Senate Indian Affairs (Murkowski): Hearings to examine S.3573, to amend the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act to modify a provision relating to the extension of certain dates for the completion of the Regional Water System, S.3617, to approve the settlement of water rights claims of the Yavapai-Apache Nation in the State of Arizona, to authorize construction of a water project relating to those water rights claims, S.4368, to approve the settlement of the water rights claims of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, S.4417, to amend the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Water Rights Settlement Act to make technical corrections, and S.4890, to amend the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to establish subaccounts in the Indian Water Rights Settlement Completion Fund.

Committee will come to order. We're here today to receive testimony on 5 bills addressing Indian water rights settlements, 4 related to settlements and 1 focused on the broader challenge of how do we finance them. S.3573 from Senator Lujan would amend the Amat settlement in New Mexico to allow statutory deadlines for completing the Poaquin Basin Regional Water System to be extended when specified parties agree that more time is necessary. This is meant to prevent the settlement from failing due to construction delays. S.3617 from Senator Kelly would ratify the Yavapai Apache Nation settlement in Arizona.

It would confirm their right to 4,610 acre-feet of water annually. And authorize approximately $1.04 billion for the Craigie and Verde Pipeline, a drinking water treatment plant and transmission system, and a tribal settlement trust fund. And then S4368 from Senator Padilla would ratify the Agua Caliente Band of Chahoula Indian Settlement with the Coachella Valley Water District and Desert Water Agency. It would confirm the tribe's right to produce or use up to 20,000 acre-feet of groundwater annually from the Indio Subbasin, providing— provide funding to implement the settlement and authorize federal land transfers. And also S.4417 from Senator Padilla would update the previously enacted Pechanga settlement.

It would ensure that settlement covers contiguous trust lands and allow the tribe's water quality account to support water quality projects in the Wolf Valley Basin. These settlements resolve longstanding claims, provide certainty to tribal and non-tribal water users, avoid costly litigation, and support communities that have waited far too long for reliable water infrastructure. But as I said at our hearing in March, we must ensure that they are structured for successful implementation. And that means confronting the difficult question of how these settlements are financed. The settlements before us, together with other settlements our committee has already heard or reported this Congress, represent nearly $13 billion in new federal spending.

That's a lot of money. That is not a reason to abandon our trust responsibilities, but it does require Congress to identify a credible, sustainable, and realistic funding path. It also requires us to ensure that each settlement is reasonable in scope clearly defined, and fully implementable by agencies and communities alike. We must be confident that the infrastructure commitments, timelines, and costs are achievable, and that we're not creating obligations that exceed practical or fiscal capacity. Through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Congress provided a once-in-a-generation investment of $2.5 billion to complete previously enacted Indian water settlements.

That funding was historic and it was necessary. But it is now fully exhausted and will not be available to address the settlements now awaiting congressional action. In 2010, the stars aligned for passage of the Claims Resolution Act. Senators Kyl and Baucus, both members of the Finance Committee, helped bring together the settlement package and a budgetary offset that included an extension of customs user fees. And that cooperation allowed Congress to authorize and fund 4 major Indian water settlements along with the Cobell and Pickford settlements.

And then today we have another proposal to establish a dedicated settlement fund, along with a related proposal to offset it through a similar extension of customs user fees. S.4890, also from Senator Lujan, would establish two mandatory funding subaccounts within the Indian Water Rights Settlement Completion Fund established by our bipartisan infrastructure law. One would provide $45 million annually for operation, maintenance, repair, and other continuing federal obligations under specified enacted settlements. The other would provide $250 million annually for newly enacted and continuing settlements. The question is whether that approach can provide the durable bipartisan solution these settlements require in today's environment.

I think our goal should be to continue meeting our solemn trust and treaty responsibilities while maintaining fiscal responsibility and balancing the many priorities that face Indian Country. That's what must be front of mind as we consider these measures and think about the future of Indian water rights settlements. So I want to thank our witnesses. I want to acknowledge our colleagues that are before the committee here today. I'll now turn to Vice Chairman Schatz for his opening comments.

Thank you, Chair Murkowski. It is really good to see two colleagues here, Senators Kelly and Padilla, two of the members in the Senate who are not on this committee who advocate the most, generally speaking, for Indian Country, but particularly for their tribes. So, welcome. To date, Congress has enacted 35 Indian water rights settlements. 16 New settlements or amendments are currently pending before Congress, and more than a dozen tribes are in active settlement negotiations with the Department of the Interior.

The bills on today's agenda add to this growing list. Four would settle or address Indian water rights claims to ensure access to much-needed clean and reliable drinking water for tribes and surrounding communities. We all know that it is Congress's obligation to consider legislation that ratifies new Indian water rights settlements or amends existing settlements. But that is not where our obligation ends. We must also ensure that paper water turns into wet water.

That is, that there is sufficient funding to actually deliver water to tribal and surrounding communities. And yet, for years, progress on advancing these settlements and delivering water has been stalled, primarily due to a lack of adequate funding from the Congress. And so it's important that we're, that we're also considering Senator Lujan's bill to ensure that both existing and future Indian water settlements have a stable source of funding. But there is a concern, particularly among Republican colleagues in the House, that Indian water rights settlements cost too much. They insist on no new spending despite our trust and treaty obligation, forcing tribes to identify pay-fors to offset the cost of their legal and moral right to the water to sustain, to sustain their homelands and their citizens.

This is not right. So I appreciate that the DOI is here to testify today As a party to all Indian water settlements, it is vital to have the department's views on the record, especially on the cost. And I'm glad DOI is sitting next to tribal leaders representing their communities that have waited years to finally resolve their water rights claims and can speak to the urgency of ratifying or amending these settlements. The committee and Congress must closely consider these bills before us and advance other water rights settlement bills that have passed out of this committee. I look forward to working with the committee and Indian Country to find solutions that work for everyone.

I want to thank the Chairman for convening this hearing and our witnesses for being here today. Thank you, Vice Chairman Schatz. Before we turn to our witness panel, we do have Senator Kelly and Senator Padilla here to make some remarks on their bills, but also to introduce the witnesses from your states. So, Senator Kelly, why don't you lead off and welcome Both of you to the committee. Thank you, Madam Chair and Vice Chair Schatz.

Thank you to you both for holding today's hearing on S.3617, the Yavapai Apache Nation Water Rights Settlement Act. For generations, the Yavapai Apache Nation has sought a permanent, reliable water supply to support its people and preserve its homeland along the Verde River. This settlement provides a historic opportunity to finally resolve longstanding water rights claims. It also helps the Department of Interior meet its trust responsibility by providing the infrastructure needed to make those water rights a reality. Just as importantly, it helps protect the Verde River by reducing reliance on groundwater pumping, benefiting not only the nation, but also neighboring communities and downstream water users across Arizona.

What makes this water rights settlement remarkable is the coalition that stands behind it. This settlement is supported by the nation, the state of Arizona, the Salt River Project, the Central Arizona Project, local governments, environmental organizations, and other important stakeholders. In a region where water is such a precious commodity, it is rare to see water providers and state, local, and tribal governments all in agreement about water allocation. That level of agreement did not happen by accident. It is the result of years of good faith negotiations.

It reflects a shared recognition that this settlement is not just important, but absolutely vital for the future of the Yavapai Apache Nation and the long-term health of the Verde Valley. This consensus was made possible thank you to the hard work of leaders like Chairman Buddy Rocha, who I have the honor of introducing today. Chairman Rocha was elected chairman of the Yavapai Apache Nation in 2025 after serving on the tribal council and working in tribal economic development. Since taking office, he has made securing congressional approval of this water settlement a top priority, building on decades of work by other tribal leaders. But the work doesn't end here.

We have to keep working closely with the Department of Interior to move this settlement forward, resolving any implementation issues, and ensure that the nation can reliably access clean water. Most importantly, I encourage the department to continue working in good faith with the nation to develop infrastructure that meets long-term needs within reasonable timelines and budgets. The nation had— has waited long enough. There's no need to make them wait any longer. My staff and I are here to help facilitate this partnership in any way we can to get this settlement across the finish line.

