Posted by [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 03:12:05 -0700 (MST) From: "Chris Milda (_Akimel O`odham_)" Arizona kills water deal U.S. compromise sought end to San Carlos flap By Shaun McKinnon The Arizona Republic Dec. 3, 1999 http://www.azcentral.com/news/1203cap.shtml Arizona water officials once again rejected a compromise Thursday in a dispute with the federal government over a San Carlos Apache water settlement. After hearing details of the compromise from an Interior Department attorney, the Central Arizona Water Conservation District passed on the deal. The conservation district's 15-member elected board said the offer would cost Arizona taxpayers millions of dollars. The action means that disputes between the state and federal governments over who will pay for the Central Arizona Project Canal and how Indian water claims will be settled will persist for some time. Federal negotiators have reached an agreement with the San Carlos Apaches and several other parties. But because the pact involves water from the CAP Canal, the conservation district board also must approve the deal. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, a former Arizona governor who first announced the San Carlos settlement in March, wants a final agreement soon. But Arizona water managers say the federal government is trying to stick Arizona with the $77 million cost of the CAP water that would be used in the settlement. State officials want the value of that water deducted from what Arizona owes the federal government for building the CAP, the 336-mile canal that carries water from the Colorado River to Phoenix and Tucson. "This is the core principle we've drawn the line in the sand over," said board member Grady Gammage, a Phoenix attorney who has participated in most of the recent water negotiations. "When water moves, the cost moves. I can't get past that." The Interior Department insists Arizona has misinterpreted the CAP contract. Assistant U.S. Attorney John Stemplewicz, who represents Interior on CAP and Indian settlements, said the federal government isn't trying to saddle Arizona taxpayers with any extra costs. But he said the CAP board's position is inconsistent with the law and with all of the CAP contracts. He said that without the compromise offered Thursday, the only way to settle the dispute may be in court, where he believes the federal government will prevail. At the heart of the dispute is not the San Carlos settlement itself, which is purely a federal issue, but a long-simmering disagreement over how much of the canal's $4.7 billion price tag Arizona owes the federal government. The state sued the Bureau of Reclamation over the issue, arguing that Arizona taxpayers in Maricopa, Pima and Pinal counties, who are assessed a CAP-related property tax, should not be responsible for cost overruns caused by the federal government. Arizona also insists that if the federal government takes a larger share of the 1.5 million acre-feet of water the canal delivers each year, it should deduct the value of that water from Arizona's final bill. *** Shaun McKinnon can be reached at (602) 444-7116 or at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reprinted under the Fair Use http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html doctrine of international copyright law. <><<<<<>>>>><><<<<> Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit) http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/ <><<<<<>>>>><><<<<>
