby achieving cultural, economic and environmental
benefits.
Thank you for your consideration of this bill. On behalf of the
Summit Lake Paiute Tribe I respectfully and strongly urge your support.
______

Prepared Statement of Hon. Elwood Lowery, Chairman, Pyramid Lake Paiute
Tribe
On behalf of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribal Council, the governing
body of the Pyramid Lake Tribe and pursuant to the Council's resolution
dated May 21, 2014, I respectfully offer the following testimony in
support of S. 2480, the Nevada Native Nations Lands Act.
The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe is a federally recognized Indian
Tribe and has a government-to-government relationship with the United
States of America.
The Pyramid Lake Reservation lies approximately 35 miles northeast
of Reno, Nevada in northwestern Nevada. It lies almost entirely in
Washoe County. The Reservation has 742.2 square miles in land area and
includes all of Pyramid Lake, and all of the Truckee River from the Big
Bend north. The Reservation is centered on Pyramid Lake, and the lake
itself comprises 25 percent of the reservation's area. The Reservation
includes most of the Lake Mountain Range, portions of the Virginia
Mountains and Pah Rah Range and the southern end of the Smoke Creek
Desert. There are three communities on the Reservation. Sutcliffe is
located on the western shore of the Lake, Nixon is at the southern end
of the Lake, and Wadsworth, the largest, is located near the Big Bend
of the Truckee at the southern end of the reservation, just north of
the non-reservation town of Fernley.
The reservation land was first set aside for the Northern Paiute at
request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1859. The Reservation was
not surveyed until 1865. President Ulysses S. Grant subsequently
affirmed the Reservation's existence by executive order dated March 23,
1874.
Our Tribe has a long history of repatriating ancestral lands within
and contiguous to the reservation to Tribal ownership to protect,
conserve, and enhance the cultural and natural resources of the Pyramid
Lake Paiute Reservation.
The Tribe has long sought the ancestral lands set forth in S. 2480
(Sec. 201(f)) for inclusion within the legal boundaries of the
Reservation. In 1990, President George H. W. Bush signed Public Law
101-618 which included a provision to allow private lands within or
contiguous to the Reservation to be acquired by means of a Federal Land
Exchange and then be incorporated within the Reservation. Subsequently,
a number of land exchanges authorized by PL 101-618 were successfully
completed enabling the Tribe to acquire certain lands in the Pah Rah
Mountain Range on the southwest border of the reservation.
Unfortunately, almost 8,000 acres of private land acquired in the Pah
Rah Range under PL 101-618 were conveyed to the United States under the
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rather than into
Trust status. The Tribe has long held that these properties should have
been put into Trust status. The proposed legislation would help right
this perceived wrong and transfer these as well as additional lands in
the Pah Range that lie in Pyramid Lake's watershed to Trust status.
Additionally, in 2008 the Tribe acquired private lands contiguous
to the eastern boundary of the Reservation in the Mud Slough area which
lands are intermingled with isolated parcels of BLM land. S. 2480 would
unify the land ownership pattern allowing for better, more
comprehensive Tribal land management of this area.
Incorporation of the federal land that is contiguous to the
Reservation will help protect the Pyramid Lake watershed, and the
lake's world renowned fishery. Transfer of these lands would also allow
the Tribe to better manage the watershed of Pyramid Lake, the central
feature of the Reservation.
Pyramid Lake is home to the cui-ui, Chasmistes cujus, a large
sucker fish endemic to Pyramid Lake. The cui-ui is not only a
critically endangered species, but is also one of the few surviving
members of its genus. As suggested by the translation of the Tribe's
name ``Cui ui Ticutta''--the ``Cui ui Eaters''--these fish were and
remain integral to the Tribe's culture and were a vital subsistence
food source. Following the construction of Derby Dam in 1905 and
diversion of much of the Truckee River's flow, the Pyramid Lake fishery
declined and by 1930 it was no longer capable of supplying even
subsistence food. Pyramid Lake is also home to the federally listed
Lahontan cutthroat trout. The trout were and remain integral to the
Tribe's culture and are central to the Tribe's economy and remain a
vital food source for Tribal members. Lahontan cutthroat trout were
plentiful in the mid-1880's. But as more people moved to the area and
began to use the natural resources, what was once plentiful became
depleted. Overfishing of the lake's population, introduction of exotic
fish and habitat degradation caused the collapse of the commercial
Lahontan cutthroat in Pyramid Lake by 1944. Pyramid Lake was restocked
with fish captured from Summit Lake (Nevada). However, in the 1970s,
fish believed to have been stocked almost a century ago from the
Pyramid Lake strain were discovered in a small stream along the Pilot
Peak area of western Utah border, and are a genetic match to the
original strain. This Pilot Peak strain is now integral to the
reintroduction and planting programs maintained by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. The Lahontan cutthroat trout were classified as an
endangered species between 1970 and 1975, then the classification was
relaxed to threatened species in 1975, and reaffirmed as threatened in
2008.
As stated above, transfer of these lands will allow the Tribe to
better manage its natural resources and protect Pyramid Lake and its
fish population thereby achieving cultural, economic and environmental
benefits.
Finally, the historic range of the Pyramid Lake Paiute people was
far greater than the current boundary of the Pyramid Lake Paiute
Reservation, and transfer of federal lands that are contiguous to the
current boundary of the Reservation would allow the Pyramid Lake Paiute
people to expand their present day Reservation to include additional
lands that they occupied in the past.
Early on representatives of the Pyramid Lake Tribe reached out to
nearby stakeholders in an effort to address concerns they may have. We
have in good faith attempted to address all legitimate concerns that
have been brought to our attention. And, even though the proposed
legislation is clearly subject to honoring any and all valid existing
rights, in an effort to accommodate concerns expressed by mining
interests and recreationists, the Tribe acquiesced to requests to
remove over 10,000 acres from the bill as originally proposed. After
doing so, the Tribe agreed to remove an additional approximately 3,500
acres to accommodate concerns that were only brought to the Tribe's
attention on July 22, 2014. I believe the Pyramid Lake Tribe has been
extremely willing to compromise in order to make this bill a reality
and on behalf of the Pyramid Lake Tribal Council and all our members, I
wish to thank Senators Reid and Heller for their support of this
legislation and respectfully ask that you and your colleagues support
Senate Bill 2480.
Thank you for your consideration of the preceding testimony.
______