Chairman Rocha, I want to thank you and the many tribal leaders who came before you for your persistence and leadership. Water rights settlements are among the most complex agreements Congress considers,, and this one is no exception. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill as it moves through the committee. I'll be submitting several letters of support from stakeholders across Arizona that highlight the importance of this legislation and the broad coalition supporting this settlement. Again, Chair Murkowski and Vice Chair Schatz, thank you for holding today's hearing on this very important legislation.

Thank you, Senator Kelly, and we'll look forward to the testimony from Chairman Rocha. So thank you for introducing him. Senator Padilla, if you would like to deliver your remarks and introduce any witnesses. Thank you, Madam Chair. And before I begin, I also want to take a moment, Madam Chair, to thank you and your staff for your assistance on the conservation and tribal lands bills that we discussed earlier today in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Chairman Murkowski and Vice Chairman Schatz, I appreciate you convening this hearing to discuss important tribal water settlement bills, including two in California. I also want to thank you and your teams for all your hard work on behalf of Indian Country. I want to recognize Councilmember Chacon from the Pechanga Band of Indians and Chairman Grubby from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians I thank them both for their service, for their leadership, for being here for today, and for testifying at today's hearing. For generations, the Pechanga Band of Indians has been a dedicated steward of land and water resources in the Temecula Valley. Pechanga's water rights settlement was codified in 2016 and made fully enforceable in 2020.

The Pechanga Band of Indians Water Rights Settlement Technical Amendments Act, would update the tribe's water rights settlement to allow current and future trust lands to be eligible for the tribe's water rights. The legislation would also expand allowable uses of the water quality fund to reflect modern water quality challenges, such as the challenges raised by PFAS and other emerging contaminants. These technical updates are important for public health, long-term water supply,, and sustainability in the region. The tribe has worked with the surrounding water users to develop agreements on water rights and to protect the Santa Margarita River watershed. I urge my colleagues to support this technical fix that would preserve Pechanga sovereignty over their water rights.

The second bill I have before you today would support the historic settlement for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. In a 2017 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued the first controlling federal appellate decision explicitly extending to groundwater the Winter's Doctrine, which establishes federal reserved water rights for tribes. This ruling means that the federal government reserved groundwater rights along with the land when Agua Caliente's reservation was created. The Agua Caliente's land is held in a distinct checkerboard pattern of land ownership. Interspersed with railroad and private property.

As you might imagine, it has been quite challenging to resolve how to manage groundwater that is overlaid by multiple checkerboard landowners, all of whose actions affect the groundwater below, not just their own property but also their neighbors. So I commend all the dedicated efforts to negotiate an agreement over the last few years by Agua Caliente, the United States government, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Desert Water Agency. All parties reached a comprehensive agreement last May to secure the tribe's federally reserved water rights and to promote the tribe's sovereign authority over its water resources and trust lands. The Avocalente Band of Cahuilla Indians Water Rights Settlement Act would ratify this agreement. This bill also includes provisions to establish a fund to support critical water infrastructure investments as part of the settlement and to transfer additional land administered by the Bureau of Land Management into trust for the tribe.

And before I conclude, I just want to highlight the broad support for this bill. I'd like to enter into the record 11 letters of support ranging from the State of California, the County of Riverside, local municipalities, and Southern California tribes. Chairman Murkowski and Vice Chairman Schatz, thank you again for all your work for allowing me to testify in support of these important bills.

Thank you, Senator Padilla. We appreciate that, and I know that we've got our work cut out in front of us, but appreciate your comments on that. We will now call up our panel here. Mr. Scott Cameron, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science with the Department of the Interior. Welcome back to the committee, Mr. Cameron.

And as was introduced earlier, we have the Honorable Buddy Rocha, who is the Chairman of the Yavapai Apache Nation in Camp Verde, Arizona. We also have the Honorable Jeff Grubbie, who is the Chairman of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in Palm Springs, California. Good to see you, Mr. Grube. And we also have the Honorable Catalina Chicone, who is the council member for the Pechanga Band of Indians in Temecula, California. So we are grateful that you are each here with us today.

I will just remind you that your full written testimony will be made part of the official hearing record. We're going to ask that you try to keep your comments to about 5 minutes so that we've got plenty of time for questions. I know Senator Schatz has other things that he's supposed to be racing off to as well, so we're going to make sure that we get through this quickly. But Mr. Cameron, if you would like to begin with your testimony, please. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Senator Schatz.

I'm glad to be back with you. As you indicated, I am Scott Kehrman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of the Interior. Today I will be addressing 4 bills related to specific Indian water rights settlements and 1 bill that would increase funding for the Indian Water Rights Settlement Completion Fund. S.4890, the Protecting Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, would establish 2 new subaccounts within the Indian Water Rights Settlement Completion Fund. Providing $450 million from 2026 to 2035 in mandatory funding for operations, repair, and ongoing maintenance, and $2.5 billion over the same period for new and continuing settlements.

The department appreciates the commitment to implement enacted settlements contingent on available appropriations. We look forward to working with the committee to ensure appropriate funding is provided as part of the annual appropriations process. S.3573, the Ammit Litigation Settlement Act Amendments, would allow parties to extend the statutory deadline for completion of the Póhoke Basin Regional Water System. This will allow the department to continue working closely with our pueblo, state, and county partners to ensure the best use of the remaining federal funding for construction of the regional water system. The department is pleased to support S.3573 As it has become apparent to the parties that authorized federal funding will be insufficient to complete construction of the regional water system as originally contemplated by June 30, 2028, the parties have agreed to reassess the phased construction schedule and, if necessary, make changes so that by the time federal funding is exhausted, the department will have provided the settlement parties with a regional water system that is as functional as possible.

The bill does not provide additional federal funding, but offers flexibility to maximize the value derived from existing resources. S.3617, the Yavapai Apache Nation Water Rights Settlement Act, would ratify a settlement agreement and appropriate over $1 billion in mandatory spending for its implementation, including major infrastructure projects. The department has significant concerns about any less-than-feasibility cost estimates and advises Congress authorizing any project until a thorough feasibility study is completed, uh, would be problematic. In this specific case, the department also has serious concerns about the size and scope of the projects relative to the United States water rights claims on behalf of the nation. We also have concerns with provisions related to the Verde River and associated liability and sovereign immunity and the lack of cost sharing from state and local parties who would appear to be benefiting from the legislation.

This project appears to be oversized, with the infrastructure being much bigger than necessary. Oversized projects can understandably lead to larger cost overruns and unnecessary operational expenses. We are, however, committed to working with the stakeholders to address these issues. S. 4368, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, would ratify a settlement agreement, quantify groundwater rights, and appropriate $500 million in mandatory spending. The bill includes transfers of BLM lands and novel and potentially problematic provisions such as preemption of certain state and local tax laws.

The department has concerns about the federal contribution and some technical issues I think can be resolved about the land transfer. We look forward to working with the parties to resolve these issues. Finally, S.4417, the Pechanga Band of Indians Water Rights Settlement Technical Amendments Act, would make technical changes to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Water Rights Settlement Act, expanding the definition of reservation and broadening eligible uses of the Pechanga Water Quality Account. The department is very pleased to support these amendments as they facilitate implementation without increasing federal funding or affecting enforceability. In general, the Department of the Interior is committed to implementing Indian water rights settlements and ensuring that tribal communities have access to reliable water resources.

We look forward to working with Congress, tribal nations, and other affected stakeholders to address our concerns with some of these specific bills. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, to appear before you again. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Cameron. Next, we will turn to Chairman Rocha.

Welcome. Very good. Good afternoon, Chair McCauskey and Vice Chair Schatz. My name is Buddy Rocha Jr. I'm chairman of the Yavapai Apache Nation.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 3617. The Yavapai Apache Nation Water Rights Settlement Act of 2026. This bill was introduced by our Senators Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego. On behalf of the Yavapai Apache Nation, respectfully ask this committee in Congress to approve S.3617 and fulfill the United States trust responsibility to our people. This legislation is essential to securing a permanent, reliable water supply for the nation.

