S-4368-119
Committee on Indian Affairs. Hearings held.
Sponsored by Alex Padilla (D-CA)
What it does
This bill would ratify a settlement agreement resolving decades of litigation over the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians' groundwater rights in the Indio Subbasin. It confirms a tribal water right of up to 20,000 acre-feet per year with priority dating to 1876-77, authorizes $500 million in mandatory federal appropriations into a settlement trust fund, exempts the tribal water right from state regulation and local replenishment fees, and authorizes tribal taxing and fee authority over water use and possessory interests on the reservation.
Who benefits
The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and its members, who gain a legally confirmed, non-forfeitable water right and $500 million in federal funding for water infrastructure; individual Allottees with land interests on the reservation; the Coachella Valley Water District and Desert Water Agency, which gain legal certainty and reimbursement for groundwater augmentation investments; and Riverside County, which retains ad valorem tax authority other jurisdictions lose.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers who fund the $500 million settlement; other local taxing entities in Riverside County that would lose revenue from the preempted possessory interest tax previously distributed among them; non-tribal water users and property owners in the Indio Subbasin who may face altered fee structures or reduced groundwater allocations as the tribal right takes priority; and the Water Districts, which lose the ability to impose replenishment assessment charges on the tribal water right.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this settlement finally resolves over a decade of costly federal litigation (beginning in 2013) by confirming water rights the Tribe holds under treaty and executive-order-era reservation boundaries, consistent with the federal government's trust obligations to tribes. They contend the $500 million investment in shared groundwater infrastructure benefits the entire Indio Subbasin, including non-tribal water users, by funding augmentation projects that would not otherwise be built, while providing legal certainty that avoids years of further litigation costs for all parties.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue the settlement's $500 million cost, funded through mandatory appropriations rather than the normal budget process, sets a precedent that other tribes may cite in seeking comparably large settlements regardless of the individual merits of their claims. They contend that preempting local water fees and property tax distributions for other Riverside County taxing entities imposes real costs on non-tribal residents and public services that had relied on that revenue, without those entities having a seat in the settlement negotiations.
Constitutional context
Congress's plenary authority over Indian affairs and its trust responsibility to tribes, rooted in the Indian Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) and long-recognized federal common law of reserved water rights under Winters v. United States (1908), govern this settlement; the bill's exemption of the tribal water right from state law also implicates federal preemption doctrine.
Checks and balances
Congress ratifies the negotiated settlement and appropriates funds, the Secretary of the Interior implements and enforces it administratively, and a federal district court (the Decree Court) retains judicial oversight through the final decree, providing a check on executive implementation.
Historical precedent
Congress has enacted numerous similar Indian water rights settlement acts for other tribes, such as the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act and various Arizona and New Mexico tribal water settlements, following the reserved-rights doctrine established in Winters v. United States (1908).