Prepared Statement of the La Paz County Board of Supervisors

______

Prepared Statement of Francis McAllister, Vice President of Land &
Water, Freeport Minerals Corporation
Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and members of the
Committee:
My name is Francis McAllister and I am the Vice President of Land &
Water at Freeport Minerals Corporation. Thank you for the opportunity
to provide testimony in support of S. 2503, the Bill Williams River
Water Rights Settlement Act of 2014, which authorizes, ratifies, and
approves agreements between the Hualapai Tribe (Tribe), the U.S.
Department of the Interior, acting on behalf of itself and as trustee
for the Tribe, its members and Allottees (U.S. DOI), the Arizona Game &
Fish Commission (AGFC), the Arizona Department of Water Resources
(ADWR) and Freeport Minerals Corporation (Freeport).
Special thanks to Senator Flake and Senator McCain for co-
sponsoring this bill and for their continued support. I would also like
to thank both of you for scheduling this hearing to consider this
important piece of legislation, and we greatly appreciate the work
personal and Committee staff, have devoted to moving this bill through
the Committee process.
In brief, this Legislation approves a public/private agreement that
will:

1.) Recognize and confirm the Tribe's existing water rights in
the basin and protect culturally significant water supplies;

2.) Provide $1,000,000 of non-federal money to the Hualapai
Tribe from Freeport for additional water studies and will
provide an additional non-federal contribution from Freeport to
establish an Economic Development Fund for the Tribe;

3.) Donate over 3,400 acres of land for the purposes of the
Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (LCR
MSCP) to assist the Lower Colorado River water users in
complying with Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements; and

4.) Effectuate the transfer of 10,055 acre-feet per year of
water rights to Freeport's Wikieup Wellfield and limits
Freeport's water consumption from Wikieup at this level.