The history of the Yavapai Apache people in the Arizona Territory of the mid to late 1800s is a story of profound loss. In 1875, responding to the pressures of non-Indian settlers and territorial business interests, the United States ordered the Army to round up all the Yavapai and Apache people living in and around the Verde Valley and forcibly removed them to the San Carlos Indian Reservation in southeastern Arizona. Eventually, with the end of the Apache Wars in 1890, we began the long migration back to the Verde Valley. For the last 125 years, our people have been slowly reclaiming and rebuilding our homeland. Starting with a small 15-acre parcel purchased by Congress in 1909, the nation's homeland has gradually grown to more than 5,000 acres today.

This rebuilding process has meant strengthening our government, exercising our sovereignty, and restoring our farming and ranching practices, building homes, starting businesses, and creating a permanent homeland where our people can raise and educate our children and practice our culture and build self-sustaining economies that complement the regional economy. One of our elders, Mary Sines, had stated, "As long as the river flows, life will be good." Thus, the Yavapai Apache Nation water is not just a resource, it is a core part of our culture and our spiritual identity and the very foundation of our future. The Verde River flows through the heart of our reservation and through the heart of our culture. For more than 40 years, the nation has been seeking legal recognition of our water rights and protecting— protection of the river that defines who we are as a people. In June 2024, we reached a historic settlement agreement with the state of Arizona, Salt River Project, the Central Arizona Project, Yavapai County, Gila County, and the towns and cities of the Verde Valley.

Every party has approved the settlement. Every party is ready to move forward. I've received several letters of support, and I'd like to ask that to be included in record. The core of the settlement is the construction of water infrastructure project, a pipeline from the Bureau of Reclamation's CC Cragun Reservoir and a modern drinking water treatment plant to be located on our reservation. This project will deliver clean, renewable surface water supplied to the nation for the first time in our history.

It is the key to unlocking our future. This infrastructure is necessary to secure permanent homeland that was promised by the Yavapai Apache Nation under our treaty and our longstanding relationship with the United States. Our nation is growing, but without a secure water supply, we cannot build homes, businesses, economy for our family. That are desperately needed. We cannot meet the need without reliable drinking water, sustainable economy.

We spent years working alongside the United States and our settling partners to identify a source that meets the nation's long-term social and economic needs. Together, we identified the delivery of the Kragen Reservoir water as the most viable and sustainable solution for all stakeholders. Today, our ground aquifer is declining in both quantity and quality, and at least two of our wells, including a critical municipal well, are failing to produce enough water to meet the current demands that must be significantly deepened. Continuing our exclusive reliance on diminishing groundwater resources is not sustainable to the nation. The pipeline will change that.

It will allow us to build homes, expand our communities, and support our workforce, and sustain our culture practice— cultural practices for generations. Moreover, the pipeline will protect the natural flows of Verde River, which is critical to our ceremonies, and will safeguard the health of local aquifers and sustain communities throughout the entire region. Importantly, the project will allow the nation to finally realize the benefit of 1,200 acre-feet of CAP water allocation, which we have held since 1980 but have never been able to use. To secure these benefits through this settlement, the nation has made significant compromises. We have agreed to broaden waivers of water rights claims, protecting all water uses in the watershed from future litigation.

No off-water reservation wells will be shut down. No historic irrigation rights will be harmed. We have chosen partnership over conflict, legal certainty over litigation, regional cooperation over decades of continued instability. Without congressional approval of S.3617, however, none of this progress can move forward. The pipeline cannot be built and the drinking water cannot be completed.

The nation cannot use its CAP water, and the Verde Valley will remain vulnerable without long-term renewable water, water supply. On behalf of the Yavapai Apache Nation, I urge this committee to advance S.3617. It is wise, it is vital investment in justice, economic stability, and environmental sustainability for Central Arizona. It permanently replaces the cloud of endless litigation with the promise of collaborative— a collaborative future. I thank you for your time, your consideration, and your leadership.

And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Chairman. And the letters of support that you have will be included as part of the record. Thank you. Thank you.

We next turn to Chairman Grube. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz, and honorable members of the committee. My name is Jeff Gruby, and I'm chairman of the Awa Kwalinte Band of Koi Indians. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of my tribe's water settlement legislation, S.4368. Thank you to Senators Padilla and Schiff for sponsoring this historic legislation.

The bill secures a water supply for Agua Caliente and strengthens tribal self-sufficiency and water security for Agua Caliente and the entire Coachella Valley. For millennia, my tribe has inhabited land in and around Palm Springs, California. Our reservation is checkerboarded with reservation trust lands mixed with non-Indian fee land. Today, our reservation is 34,000 acres and includes large portions of the cities of Palm Springs, Cathedral City, and Rancho Mirage. The tribe and the non-Indian community rely upon the same groundwater supplies.

In the desert, surface water is scarce, and almost all the water consumed in the region comes from the aquifer. Non-Indian groundwater mining and interference with Agua Caliente's water resources accelerated with the development of Palm Springs after World War II, with annual groundwater pumping far exceeding the aquifer's ability To recharge naturally, water levels in the Upper Valley wells dropped 50 to 100 feet between the '50s and '70s, substantially increasing the cost of accessing water. We estimate the loss of 174,000 acre-feet of groundwater in storage beneath the reservation lands between 1936 and 2009. To protect the tribe's water from further depletion and to preserve it for the future, In 2013, Ahualkohalente filed a lawsuit against two local water districts, the Coachella Valley Water District and the Desert Water Agency, who deliver water to the reservation. In 2017, Ahualkohalente obtained a landmark ruling that tribes, that Indian tribes have federal reserved rights to groundwater.

5 Years later, following intense mediated discussions, the tribe, the water districts, and the United States reached a settlement That comprehensive agreement is now before Congress. It quantifies Agua Caliente's federal water right to 20,000 acre-feet per year, with a priority date no later than executive order establishing the reservation. Despite the senior right, the tribe agrees to reduce its water use by up to 5,000 acre-feet when the state of California declares a shortage. The tribe will be exempt from fees the water districts charge for pumping of the groundwater. Instead, the tribe will charge a fee to fund its water-related projects.

Where the water districts deliver water on the reservation, the water districts will collect the tribal fee from customers and remit them to the tribe. A memorandum of cooperation between Agua Caliente and the water districts details the tribe's active involvement in the management of the groundwater. The settlement will replace Riverside County's property tax on possessory interest in the reservation trust lands with the Tribal Possessory Interest Tax. The tribe will use the proceeds of this tax for water-related projects to fund— to provide funds to other non-tribal public agencies. S. 4368 establishes a $500 million water settlement trust fund for Agua Caliente, allocated as follows: 1, $300 million for the tribal water infrastructure facilities and conservation projects.

2, $100 Million for water supply projects by the water districts that support water levels under the reservation. 3, $50 Million for a water management fund supporting the tribe's larger role as a water manager and purveyor. And number 4, lastly, $50 million for operation, maintenance, and replacement costs for the Agua Caliente development projects. S.4368 not only confirms Agua Caliente's Federal Reserve water right, ensures the tribe will have an active government role in the Coachella Valley groundwater planning and management vital to our own water agency for the first time in its history. This provides increased water stability for all valley residents.

On behalf of the Agua Caliente, I respectfully request that this Congress passes the Agua Caliente Water Rights Settlement Act as soon as possible. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. And last, we will hear from Councilmember Chacon.

Good afternoon, Chairman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz, and members of the committee. My name is Catalina Chacon, and I'm honored to serve as a member of the Tribal Council of Pechanga Band of Indians. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of S.4417, the Pechanga Band of Indians Water Rights Settlement Technical Amendments Act. Before I discuss this bill, I'd like to take a moment to explain why this legislation is so important to my tribe. For the Pechanga people, water is not simply a natural resource.

