S-4368-119
Committee on Indian Affairs. Hearings held.
Sponsored by Alex Padilla (D-CA)
What it does
This bill would ratify a negotiated settlement agreement resolving long-running water rights litigation between the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Desert Water Agency in California. It would confirm a tribal water right of up to 20,000 acre-feet per year of groundwater with a priority date tied to the 1876-1877 executive orders establishing the reservation, establish a federal trust fund with $500 million in mandatory funding across four accounts, and set procedures for a permanent tribal possessory interest tax and various water-related fees, in exchange for the Tribe waiving related legal claims against the water districts and the United States.
Who benefits
The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and its members, tribal Allottees with land interests, and the Coachella Valley Water District and Desert Water Agency (which gain legal certainty and reimbursement for groundwater augmentation investments). Local governments and utilities benefit from resolved litigation risk; federal courts are relieved of prolonged litigation over the underlying claims.
Who is hurt
Riverside County and other local taxing entities may see revenue reallocation from the new tribal possessory interest tax preempting the county ad valorem tax. Non-tribal water users in the Indio Subbasin could face altered groundwater allocation priorities since the tribal right is declared "prior and paramount." Federal taxpayers bear the $500 million mandatory appropriation cost, and other water rights claimants in the region lose certain legal claims once waivers take effect.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this settlement resolves over a decade of costly litigation (dating to 2013) by providing certainty for both the Tribe and surrounding water agencies, consistent with the federal government's trust responsibility to Native American tribes. They contend that quantifying the Tribe's groundwater right and funding infrastructure investments prevents further protracted court battles that could produce less predictable outcomes for all parties, including the water districts and thousands of regional water users.
Opponents argue
Opponents could argue that granting the Tribe a "prior and paramount" water right exempt from state law and forfeiture rules sets a precedent that could constrain regional water management flexibility during future droughts, and that the $500 million mandatory appropriation, adjusted for cost fluctuations without a fixed ceiling, represents an open-ended federal financial commitment. They may also contend that preempting Riverside County's ad valorem tax on possessory interests shifts a real revenue burden onto other local taxing entities without their consent.