This legislation is a win-win for Indian Country, endangered
species, and sustainable and responsible mining. My testimony provides
background information and an overview of the terms of the Settlement
and its benefits.
I. Background
Freeport is a leading producer of copper and other minerals. The
Company is headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona and its workforce in the
U.S. at the end of 2013 included 13,300 direct employees and 1,900
contractors. In Arizona, Freeport owns and operates a copper smelter
and five mining operations, which includes a large open-pit copper and
molybdenum mining complex in Bagdad, Arizona.
A fundamental element of Freeport's U.S. operations includes direct
engagement with Native American tribes. Education has been identified
as a priority issue for Freeport's partnership with Indian Country, and
in 2013 our Native American University scholarship program awarded 58
college scholarships to members of the Hualapai, San Carlos Apache, and
White Mountain Apache tribes. We also contributed, including through
the Native American Partnerships Fund, approximately $250,000 toward
initiatives such as training on forest management for carbon
sequestration on reservations and supported the San Carlos Apache
Women's Conference, a forum for tribal women to share experiences on
topics including family health.
Our technical training program with the San Carlos Apache Tribe in
Arizona, the first of its kind between Freeport and a U.S. tribe, will
increase the employability and skills of Apache students who are faced
with high unemployment in their community. The program will train and
certify students in heavy equipment operations and industrial
maintenance, and through the end of 2013, 200 students have entered the
program and 42 have graduated--most of whom have been hired or are in
the process of being hired.
Freeport's partnership in the Bill Williams River Water Rights
Settlement negotiations (S. 2503) with the Hualapai Tribe marks the
latest chapter in its proactive effort to work with Native American
communities that live in and around the Company's operations. This
legislation is a milestone for all the parties involved, and Freeport
is honored to join the Hualapai Tribe in advancing this important
effort.
We particularly want to acknowledge the tireless effort of Hualapai
Chair Sherry Counts, who was both steady and inspiring in her
leadership on this settlement. The Company greatly treasures its strong
relationship with the Hualapai people that developed through the years
of settlement discussions that brings us before the Committee today.
Additionally, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of the
Federal Team for their work in helping to bring this Legislation to you
today. In particular, the efforts of Letty Belin, Senior Counsel to the
Deputy Secretary at the Department of the Interior; Pamela Williams,
Director, Secretary's Indian Water Rights Office at the Department of
the Interior; and Ruth Thayer, Program Manager at the Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; all of whom have done a tremendous job
and I would like to recognize them for their significant time and
efforts on this matter.
II. Protection of Freeport Bagdad's Water Rights
Freeport's Bagdad Arizona mining operation is located approximately
60 miles west of Prescott and 100 miles northwest of Phoenix, in
Yavapai County. The open-pit mine has been ongoing since 1945, and
prior mining was conducted through underground workings dating back to
1882. The Bagdad operation encompasses approximately 21,750 acres,
comprising 21,150 acres of patented mining claims and other fee lands
and 600 acres of unpatented mining claims. Production at the Bagdad
mine in 2013 totaled 216 million pounds of copper and 8 million pounds
of molybdenum. The direct and indirect economic contribution of the
Bagdad Mine to Arizona's economy totaled $339.1 million.
As with all mining operations, the Bagdad operation requires a