Water is part of our identity. Our ancestors have lived in what is now the Temecula Valley since time immemorial. More than 150 years ago, after our people were forcibly removed from our ancestral village, they rebuilt their community around a small spring in the hills. That spring, known as Picha'a, gave our tribe life during one of the darkest chapters in our history. It also gave our tribe its name.

Pechanga means "at the place where water drips." Today, that same connection to water continues to define who we are. We have a responsibility to protect it, not only for ourselves, but for our children, our grandchildren, and generations of Pechanga people who will come long after we are gone. That responsibility is what brings me here today. I also want to thank Senator Padilla for introducing the legislation and Senator Schiff for joining on as an original co-sponsor. We deeply appreciate their leadership and continued commitment to honoring the promises Congress made when it approved the Pechanga Water Settlement.

After decades of litigation and negotiation, Congress enacted our water settlement in 2016. It was a product of years of collaboration between Pechanga, neighboring water, water districts, and the United States. It recognized our federally reserved water rights, resolved longstanding disputes, and established a cooperative framework for protecting water resources throughout the Santa Margarita River watershed. Nearly 10 years later, that settlement is working. But as often happens with, with legislation implementing complex Indian water settlements, Practical experience has revealed two narrow technical issues that should be corrected so the settlement can function exactly as Congress intended it to.

These amendments are not controversial. They have been developed collaboratively with Rancho California Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District, and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. All of these settlement partners support S4417. The First Amendment updates the definition of the reservation to ensure that Pechanga can use its existing tribal water right on contiguous trust lands within the Santa Margarita River watershed that have been or may later be taken into trust. This amendment does not increase our water right.

It simply ensures that the water right Congress already recognized can be used on the reservation as it exists today. The second amendment updates the authorized uses of the Pechanga Water Quality Account. When the settlement was negotiated, the primary concern was salinity. Today, communities across the country face new water quality challenges, including contaminants such as PFAS. This amendment simply provides the flexibility to use existing settlement funds to respond to today's water quality issues rather than limiting those funds to a single purpose envisioned nearly a decade ago.

Again, this amendment requires no new federal funding. It simply allows existing funds to be used more effectively to protect water resources. S.4417 contains two changes that are truly technical amendments to our original water settlement. It does not reopen our settlement. It does not alter the negotiated balance among the parties.

It does not expand expand our water rights, and it does not require additional appropriations. Instead, it honors the agreement Congress approved in 2016 by ensuring that settlement can continue to serve the purposes Congress intended for Pechanga, for our neighboring water agencies, and for future generations. On behalf of the Pechanga Band of Indians, I respectfully ask the committee to approve S.4417 and advance it to the full Senate. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Appreciate your testimony, of all of you. I'd like to begin with the Yavapai Apache Nation water rights settlement, and I want to direct my first question to you, Mr. Cameron. Under the bill, approximately $1.04 billion in mandatory funding $731 million-plus for the Kragen Verde Pipeline, $152-plus million for the nation's drinking water system, and approximately $156 million in additional trust accounts. Interior states that these two principal projects are supported only by less-than-feasibility estimates and has warned that similar estimates have resulted in substantial substantial cost overruns.

The bill also indexes authorized amounts for cost fluctuations and unforeseen market volatility. Can you share with the committee what level of engineering or design has been completed for the Craig and Verde Pipeline and the Yavapai Apache Nation's drinking water system? What's the expected range of uncertainty in these estimates. As is, uh, you know, often the case when we move ahead with water rights settlements based on an appraisal-level study as opposed to a full-blown feasibility study, the cost is typically dramatically underestimated. So one of our concerns is that if the Congress were to move ahead with this bill and also Agua Caliente, in the absence of a feasibility study, both the committee and the administration and the tribes would find out several years from now that we significantly underestimated what the costs were to the United States.

So it's basically they need additional feasibility work to get a more reliable estimate of the cost. Exactly. So there are no surprises on the part of of anyone. Okay. Let me ask then about the pipeline capacity.

Interior states that the required pipeline capacity for the pipeline exceeds the water right claims by nearly 40%. The legislation would require capacity for at least 6,836.92 acre-feet annually for the nation and up to 1,912 acre feet for county communities. So how much of the additional capacity benefits for non-tribal users rather than the nation? And can you— can you give the committee the quantity claimed by the United States, the quantity quantified for the nation under the settlement and the proposed design capacity? I know that these are all more technical, but if you have those details, I think I think the committee would appreciate those.

Okay. I'll have to get back to you on the precise numbers there, Madam Chairman. Mm-hmm. I—. We certainly can say is that our initial estimate is approximately 40% of the benefits of the pipeline would go to non-Indians.

And that begs the question, shouldn't there be cost sharing from those non-Indian parties?, if the project were to move ahead as originally sized. And that's, you know, that's a significant question. The— again, absent a feasibility study, it's hard to put particular numbers either on that percentage. Is it really 38%? Is it really 47%?

So our best estimate right now is 40% overdesign. But if we had a feasibility study, we'd have more clarity. Well, and I appreciate that, but as much of that detail as you can provide us, I think that that would be helpful as you— as you gain it. And then from the federal perspective, why is this settlement such a— such a big— a big deal, really? And you mentioned perhaps the need for a cost share.

What specific pipeline costs should local users pay and what level of commitment would satisfy the department here. As a general principle, um, in reclamation law, uh, people who benefit from water or power should be paying the Treasury back for the Treasury's investment in that water and power. So to the extent there are non-Indian parties who would benefit from part of the cost of this project, the expectation would be that they would be repaying the Treasury over time for the benefits that they receive, as is true of all reclamation projects as a general rule across the country. So Chairman, I've got a couple questions for you on this, but my 5 minutes has expired, so I'll turn to the Vice Chair. Thank you, Chair Murkowski.

Secretary Cameron, Quick first question. So you do this sort of preliminary assessment and it's basically— it always comes in low and then you do the feasibility study and it's always more than that. Is that pretty fair to say? That's a pretty accurate generalization. Okay, so how come?

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

It largely depends upon the, the way the work is conducted. At an appraisal level, it's almost, at the risk of oversimplifying, a desktop exercise, whereas at the feasibility level you are walking the ground, you're doing geophysical and geological explorations, you're doing soil testing. But like another project, another sort of capital improvements projects, you have contingency to— right, you get like, for instance, in the Hawaii, the Honolulu Area Rapid Transit project, you just have a 30% contingency because between inflation, supply chain shocks, uh, you know, time value of money, all the rest of it, it's going to be more. Like, why can't we at least have some little equation that sort of gets this thing closer to where we all know it's going to be so that the number that we get given is, is closer to the number? You raise a good point.

It's building in management contingencies as a standard practice in project management. Is it a standard practice for you guys?

I can't tell you what the percentage that we normally use off the top of my head. You get the question, right? I get the question. Can we work together? Because I just don't like— I know it's not the main thing.

The main thing is the money. But if we're trying to figure out how much money you need and you come in and say it's $1.2 billion and then it ends up reliably being $1.9 billion, then that seems like something we ought to be able to fix. And that's not a criticism about inflation or supply chain risks. That's a— that's just a— you give us a number, we want to be able to rely upon it. And we have to go and advocate to appropriators that this will get this thing done.

And if it's really just two-thirds of the money, then we lose our credibility. Okay. So let me— let me move on. From that. In March, you testified the current funding is not adequate to complete the enacted settlements, much less pay for the 16 pending before Congress right now.

I'm considering a bill that would authorize new mandatory funding for settlements that could be used by either BOR or BIA. Would such a solution help Interior to pay for the settlements? As a general principle, the administration prefers to pay for settlements through discretionary appropriations. We feel that gives both the executive branch and the Congress more control on an annual basis in response to the actual on-the-ground funding needs, but we are obviously happy to implement any statute that the Congress chooses to enact. Several members of this committee have proposed ways to pay for Indian water rights settlements, but this administration has not really responded in writing, either with TA or sort of even policy advice on Senator Luján's bill, the one that I'm considering.

