Central Arizona Project (CAP), Arizona; Water Allocations, 50449-50452 [E6-14153]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 165 / Friday, August 25, 2006 / Notices
[FR Doc. E6–14085 Filed 8–24–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No FR–4743–N–08]
Notice of Planned Little Rock, AR Postof-Duty Station
AGENCY:
Office of the Inspector General,
HUD.
Notice of planned closing of the
Little Rock, Arkansas post-of-duty
station.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
ACTION:
SUMMARY: This notice advises the public
that HUD’s Office of the Inspector
General (HUD/OIG) plans to close its
Little Rock, Arkansas post-of-duty
station, and also provides a cost-benefit
analysis of the impact of this closure.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bryan Saddler, Counsel to the Inspector
General, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street,
SW., Room 8260, Washington, DC
20410–4500, (202) 708–1613 (this is not
a toll free number). A
telecommunications device for hearingand speech-impaired persons (TTY) is
available at 1–800–877–8339 (Federal
Information Relay Services).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1997,
HUD/OIG established a two-person
post-of-duty station in Little Rock,
Arkansas to give direct support to the
Operation Safe Home (OSH) initiative to
combat violent and drug related crime
in the public and assisted housing in the
city and nearby communities.
Nationwide experience since the
initiation of OSH in 1994 had proven
that the best results/impact could be
obtained when an HUD/OIG Special
Agent was physically located in the
target city. However, in accordance with
the requirements of the Fiscal Year 2002
HUD Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 107–
73, approved November 26, 2001),
HUD/OIG terminated OSH and began redeploying staff to focus on
investigations involving single-family
fraud and property flipping.
Following the termination of OSH,
HUD/OIG staff in Little Rock were
deployed to other activities. In January
2006, one of the two Little Rock special
agent retired. Later, in July 2006, the
sole remaining special agent transferred
to another agency, leaving the office
with no staff. It has been determined,
that backfilling the two special agent
positions is not viable due to current
hiring and financial constraints.
Section 7(p) of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development Act
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:57 Aug 24, 2006
Jkt 208001
(42 U.S.C. 3535(p)) provides that a plan
for field reorganization, which may
involve the closing of any HUD field or
regional office may not take effect until
90 days after a cost-benefit analysis of
the effect of the plan on the office in
question is published in the Federal
Register. The required cost-benefit
analysis should include: (1) An estimate
of cost savings anticipated; (2) an
estimate of the additional cost which
will result from the reorganization; (3) a
discussion of the impact on the local
economy; and (4) an estimate of the
effect of the reorganization on the
availability, accessibility, and quality of
services provided for recipients of those
services.
Legislative history pertaining to
section 7(p) indicates that not all
reorganizations are subject to the
requirements of section 7(p). Congress
stated that ‘‘[t]his amendment is not
intended to [apply] to or restrict the
internal operations or organization of
the Department (such as the
establishment of new or combination of
existing organization units within a
field office, the duty stationing of
employees in various locations to
provide on-site service, or the
establishment or closing, based on
workload, of small, informal offices
such as valuation stations).’’ (See House
Conference Report No. 95–1792,
October 14, 1978 at 58.) The dutystations in Little Rock, Arkansas is a
single purpose duty station, and it is
being closed based on workload rather
than a reorganization of HUD/OIG field
offices. Although notice of the closing of
a duty station is not subject to the
requirement of section 7(p), as
supported by legislative history, HUD/
OIG nevertheless prepared a cost benefit
analysis for its own use in determining
whether to proceed with the closing.
Through this notice, HUD/OIG advises
the public of the closing of the Little
Rock, Arkansas duty station and
provides the cost benefit analysis of the
impact of the closure.
Impact of the Closure of the Little Rock,
Arkansas Post-of-Duty Station
HUD/OIG considered the costs and
benefits of closing the Little Rock,
Arkansas post-of-duty station, and is
publishing its cost-benefit analysis with
this notice. In summary, HUD/OIG has
determined that the closures will result
in a cost savings, and, as a result of the
size and limited function of the office,
will cause no appreciable impact on the
provision of authorized investigative
services/activities in the area.
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50449
Cost-Benefit Analysis
A. Cost Savings: The post-of-duty
station currently costs approximately
$1,988.00 per month for space rental.
Additional associated overhead
expenses (e.g., telephone service) are
incurred to operate the post-of-duty
station. Thus, closing the office will
result in annual savings of at least
$25,356.00.
B. Additional Costs: It is anticipated
that cost savings partially will be offset
by travel costs associated with HUD/
OIG staff having to travel to Little Rock,
Arkansas for investigative purposes.
However, a net savings has been
forecast. Moreover, these travel costs
would be incurred by HUD/OIG anyway
prior to the recruitment of replacement
staff for the office to be closed.
C. Impact on Local Economy: No
appreciable impact on the local
economy is anticipated. The post-ofduty station is co-located with office
space leased by other federal agencies,
and it is anticipated that the space can
easily be re-leased to other tenants.
D. Effect on Availability, Accessibility
and Quality of Services Provided to
Recipients of Those Services: The
establishment of the office was based
entirely on the needs of the HUD/OIG to
have special agents in closer proximity
to OSH activities conducted in the Little
Rock, Arkansas area. These activities
have been terminated. Further, as was
the case prior to the establishment of
this office, special agents assigned to
other HUD/OIG offices can costeffectively address fraud investigations
in the area.