dedicated water supply. The current water supplies for the Bagdad Mine
include access to groundwater and surface water resources in the Big
Sandy River Groundwater Basin and the Big Sandy River in the Bill
Williams River Watershed. Although the Company believes the Bagdad
operation has sufficient water sources to support current operations,
Bagdad faces the potential for increases in competing water demands and
variability in water supplies due to an on-going drought. We are
particularly sensitive to this issue because litigation at our other
Arizona facilities may set legal precedents that could adversely affect
Freeport's water rights at Bagdad.
The need to protect and ensure a long-term sustainable water supply
for the Bagdad operation is the basis for Freeport's involvement in the
water rights settlement with the Hualapai Tribe. Beginning with the
purchase of Planet Ranch, Freeport sought to shore up its existing
water rights along the Big Sandy River. Planet Ranch located along the
Bill Williams River in northwestern Arizona has historically been
irrigated for agricultural production dating back to 1960s and 1970s.
The City of Scottsdale (near the City of Phoenix) purchased Planet
Ranch in 1984 as an additional source of water for its future municipal
water supplies. After years of failing to move water from Planet Ranch
to Scottsdale, Scottsdale decided to liquidate its interest in the
ranch, and in 2006 Freeport and Scottsdale entered into an agreement
for the purchase of Planet Ranch, which the two parties completed in
2011 (for $24 million).
Consistent with Arizona State law, in 2010, Freeport filed with
ADWR an Application to transfer a portion of the water rights from
Planet Ranch to Freeport's Wikieup Wellfield along the Big Sandy River
(located approximately 71 river miles upstream of the Planet Ranch
property). In response to this filing, the AGFC and U.S. DOI acting in
its capacity as trustee for the Hualapai Tribe filed objections with
ADWR to the transfer, citing alleged impacts to water rights in the
area affecting habitat along the Bill Williams River, specifically the
Bill Williams Wildlife Refuge, located immediately downstream of the
Planet Ranch property and areas that are culturally important to the
Tribe.
In response to these objections, Freeport began discussions with
the parties to resolve the water rights dispute. In 2013, the AGFC,
ADWR, the Hualapai Tribe and Freeport reached an agreement in principle
to move forward on a settlement and resolution of these objections in
exchange for, among other things, Freeport's recognition of tribal
water rights on parcels owned by the Tribe and Allottees in the Big
Sandy River watershed and Freeport's commitment to make financial
contributions toward a future settlement of the Tribe's water rights
claims in other river basins. The agreement in principle is the basis
of the Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Act of 2014.
III. Overview of the Bill Williams Water Rights Settlement Act
The Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Act of 2014
(Settlement Act) approves, ratifies and confirms the Big Sandy River--
Planet Ranch Water Rights Settlement Agreement and the Hualapai Tribe
Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Agreement (Settlement
Agreements). The Settlement Act is an important first step and
blueprint for a comprehensive settlement of the Tribe's water rights
claims in other river basins, such as the Lower Colorado River.
Under the terms of the Settlement Agreements, Freeport agrees to
the confirmation of certain water rights for the Tribe (and the U.S.
acting as Trustee for the Tribe, it members and Allottees). More
specifically, the Settlement Agreements provides the Hualapai Tribe
with waivers and release of claims from Freeport and the U.S. DOI
(acting on behalf of its constituent bureaus) for diversion of 694
acre-feet of water in the Bill Williams watershed in Arizona,
specifically:

Claims for injury resulting from the diversion of water by
the U.S. DOI, acting as Trustee for the Tribe or the Allottees
for use on the Allotments or the Hualapai Reservation;

Past and present claims of injury for the use of water by
the U.S. DOI, acting as Trustee for the Tribe or the Allottees
in the amount of 82 acre-feet per year on Trust Land Parcel 1;
312 acre-feet per year on Trust Land Parcel 2; and 300 acre-
feet per year on Trust Land Parcel 3; and

Past, present and future claims arising out of, or relating
in any manner to, the negotiation or execution of the
Settlement Agreements.

The Settlement Agreements also provide for the protection of the
Tribe's water rights at Cofer Hot Spring located on Cholla Canyon,
which is an area of cultural significance to the Tribe, including: (1)
Freeport's agreement to curtail the drilling of any new production
wells (a well with a capacity in excess of 35 gallons per minute) in
the volcanic aquifer (including on Freeport's Banegas Ranch and other
Freeport-owned properties) that supplies the Cofer Hot Spring; (2)
Freeport's agreement that if Freeport's existing pumping (limited to
certain wells not to exceed 35 gallons per minute) is causing an
adverse impact to the Cofer Hot Spring, that Freeport will work with
the Tribe to address the impact; and (3) Freeport's agreement to grant
to the Tribe a First Right of Refusal to match a bona fide offer to
purchase Banegas Ranch or other specific Freeport-owned lands.
The Hualapai Tribe also benefits from two significant non-federal
financial contributions that will be the cornerstone of a potential
future comprehensive settlement of the Tribe's water rights claims on
the Lower Colorado River and Verde River in Arizona.
First, Freeport is providing a non-federal contribution of
$1,000,000 that the Tribe can immediately use to develop the necessary
professional studies to find the most appropriate alternative for
delivery of Colorado River water directly to the Reservation.
Completion of this study before comprehensive settlement discussions
begin will potentially facilitate a settlement of the outstanding
claims of the Tribe and provide earlier benefits to Tribal members.
The second non-federal contribution provided by Freeport to the
Tribe comes in the form of an Economic Development Trust that will
enable the Tribe to seek the purchase of lands and water rights in
Arizona along the Colorado River. Without these substantial non-federal
contributions, the settlement of the Tribe's claims could be
significantly delayed or reduced and would come at a higher cost to
federal taxpayers.
The Agreements related to this Act will also provide for the
donation of a portion of the Freeport-owned Planet Ranch land and water
rights to the AGFC. These lands will then be leased to the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation for the long-term benefit of the LCR MSCP.
The LCR MSCP is a program developed cooperatively between the
federal government and representatives from the States of Arizona,
California, and Nevada. The goal of the LCR MSCP is to recover ESA-
listed species as well as reduce the likelihood of future listings, and
all while also protecting current water diversions and power
production. In addition, the LCR MSCP provides opportunities and ESA
protection for future water and power development on the Colorado
River, which is vital to Arizona's water supplies. This legislation
will approve the long-sought addition of Planet Ranch to the LCR MSCP
by the United States and it will fulfill important habitat needs of the
Southwestern Willow Fly Catcher and Yuma Clapper Rail, among many other
listed species.
Freeport is also providing waivers to the AGFC for the donation and
transfer of the water rights to the LCR MSCP leased lands. These lands
that are currently under private ownership with limited access are,
under the legislation, to be converted to public lands with public
access provided consistent with federal and state laws.
To protect water rights in the area, Freeport further agrees to
limit its withdrawals of water from the Wikieup Wellfield to no more
than 10,055 acre-feet per year for the remainder of its mining
operations at the Bagdad Mine.
In exchange for these significant concessions, the Settlement
Agreements provide to Freeport waivers of the objections filed by the
AGFC and the U.S. DOI acting on behalf of itself and as trustee for the
Tribe, its members and Allottees which will allow for the partial water
rights transfer from Planet Ranch to the Wikieup Wellfield. This will
provide to Freeport secure water rights for its continued operations at
the Bagdad Mine in northwestern Arizona.
IV. Conclusion
This Settlement Act is a fair, equitable, and final settlement of
certain claims among the Tribe, the U.S. DOI acting on behalf of itself
and as trustee for the Tribe, its members and Allottees, the AGFC, the
ADWR (in a limited capacity related to the transfer of the water
rights) and Freeport to water rights in the Bill Williams River
watershed in the State of Arizona. It is beneficial for all the parties
involved by providing long-term certainty and promotes a reliable water
supply for the Tribe, Freeport and the LCR MSCP.
The Settlement Act is a perfect example of a successful regional
collaboration to address the Hualapai Tribe's water rights claims. As a
part of this Act, Freeport is making two significant non-federal
contributions towards the Tribe's analysis and acquisition of water
rights, an important factor in enabling a future comprehensive Indian
Water Rights Settlement. This Settlement would further avoid many years
of potential litigation at great expense to the parties and the
continued uncertainty concerning the availability of our precious water
supplies in the region.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, and other Members
of the Committee for the opportunity to present this important Indian
water rights settlement, which will significantly improve the
reliability of regional water supplies for Freeport, the U.S. and the
Tribe. Freeport strongly supports S. 2503, and looks forward to seeing
this provision advance through the legislative process.
______