And I'm wondering if you can work with our teams, because this is clearly a broken system. I mean, the estimating is wrong, we're way short, and then it's not as though you save money by shorting projects. You know this, right? If a project can't be completed, then the time value of money and inflation And then you end up— you just end up with lots of difficulty. It is not cheaper to, to only partially fund a project.

I get the idea of, of Congress having sort of a tactile control over which projects get funded. I understand that piece. And I get that some of this— these costs, that the very— the variation in cost is inevitable. But I think this is a broken system. And I'm hoping you can give us some TA on— I don't care if it's my good friend Senator Luján's bill or mine or anyone else's, but like, we've got to normalize this so it's not goofy where you sort of have to do politics to get a water rights settlement funded.

And sometimes you get them funded, sometimes you don't. Sometimes there's a requirement for a pay-for, sometimes there's not. Like, this is no way to run a railroad, especially since these are obligations that we have under treaties. Yeah, I, I agree with you, uh, Senator. There's got to be a better way to do this, and we would very much look forward to working with you and the chairman and Senator Lujan and other colleagues to figure out a smarter way to manage these things, uh, going forward.

Um, we, we owe it to, to you and to the tribes and the American people to do a more reliable estimate. And as you indicated, the longer these things drag out, uh, the higher the, the the price tag on the projects becomes. So coming up with the right estimate the first time and expeditiously funding it is in everybody's best interest. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Schatz, and thank you for raising that. You know, we had a hearing previously this year on water settlement, and I think kind of the conclusion of that— and I'm looking at my friend from New Mexico here was we've got an obligation to address these. Right now we don't have a lot of good answers in terms of how we're paying for them. I happen to be the Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Committee as well, and believe me, when we're talking about what this means for our accounts, you know, $13 billion is kind of eye-popping. When you're looking at it from the perspective of where you find that within the budget.

So this is a hearing that is specific to a handful of these water settlements, but I think you are correct in pointing out that we have a bigger structural flaw that we're trying to wrestle to the ground here. Senator Rounds. Thank you, Madam Chair, and once again, welcome to our panelists. Three of you are off the hook with me. All of my questions are for Mr. Cameron.

And they are along the same lines as Co-Chair Schatz has with regard to some other projects. These are items that I offered. I think my team has sent you the list of questions that I had today just so that you would be prepared or at least have the opportunity, Mr. Cameron, to be able to respond. Mr. Cameron, as you know, the water investment in northern South Dakota Dakota project— it's called the WINS project— is absolutely vital to Aberdeen and the surrounding area. Funding for Phase 2 was included in the FY26 Energy and Water Development Bill.

While I appreciate the progress made so far, I remain concerned about the pace that the Bureau of Reclamation has taken to obligate construction funds. Can you provide an update on when Reclamation expects to obligate construction funds? Uh, yes, Senator, I'm happy to report that we are actually on schedule. In fact, maybe a little bit, uh, ahead of the planned schedule. And, um, so I'm glad to be able to give you a little bit of good news.

Excellent. Would you also be able to provide us with what that schedule looks like, uh, if I ask for it in a, in a, uh, QFR, please? Absolutely, sir. Okay, we'll provide— we'll ask specifically for that and Sounds like we should be able to get that back in terms of dates and, uh, for expectations. Yes, sir.

Thank you. Also, Mr. Cameron, earlier this year I introduced the Dakota Mainstem Water Supply Project Feasibility Study Act, which would authorize a feasibility study for the Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System. I've also co-sponsored legislation that would authorize feasibility studies for the Western Dakota Regional Water System and the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System. During the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee markup of these bills, provisions were added to each bill that requires Reclamation to identify sources of available appropriated funds to pay the federal share of these feasibility studies. My question for you today is, do you believe the Reclamation—.

That Reclamation has sufficient funding to support these feasibility studies as well as other feasibility studies marked up by the Energy and Natural Resources Senator, I think that we can find the cash to do those feasibility studies, and I want to commend you quite frankly for introducing legislation to do feasibility studies as opposed to jumping ahead and trying to authorize a project without the benefit of feasibility studies. Yeah, eventually I think we need to go back to what we had where we combined two parts of it together, and that would save probably a couple years in the development of some of these projects. We want to make sure that we do it correctly. Thank you, sir. And then finally, Mr. Cameron, Section 120 of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee reported Water Resources Development Act, or the WRDA, contains— it contains a concerning provision.

This is the one that's in the House. It contains a concerning provision that prohibits the diversion of water from the Missouri River or any of its tributaries to a state outside of the watershed unless such diversion is approved by the governor of each of the Missouri River states, in effect granting veto authority to a single state over water projects in the region. And my question for you is, how would the adoption of this provision impact existing and future Indian water rights settlements? And does the Bureau of Reclamation have concerns about this specific provision? Senator, we're always concerned about any situation where the Congress would seem to inject itself into state water law administration.

We think that's a high-risk proposition, both for Indians and non-Indians. So that's a concern. On its face, it would seem that were that provision to become law, it would at least create an awkward relationship among those various governors. And probably slow down economic activity across the board in all of those states as they might be tempted into a tit-for-tat exercise. I, I recognize that downstream states would be concerned about upstream states on the Missouri perhaps sending water or selling water to other states way outside the region.

My concern is that, number one, I'm not sure that we should have a veto authority, but second of all, if there is any reason that items that are on the Missouri River Basin, that those— that there's other ways to work this out. And furthermore, I'm thinking in particular about some of the projects that we've already done that include states like Minnesota who may not be considered part of the— you know, they're only a few miles away from the Missouri, but they may not be considered part of that watershed. I have concerns about that, and I just wanted to draw it to your attention, and that perhaps there's another alternative that might work better than the legislation that's found within the House itself today. Yeah. Thank you for bringing that to our attention, Senator.

We were aware of it and, uh, we have some real concerns about it. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Lujan. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to our two chairmen here today, to our councilwoman.

Thank you for taking time to travel today and to help everyone understand the importance and urgency of what needs to happen at home. Secretary Cameron, thank you for being here as well. And I'd be remiss if I did not acknowledge and thank you for your support in releasing the $120 million for the Navajo Gallup Pipeline settlement as well. Thank you for your work in that space. And I very much appreciate that the administration has provided testimony today supporting a piece of legislation that I have, which is a simple technical fix to the Ammit Litigation Settlement Act.

As well. As you're aware, the problem is a hard June 30th, 2028 deadline in current law that the Interior solicitor says could force construction to a halt, even though every party at the table wants the opposite. The legislation, Senate Bill 3573, supports the settlement parties and would allow them to agree jointly on a new completion date. With precedent settlements like the Navajo Gallup It adds no cost to the federal government. It simply allows construction to continue.

The bill is supported by all 4 pueblos, Santa Fe County, and the state of New Mexico. Madam Chair, I have some letters from those entities to enter into the record.

I appreciate that. Secretary Cameron, I want to confirm your support. Senator, absolutely. We are very happy to support these technical amendments. Legislation makes an awful lot of sense, and I appreciate your leadership in trying to help make it happen.

I appreciate that. I urge the committee to move forward with, uh, this bill, 3573, and want to acknowledge, um, Senator Martin Heinrich, our senior senator from New Mexico, with his work on the legislation as well. Now, Mr. Cameron, with all the conversation today, there's been a lot of attention brought to the number of pending water rights settlements. There are 39 enacted Indian water rights settlements binding federal commitments to tribal communities, but no guaranteed funding source for any of the settlements that were enacted after 2021. My legislation, Protecting Indian Water Rights Settlements Act 4890, fixes that by creating two dedicated subaccounts within the completion fund.

The first, a $250 million a year for new and continuing settlements. And $45 million a year for ongoing operations and maintenance obligations. As has been expressed by colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this is about keeping our word as the United States government to our tribal brothers and sisters, to our First Nations, as required by treaties and by the Constitution— water that they were promised. Mr. Cameron, your testimony notes that the department relies on Congress to appropriate the funds necessary to reach enforceability through the annual budget process. But your testimony, testimony also references the $13 billion in pending settlement obligations that the annual appropriations process has not kept pace with.

The Indian Water Rights Settlement Completion Fund itself, as we know, is now exhausted. Given that, does Interior believe a dedicated mandatory funding stream like the one in 4890, is a better vehicle than relying on annual discretionary appropriations, or does the department have a different mechanism in mind? Senator, uh, again, I want to reiterate my appreciation for your commitment to trying to solve a really thorny problem here, and, um, you know, we appreciate that very much. As a matter of policy though, the administration does prefer to deal with these very real obligations the United States has through the appropriations process. So that is where we are coming out.

That having been said, were the Congress to pass a bill and the President sign it to produce a stream of mandatory spending, we'd be very happy to implement the law. I appreciate it, Mr. Secretary. And Madam Chair, as you pointed out, with some of our predecessors on the committee who sought support from the custom user fees. I have a separate piece of legislation that mirrors this. It's been referred to the Finance Committee that also points to customer user fees.

So to the point of Secretary Cameron and yourself, Senator Schatz, trying to find a solution here as we're all working towards that. Um, with that, uh, Secretary Cameron, does Interior have a view on whether a bill of this size needs an identified pay-for to move, or would the department support this committee advancing new mandatory funding for settlements without one? So at the, at the very highest level, uh, we're obviously interested in managing the size of the growing federal deficit. So anything that can be done to reduce the financial exposure to the American taxpayers at large, uh, is, is worth considering. We haven't taken a position on specific pay-fors.

I look forward to seeing how the administration testifies on your bill pending before the Finance Committee, but I'm not in a position to offer an opinion on a particular pay-fors at this point. I appreciate that. And Madam Chair, as my time's expired here, you know, I've been part of conversations in the past to try to understand the accounting when it comes to what's in— what counts as a pay-for and, and what creates a pay-for, um, or sorry, what creates a pay-for and what will take away from a pay-for, uh, how and how that can be utilized. And some have suggested that if the United States is addressing liabilities that the United States has, that that creates pay-fors. And so the way that I look at this, all these water settlements create a pay-for for everything else that everyone else wants to do.

Now, I know that that's one person's view of accounting with the federal government, but it should be on the table. As all the smart people in the room, I would challenge you all to help me understand what, what I just talked about in a way that— does that hold, does that hold water or not? Is this one of those tools that maybe could be used in that way? So I thank you all for the time. Thank you, Senator.

You know, one would think that we make that determination. Sometimes it's that black hole in OMB. But you have put something out there on the table for us all to think about. And I do— I appreciate that you are really looking to explore different ways that we meet our commitment to our trust responsibility for these water settlements. Senator Armstrong.

Oh, thank you. Is owed $136 million, and nobody disagrees with that, except there's no funding for it. And that— I fundamentally agree with your point. If we owe money, we owe money, and we shouldn't be talking about If you owed me money and you told me, "Well, wait a second, I have to go back to my wife and figure this out, how I'm going to pay you," I would say, "Tough, you owe me the money." So I fully support you on that, and I appreciate that the First Nations here are probably really frustrated with those answers. So I'm very sympathetic to that issue and think it deserves a good answer.

So thanks for raising that. And so back on the Yabáhai. Yavapai Apache water settlement. I'm really confused over if we're— we know we're overbuilding it, and yet— and we know that there's water right claims that the tribe has. How did we get there?

How did we get to a point where we all agree we're overbuilding it, and yet we're not following through with the obligation to provide the water rights for the tribe. So Mr. Cameron, if you could respond to that. So the department had not signed off on the notion that the project, that the capacity should be 40% bigger than what we thought the need is. Okay. You know, the various parties of state, local government, and the tribe have, you know, come up with their proposal, you know, on their own, and this is the first time This administration has been able to testify on the bill.

The previous administration, I think, expressed some similar concerns about the price tag and the size and potential oversize of the project. So that's how we ended up here.

So, and maybe Chairman Roka, to you, how did we— If I understand the tribe wanting to enforce its rights to have its claims on the water, but to the degree that the expansion of the project is what's holding it up, how do you, seems like you'd wanna just get your water rights resolved and not worrying about all the other auxiliary needs that are kinda complicating the project. So can you respond to how we got there?

Thank you, Senator Armstrong. A great question.

I, I believe that it's important that we continue to work together with the Department of Interior and understand more about these challenges that are being presented, rather than, you know, looking at it from what we've already garnered in, in these partnerships and understanding that there are some additional benefits to be gained from it. I, I think it's important that we come to the table, and as he had mentioned before about the feasibility, when we look at it from the feasibility aspect and, and look at the technical pieces of it, this would actually kind of help us understand about what is being discussed today. And through these, uh, technical feasibilities and getting to the cost associated to that, I think that's where these questions will be answered in terms of sizing. But I also, you know, I'd also like to point out that our additional parties that could benefit from this and looking at what is currently happening within the Verde Valley right now with the depletion of water resources across the entire Verde Valley, this is going to be something that is going to be critical for the survival Right now we have 3 municipal wells across the Verde Valley, including Camp Verde and Clarkdale, right now, that are in dire need of having to go deeper into the water system and aquifers. And this is concerning because we're all connected to the same aquifer.

So, you know, I think when we look at it from the perspective of what's happening underneath the groundwater and trying to preserve what's there and try to replenish it, this is going to be critical. Great. So just to follow up on that then, you would agree that it's reasonable for the United States to say, hey, we only owe you for this amount of water rights on the one hand, but on the other hand, there's a total community need that needs to be addressed, and that's what leads you to wanting to make sure that the project is adequate to serve the whole valley? I think it's important that this technical feasibility that Mr. Cameron is talking about is necessary for us to reassess overall and continue to work together collaboratively about identifying what he's— Mr. Cameron has identified as a challenge or concern from the federal government. Okay, very good.

Thank you very much. I yield my time. Thank you, Senator Armstrong. And that was going to be one of the questions that I had for you, Chairman, was how do you reconcile the different— the different figures.

You stated the pipeline has to be capable of delivering 6,836 acre-feet for the nation, and yet the drinking water demand identified in the testimony is 4,610 acre-feet, and the U.S. adjudication claim was 4,900. So we're looking at those numbers and saying, all right, well, where's the discrepancy here? And perhaps it has to do with conveyance losses or peak demand or water that's not consumptively used. But understanding all that, I think, would be helpful for us as we work through this with you and with the department there. Interior also suggests that existing on-reservation water resources may satisfy much of the nation's future demand.

And you— your testimony goes a different direction. You speak to the fact that the aquifer is declining in both quantity and quality, a couple of the wells failing to meet current demand, and that one municipal well has to be significantly deepened. So is— in your view, is continued reliance on groundwater just not a sustainable option for the nation?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is not a sustainable option if we were to just look at it from the perspective of in perpetuity of us being on this reservation. Water resources are declining across the Southwest. My fellow colleagues next to me are in the same situation. We're in a critical status of we're not going to leave the land that we we, you know, that are now our homelands. And to have this critical resource that we need in order for us to survive, in order us to flourish along with our community, surrounding communities, it is, it is really critically important to address this.

Now, all this new information has just come about within the last 2 months. I think the drought has significantly impacted every community across the Southwest, but we're feeling it today. And I've acknowledged this, and I've had communications with our surrounding communities, and I understand the urgency that we have right now. It's going to be a critical point where we're going to have to import water at some point, and, and this is a reality. And I think it's a reality for all the, all of, uh, communities across the Southwest about how to better our water situation and water resources.

Yeah, and you mentioned the importation of additional water, you know, helps to reduce groundwater pumping. We understand all that, but how much you're actually able to do there and how that balances out. I want to turn to you, Chairman Grube.

I've had an opportunity to be out there and meet with some folks from the Agua Caliente Tribe. I have seen the map, the big checkerboard map that is this pattern of tribal trust and non-Indian fee lands. And because of that, you've got an unusual system of tribal fees, district collection mechanisms. And replacement taxation in the settlement. Interior calls some of these provisions a little bit novel.