Prepared Statement of Patrick J. Graham, State Director, The Nature
Conservancy
The Nature Conservancy supports sections of S. 2503 and H.R. 4924,
the Big Sandy River-Planet Ranch Water Rights Settlement Agreement, as
outlined below. We thank you all for your leadership and support of
this important issue. This can serve as a model for how water
agreements can benefit both people and nature. It is powerful to have
our entire delegation as co-sponsors of this legislation.
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is an international, nonprofit
organization dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity. Our
mission is to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends.
Our on-the-ground conservation work is carried out in all 50 states and
in more than 30 foreign countries and is supported by approximately one
million individual members. We have helped conserve nearly 15 million
acres of land in the United States and Canada and more than 102 million
acres with local partner organizations globally.
The Conservancy owns and manages approximately 1,400 preserves
throughout the United States--the largest private system of nature
sanctuaries in the world. We recognize, however, that our mission
cannot be achieved by core protected areas alone. Therefore, our
projects increasingly seek to accommodate compatible human uses, and
especially in the developing world, to address sustained human well-
being.
In Arizona, The Nature Conservancy has created a dozen nature
preserves and developed new funding sources for conservation throughout
the state. In this capacity, TNC has been a long running member of the
Bill Williams River Corridor Steering Committee in Arizona. This
partnership effort has members with diverse management concerns and
responsibilities, all tied to a unique tributary of the lower Colorado
River. The committee serves as a venue to address a wide range of
matters, from the Army Corps' operation of their Alamo Dam facility to
the issues associated with the Planet Ranch property, and strives to
produce solutions built on consensus and inclusivity.
It was within the Steering Committee's discussions that TNC
developed our position on Planet Ranch in terms of its ownership and
water rights uses. It is only these areas of the proposed Congressional
legislation that we are expressing support and comments on proposed
legislative action. We are very supportive of gaining certainty through
this agreement for all involved and are supportive of Freeport
McMoRan's (Freeport) efforts to do the same.
The Bill Williams River watershed contains large unfragmented lands
and significant biological diversity for the state of Arizona. It sits
at the intersection of three arid regions--Sonoran Desert, Mohave
Desert, and Colorado Plateau--yet includes more than 150 miles of
perennial streams and rivers. These streams support nine native fish
species and more than 340 bird species, and the watershed provides
habitat for at least ten globally rare species. Extensive riparian
forests of cottonwood, willow, and mesquite line the rivers and include
the largest and healthiest remnant of the vegetation that once
characterized the banks of the lower Colorado River.
The purchase of Planet Ranch by Freeport in late 2011 from the City
of Scottsdale provides the opportunity for significant benefits to all
parties and the public by providing more certainty with respect to
water rights in the watershed and that Planet Ranch will be owned by
the State of Arizona and used permanently for habitat purposes in
preserving a natural ecosystem.
We support the sections of the proposed legislation that would
accomplish the following:

Portions of Planet Ranch are transferred to the Arizona Game
& Fish Department

One-third of Planet Ranch water rights are transferred to
Arizona Game and Fish in an equitable manner

Freeport commits, in perpetuity, to no increases in water
use for the Wikieup Wellfield, and to regular verification of
this agreement and suitable repercussions for failure to follow
it, in a way acceptable to the United States Fish & Wildlife
Service and the Arizona Game & Fish Department

Federal Government to remove its objections at Arizona
Department of Water Resources to the Planet Ranch water
transfer

Credit to the Lower Colorado River Multispecies Conservation
Program (MSCP) for the new riparian habitat created by the
project

We understand there is a study of the Hualapai Tribe water claims
currently underway, and we urge future action to provide for the
settlement and legislative confirmation of the Federal reserved water
rights for the Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge.
Separate and apart from Congressional action, The Conservancy wants
to continue a dialogue with Freeport to address issues outside of
legislative action including:

Disposition of the remaining water rights when the Bagdad
mine is no longer in operation; and

Use of the remaining water rights associated with Planet and
Lincoln Ranches.

Thank you again for the opportunity for us to discuss and assist in
passage of this important action.
______

Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry
July 8, 2014
Hon. Jon Tester,
Chairman,

Hon. John Barrasso,
Vice Chairman,
U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs,
Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Tester and Vice Chairman Barrasso:

The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry urges your support of
S. 2503, The Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Act of 2014.
The Act will provide long-term certainty to both tribal and other water
users in northwest Arizona.
S. 2503 is the result of an agreement between the Hualapai Tribe,
the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Arizona Game and Fish
Commission and Freeport Minerals Corporation. In addition to the
support of each of the stakeholders, the Act also has the support of
the entire Arizona congressional delegation.
The Act would ratify the Big Sandy River-Planet Ranch Water Rights
Settlement Agreement and the Hualapai Bill Williams River Water Rights
Settlement Agreement, and would facilitate a fair and equitable
settlement of claims to water rights along the Bill Williams watershed
in Arizona. In the agreement, Freeport Minerals Corporation will
provide a tribal water supply study necessary to the Hualapai Tribe's
claims for Colorado River water and will enable the Tribe to purchase
Colorado River water rights to help facilitate a future comprehensive
settlement. In exchange, Freeport will secure water rights for its
continued operations in northwestern Arizona.
Water is a critical component to the economic vitality of the state
of Arizona. The settlement of water rights claims is a priority in our
state in order to provide clarity and long-term certainty to all water
users across Arizona.
We hope that this legislation can be swiftly approved by the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we
can provide any insight into this important issue.
Sincerely,
Glenn Hamer,
President/CEO
______