I don't know whether novel means it's good, bad, or indifferent, but are these provisions meant to be tailored to the circumstances that are perhaps unique there in the Coachella Valley, or are they intended to establish a broader precedent concerning Indian tribal taxing and regulatory authority over non-Indians. I guess, how did these provisions come to be included in this water settlement bill? Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that question. It's an important question, especially dealing with the uniqueness of Agua Caliente.

It is a little checkerboard that spans over over 3 different cities. So going through this settlement, working with the water agencies, this was a means— as a sovereign nation, we have a right to run our own government. And one of the primary functions of a government is to collect taxes for the betterment of the community. And when I say community, it's not just the benefit of my tribe and our members, but it's a community that the reservation spans across the 3 cities. So this is a way— this This wasn't a way to increase revenues for the tribe, but it was a way to collect the revenues that the county was already collecting, but the tribe now collects, and we decide where it goes in our community for the city.

So Riverside County is a very large county, and those monies that were collected went through other areas of the county that weren't an exact benefit to those in the Coachella Valley. So this was an opportunity for us to collect that money and really, you know, spend it for the betterment of the Coachella Valley. But you see this more as somewhat specific to what you are doing there in Coachella rather than broader precedent in other areas or—. Yeah, no, I think it is— I don't think every tribe has that ability. Or may have that ability to do what we are doing, but that doesn't mean that I'm trying to take away— every tribe has their sovereign right, you know, they're each— they're separate to do things.

So if it makes sense, I hope this is, you know, this is important and it may be a popular precedent that we're setting to help other tribal communities. So let me ask before my time expires here, Under the bill, you're transferring about 2,742 acres of BLM-managed land into trust for the Agua Caliente Band. And you've included this transfer in the water rights settlement, although the bill provides that water rights associated with the transferred lands are not added to the tribe's quantified settlement water rights. So why does the tribe need these particular BLM lands transferred into trust, and why is the land transfer an important part of the water rights settlement? Yeah, no, that's another good question, and I think it's more of a formality.

The water districts, to my understanding, were having to go back and get permissions or whatever it was. They had to keep going back and asking, asking, asking. So by doing this, this was, you know, part of settlement that they wouldn't have to do that any longer. Okay, all right, thank you for that. Senator Hoeven.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

For Secretary Cameron, Dakota Water Resources Act is very important in our state, and it's a win-win both for the federal government and North Dakota. And we want to know that you continue to support not only the Dakota Water Resources Act, but also the NDOS amendment. We got a start on it this year, $158 million, and also the use of the McCluskey Canal, which frankly saves— that's why I say it's a win-win— that saves not only the state of North Dakota $200 million, saves the federal government $200 million. 'Cause it's already constructed and it's in great condition. And that's, you know, expanse where we don't have to put pipeline in the ground.

So it saves easily $200 million and operating costs as well. So it really is a win-win project. And the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last month unanimously approved the Dakota Water Resources Act, which is supported by all 5 tribes, or more tribes than that, but the tribes that represent the 5 reservations in our state. So my question is, will you continue to work with us, not only our state but also our tribes, to pass this critical legislation?

Uh, yes, Senator, be very happy to do so. And congratulations on getting it reported out of committee unanimously. So look forward working with you on that. Good. Does that include you coming out to our great state to actually see the work that we're doing and what remains to be done?

The Secretary looks for every opportunity to send his political leadership out to the great state of North Dakota and Alaska. Good. He can help you with navigational aids if you need it. He knows the way. But we'd like to bring you out there this summer.

Well, thank you. I appreciate the kind offer and look forward to taking advantage of it one of these days. Good. In 1960, one of the— we hope one of these days, like soon. Yeah, you know, I'm getting older.

I'm not young like the chairman anymore. I'm older. I'm getting older too. That means sooner versus later. Okay.

Uh, 1960, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe was, uh, relocated when their lands were flooded by the Army Corps for the Oahe Reservoir on the Missouri River. In 1985, the Secretary of the Interior appointed a Garrison Unit Joint Tribal Advisory Committee, JTAC, to recommend equitable compensation. Congress authorized $90 million in compensation for Standing Rock under the Three Affiliated Tribes and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act of 1992. The committee report accompanying the '92 bill acknowledged that additional compensation would be necessary to address the tribes' infrastructure needs. 2007, The Government Accountability Office confirmed this, testifying the tribe— tribe's additional compensation should have been up to $170 million.

The tribe is currently looking at how additional compensation funds can be used to fund current needs like an updated healthcare facility in Fort Yates. Pause for a minute so you can digest all of that, and I know you were listening intently, so you have. Here's my question. Will the department work with us and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to determine if additional funds will be made available to help the tribe address its current community needs, and that is a hospital? Yes, sir, most definitely.

We're eagerly looking forward to figuring out how this can work out with you. Yeah, it really is. You know, the tribe is very committed to this, and I think, you know, we've done a lot of work in rural North Dakota actually with the Rural Development on updating and building new community critical access hospitals. Okay, that's off reservation. We need to do something on reservation.

This is a big area. This reservation covers a big area in North Dakota, but also a big area in South Dakota, so it's both states. So you're helping us— helping us figure something out here would be really good. That'd be another visit we could make when you come this summer. I'll start making my plane reservations now, sir.

Okay. And to Alaska. Thank you. In the winter too. Well, it's on the way.

It's kind of on the way to Alaska, right? It is. Yeah, we're perfect. And of course, you'll have— now you'll have to work in, uh, North Dakota, but I know that the chairman will take you fishing. Up in Alaska.

So that's incentive for you. But we might let you fish the Missouri River. Really good fishing on the Missouri River too. I've been advised by people who are well-informed that you're absolutely correct, sir. Yeah, it is.

It's fabulous. I live on the river. It's fabulous. Now, we don't catch— we can catch some salmon, but the one that we catch a lot of and kind of are famous for is walleye. And no halibut.

No, we catch many, many different kinds of fish, but we haven't caught any halibut so far. I'll put my salmon up against your walleye. Yeah, that'd be a tasty contest. A very tasty contest. I'm going to be neutral on this debate, if you don't mind.

You can't go wrong. They're both great. Yep. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.

I want to throw a question out to you, Councilwoman Chacon. You spoke to the two changes to the 2016 water settlement agreement and why, why we now have this legislation in front of us.

So you're seeking to expand the statutory definition and, and broaden the uses. Okay. What was What were the implementation problems under the 2016 settlement that has now precipitated the need? What didn't work? I get the fact that we're making these two changes, but what happened with the settlement, because I think we thought that we got it right then, but now we know we need to make improvements.

What happened with the implementation? Thank you, Chairwoman—. Chairman Murkowski, for the question. Yes. So first, in 2016, when we originally— our water settlement was enacted, Pechanga has gone through some land into trust areas, so we can't get our groundwater to those areas.

We purchased contiguous lands to our reservation for critical tribal housing. Well, we came into a snag because we can't get water there. So we would like to use our groundwater to go there to provide for that tribal housing. That was the first issue. The second issue is when we were originally negotiating our water settlement, our main concern, ours, Pechanga and the water, Rancho California Water District, salinity was our main worry.

Well, now, as you know, PFAS is an issue created all throughout the United States right now. So we want to make sure that, you know, and also let me just reiterate that this technical amendment does not require alternative or more appropriations. It simply broadens the water quality uses. That we can use this pot of money for. So it just needs to expand because we don't know what's going to happen in the future and what new contaminants.

10 Years ago, nobody knew anything about PFAS. Okay, that helps. Thank you for that clarification. Back to you, Mr. Cameron, and this will relate to 4368 with the Agua Caliente ban.

So this legislation would preempt Riverside County's possessory interest tax when the tribe imposes its own tax.

It wouldn't use a lower rate or assessed value. The tribe is required to distribute equivalent resources.

Again, you've— the Interior has described this as a novel provision involving preemption. Of state and local tax law. Have we seen this tax replacement structure in any previous Indian water settlements that you're aware of? Not to my knowledge, Madam Chairman. So that really is unique, and I think it merits some discussion and some attention, probably with a whole bunch of lawyers in a room to figure out if there are, you know, some significant presidential issues.