Hon. Mark Lewis, Director, Central Arizona Project
Phoenix, AZ.
Hon. Jeff Flake,
2200 East Camelback Road, Suite 120,
Phoenix, AZ.
Support of Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Act
of 2014 S. 2503

Dear Jeff,

I am the senior elected Director on the Central Arizona Project
board representing Maricopa County. I am writing to you in support of
the Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Act of 2014, S. 2503.
While most of the bills subject matter does not directly affect the
Central Arizona Project or my constituents in Maricopa County, I
personally support this water settlement bill. This bill is one of many
Indian Water Rights settlements passed and funded over the years, and
is a great first step in settling the remaining Tribal claims in
Arizona.
Maricopa County residents, whom I represent, contribute a small
share of the $626 million dollar partnership between 3 states and the
USBOR for Multi Species Conservation Program ``MSCP'' as our
contribution to preservation of wildlife and habitat on the Colorado
River, which in turn is part of the conditions for our Environmental
Permits to withdraw water from the river. Maricopa County residents
struck a grand balance between water withdraws from the river and
environmental protection of wildlife, plants and river Biology. This
legislation and the donation of the water rights from the Planet Ranch
by natural resource companies save tax dollars and promote the MSCP
program.
There are 26 species ``covered'' by the LCR MSCP; 6 threatened and/
or endangered species and 20 non-federally listed species. There are an
additional five ``evaluation'' species, which could be added to the
covered species list for the LCR MSCP. Among the threatened and
endangered species covered are the razorback sucker, the bonytail chub,
the humpback chub, the southwestern willow flycatcher, the Yuma clapper
rail, and the desert tortoise. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/LowerColoradoRiverMulti-
speciesConservationPrograms.shtml
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of my senior position on the board, and my conservative
desire to maintain our water withdraw permits for Maricopa County; I
support the Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Act of 2014.
And while I do not speak for the Board, and I am providing my own
opinion as the most senior elected director representing Maricopa
County I am happy to support S. 2503.
Thank you,
Mark Lewis,
______

State of Arizona
July 7, 2014
Hon. Jeff Flake,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Flake:

For over a century, Arizona has taken seriously its obligation to
all of its citizens to ensure that there are sufficient and secure
water supplies now and into the future. Arizona has been a leader in
water conservation and reuse; in securing and delivering water supplies
to meet the needs of all Arizonans; and in comprehensive water
management of this vital resource. Earlier this year, I released a
report entitled, Arizona's Next Century: A Strategic Vision for Water
Supply Sustainability. In this document we have laid the groundwork for
moving Arizona securely forward into the next century.
In light of Arizona's continued commitment to a secure water supply
future, I am pleased to express my support for the Bill Williams River
Water Rights Settlement Agreement of 2014 (S. 2503/H.R. 4924). This
Legislation is consistent with the Strategic Vision for the State of
Arizona and represents an agreement that brings together Tribal and
private industry in a solution-oriented way that will serve as an
example for future water supply development opportunities. The benefits
to the Hualapai Tribe in securing future water rights for their Tribal
members is especially important and will be important in laying a
foundation for continued economic development in this region.
I truly appreciate your efforts, and those of the entire Arizona
delegation, in supporting this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Janice K. Brewer, Governor.
______

Yavapai County Board of Supervisors
Prescott, AZ, July 10, 2014
Hon. Jeff Flake,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Flake,

As a longtime resident of Yavapai County, former Mayor of the City
of Prescott and current Chairman for the Board of Supervisors, I am
expressing my complete support for the Bill Williams River Water Rights
Settlement Agreement of 2014 (S. 2503/H.R. 4924).
As history shows, Arizona has been proactively building resilience
and implementing innovative water management strategies to secure
dependable water supplies for our future. This proposed Legislation is
precisely the vehicle needed to bring together our future water supply
development opportunities and economic security into the next century.I
appreciate the commitment of our current political leaders in
supporting this vital legislation.
Sincerely,
Rowle P. Simmons, Chairman.
______

______

Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to
Hon. Arlan Melendez