Is there a concern Is there concern that you could establish precedent for respecting respective taxing authority for tribes and states and county on reservation lands? I mean, is this what we're concerned about? Is this—. Yes, exactly. That is the precedent that I think we need to think through about whether or not we're creating a long-term issue, long-term expectation, long-term potential problem.

So do you think you need additional provisions that govern assessments, the collections, the audits, the like, and as you're looking at the payments that go to schools and other public service entities? Well, what we'd like to do is sit down and talk with the tribe, talk with the affected local governments, and make sure we fully understand what's being contemplated here and thoroughly think through what the implications might be, especially in terms of precedent. When I think the chairman has indicated that it's not the intention that this would be broader than beyond the Coachella Valley, but I think to your point about how the parties are sitting down and discussing this along with, with the many lawyers in the room that are looking at the specific wording of all of the proposal is important as well. Yeah, I appreciate the chairman's attitude, but just because he is not intending to create a precedent, that doesn't mean somebody else somewhere else will think there's a precedent. So we need to be careful.

Yep, yep, yep. The bill also provides $500 million in mandatory federal funding, $300 million for water development, $100 million for groundwater augmentation, $50 million for water management, $50 million for O&M. These would be indexed for cost changes and market volatility. You have expressed— or Interior has expressed concern about the size of the federal contribution, but doesn't explain your own valuation of the settlement. Can you give me more about the concerns that you have here.

A couple of points, Madam Chairman. The first is, again, as a general principle, we prefer using discretionary appropriations as opposed to mandatory funding. So that's one issue. One specific item that caught our attention was the $50 million for tribal water rights administration. Our understanding is that the tribe already has a pretty sophisticated and pretty effective mechanism for Tribal Water Rights Administration.

So we're wondering why there'd need to be another $50 million. And then there's the, the broader question of, is $500 million the right number? There seems to be a tendency of a number of water rights settlement legislation that we've seen in the last year or so to come in at a $500 million price tag, and I'd like to have a bit more of a generated from the ground up number as opposed to sometimes wondering if a number is picked perhaps without too much of an analytical basis for it. So we would like to explore an analytical basis for this number. Fair enough.

It goes back to the original comments from Senator Schatz here about just getting greater fidelity to numbers. And given the size and the consequence of these settlements that we're talking about, that seems to make good sense, but it also requires good communication going back and forth, which is part of why we're putting this all out on the record here today.

You know, we sometimes talk here in— Congress about Indian water settlements only in the terms of acre-feet and project costs and legal waivers and the like. But I'd throw this out to you, Chairman Rocha and Chairman Grube, in terms of what these water settlements actually mean in practical terms for a family, a Yavapai Apache family or an Agua Caliente family, and the ability to live in the area where your families have lived. So we've talked about numbers, and maybe you can just— and also Councilwoman, if you just want to quickly share for the committee what it means to a family to have these settlements contemplated. Chairman.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the question, which is really why we're here. We're here to talk about the practical sense of what water represents to the people and what it means to our families. When we have that water resource, it means generations that will be able to sustain practical traditional cultural ceremonies within these locations. And I, I talk about the Verde River and how critical that is to our ceremonial practices and how when we sweat and how our passing these traditions on to our children and for additional generations. What does it mean to have these families come back home and be able to have a water resource for them so we can continue to build homes for them.

That is all, all important for generations to come. The other aspect of this, not just speaking specifically to families, but also presents an opportunity for economic development. It provides an opportunity for us to exercise our sovereignty, to really know where the meaning of sovereignty lies. It's in the resources that we have, and it's the resources that we're able to apply to our systems. And that's why it's so critical that this water is important not only to our people, but also to the community, and eventually through economic development that we can also help support the surrounding communities as well.

And that's the most important piece, is that it's just not looking at it from the lens that this is our— to benefit the tribal members as well, but it's When you look at it from the economic lens and looking at how it can benefit overall the entire area, this really speaks volumes to what this overall water rights, you know, and asking for Congress to consider. And so what it means though also to, as you had asked for about what this means to the families, it's just so critically important for those generations. And I hope that my great-great-great-grandchildren will be able to live on a reservation. And as of right now, only about 60% of our— actually, 55% of our tribe is only able to live on a reservation due to the resources that we have capable for expanding our reservation boundaries for homes. Once we have those resources, we can continue to expand our reservation.

And complement that with them coming home. Thank you. Chairman Kirby. No, thank you. And I know that that's a good question, Madam Chairwoman.

Uh, for, for Agua Caliente, it's— we've been ratepayers. We've, we've never, uh, been given a seat at the table to govern one of the most precious resources in the valley, the water. We, we look at things from the past, present, and future. You know, no disrespect to the water agencies, but they're in the now and they prepare for the next 5 to 10 years. Well, being able to have a seat at the table and govern what happens for the next 10, 20, 100 years is what my tribe wants to do.

We want to have the ability to make sure that the aquifer is being replenished, that the water is safe, coming out. We wanna look at ways to help the water agencies recoup, retain some of the stormwater issues. There's ways to capture it, recycling water waste to put back into the aquifer. We're looking at ways to replenish.

Our water settlement is unique in a way that we have 3 cities, the state, and the county all supportive of the— of our settlement. No opposition. Uh, the PIT issue, we've worked with the county. They understand, uh, what they're doing. They understand that what the tribe's going to do with it.

There's an agreement there. And I look forward to working with the, the administration and working out those issues. The $500 million, it wasn't just picked out of nowhere. We have two water agencies that helped us come to that number. We worked with the administration to come to that number.

We've paid consultants to help us get to that number. So we can justify, you know, where the $500 million came from. So for us as a tribe, it's really to making sure that we have a future for our children, grandchildren, and so forth, for the betterment. And we understand that it's not for our betterment directly, it's for the Kachela the valley. We're 500 members that live in a community of tens of thousands of people.

So we know that the decisions we make today, you know, that benefit us will benefit the communities we live in. You look at our history, look at what we've done since gaming. Look at— we've looked outwardly, charitable. We're very charitable. Look at all the tribes, the successes they had.

It's not just about them supporting them. It's about giving back to the community, giving back to police, fire, school districts, etc. We're—. It's about having a seat at the table. Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Councilwoman. You get the final word. Thank you very much, Chairman. Um, our ancestral lands have been minimized over the years. We are not a huge land-based tribe, and that's why we try to purchase any contiguous land that we can on our reservation.

Our people want to come home. Water is life to us. We need to make sure, and as I mentioned to you, you know, Pechanga means the place where water drips. So our people want to come home. We want to be able to make sure that they have water to live.

You know, they were forcibly removed from their own homes, and now they want to come back home. It is so good to see so many tribal members coming back, learning about their community, their culture, their language. So we have to make sure that water is there to sustain future generations. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Uh, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for, for your comments, um, the testimony that you provided, the answers that you shared. Uh, as other colleagues have additional questions, we will keep the record open for the next 2 weeks. But I do appreciate the information that's been laid down today. But I do think this is— this is kind of a kick to all of us to say, all right, what is— what is the— a more workable approach? And whether it's the initial feasibility studies and getting greater fidelity to to numbers earlier up front, looking at the mandatory aspect versus discretionary.

I didn't really want to pin you down on what you think about custom user fees because, you know, it's just one example of what a pay-for could be. But I think Senator Lujan threw out there a very fair— very fair thing to, to think about. These are obligations, these are liabilities that the government owes. And so when we take a liability off the table, isn't that then a benefit? And so how we look at these things matters.

But that's why I think it is very important that we also not lose sight of the, of the human side of why it's important that we resolve settlement issues, because we can get caught up pretty easily in the weeds and forget the primary purpose, which is to ensure, as you say, Councilwoman, water is life, and how we're able to equitably balance and allocate that is a challenge that you all are dealing with, and we're right there with you. So with that, the committee stands adjourned. Thank you.