For the reasons stated in this notice,
HUD/OIG intends to proceed to close its
Little Rock, Arkansas post-of-duty
station at the expiration of the 90-day
period from the date of publication of
this notice.
Dated: August 16, 2006.
Kenneth M. Donohue, Sr.,
Inspector General.
[FR Doc. E6–14088 Filed 8–24–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
Central Arizona Project (CAP), Arizona;
Water Allocations
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice of Modification to the
Secretary of the Interior’s Record of
Decision, Publication of a Final
Decision of CAP Water Reallocation.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Department is rescinding
the February 5, 1992, CAP Water
E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM
25AUN1
50450
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 165 / Friday, August 25, 2006 / Notices
Reallocation Decision that modified the
March 24, 1983, CAP Water Allocation
Decision. The Department is publishing
a Final Decision of CAP Water
Reallocation in accordance with the
Arizona Water Settlements Act
(Settlements Act).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Randy Chandler, 623–773–6215 .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Previous Notices Related to CAP Water
II. Background of CAP Water Reallocations
I. Previous Notices Related to CAP
Water
Previous notices related to CAP water
were published in the Federal Register
(FR) at 37 FR 28082, December 20, 1972;
40 FR 17297, April 18, 1975; 41 FR
45883, October 18, 1976; 45 FR 52938,
August 8, 1980; 45 FR 81265, December
10, 1980; 48 FR 12446, March 24, 1983;
56 FR 28404, June 20, 1991; 56 FR
29704, June 28, 1991; 57 FR 4470,
February 5, 1992; 57 FR 48388, October
23, 1992; 65 FR 39177, June 23, 2000;
65 FR 43037, July 12, 2000; 67 FR
38514, June 4, 2002; 68 FR 36578, June
18, 2003; and 69 FR 9378, February 27,
2004. These notices and decisions were
made pursuant to the authority vested
in the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary) by the Reclamation Act of
1902, as amended and supplemented
(32 Stat. 388, 43 U.S.C. 391), the
Boulder Canyon Project Act of
December 21, 1928 (45 Stat 1057), the
Colorado River Basin Project Act of
September 30, 1968 (82 Stat. 885, 43
U.S.C. 1501), and in recognition of the
Secretary’s trust responsibility to Indian
tribes.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
II. Background of CAP Water
Allocations
In the Record of Decision published
in the Federal Register on March 24,
1983, the Secretary, among other things,
allocated CAP water for Indian uses,
non-Indian municipal and industrial
(M&I) uses, and the remaining amount
for non-Indian agricultural uses. Subject
to certain conditions, the CAP water for
Indian uses was allocated to 12 Indian
tribes for irrigation use or for
maintaining tribal homelands. Also
subject to certain conditions, the CAP
water for M&I uses was allocated based
on the State of Arizona’s 1982 allocation
recommendations for non-Indian
entities that provided an amount of CAP
water for M&I use to certain non-Indian
entities, with the remaining amount of
CAP water allocated for non-Indian
agricultural use.
The CAP non-Indian agricultural
water was allocated to 23 non-Indian
irrigation districts or other agricultural
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:57 Aug 24, 2006
Jkt 208001
entities. The CAP non-Indian
agricultural water was allocated to each
entity as a percentage of the non-Indian
agricultural water supply that was
available in any given year. Based on
the 1983 decision, CAP water service
contracts were executed with Indian
tribes, which are two-party agreements
between the United States and the
Indian tribe. CAP non-Indian M&I water
service subcontracts and CAP nonIndian agricultural water service
subcontracts were executed with those
entities desiring to enter into
subcontracts for CAP water. The CAP
water service subcontracts for the nonIndian M&I water and the non-Indian
agricultural water are three-party
subcontracts among the entity, the
Central Arizona Water Conservation
District (CAWCD), and the Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation). Some of the
entities that were allocated non-Indian
agricultural water and M&I priority
water elected to not contract for the
offered allocations. After completing the
initial subcontracting process, 29.3
percent of the non-Indian agricultural
supply and 65,647 acre-feet of M&I
water was not under contract.
Congress enacted the Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community Water
Rights Settlement Act of 1988 (102 Stat.
2558) (SRPMIC Act). Pursuant to section
11(h) of the SRPMIC Act, the Secretary
was required to request a reallocation
recommendation from the Arizona
Department of Water Resources (ADWR)
for the remaining non-Indian
agricultural water that was not under
contract. The Secretary was also
required to reallocate the uncontracted
CAP water for non-Indian agricultural
use and to offer new or amendatory
subcontracts for such water.
By letter dated January 7, 1991,
ADWR recommended an allocation to
the Secretary. The Secretary published a
notice in the Federal Register on June
20, 1991 (56 FR 28404), inviting public
comments on the proposed reallocation
of CAP water. After considering the
public comments, the Secretary
published a final decision in the
Federal Register on February 5, 1992
(57 FR 4470). That decision
contemplated that new or amendatory
CAP water service subcontracts would
be offered soon thereafter.
CAP water service subcontracts for
the reallocated water were not executed
for several reasons, including but not
limited to the following: (1) Some
entities could not meet the financial
feasibility requirements for receipt of
CAP water; (2) lack of agreement on the
form of the CAP water service
subcontract to offer the entities, and (3)
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
financial difficulties of the CAP nonIndian agricultural sector.
Beginning in the early 1990s, longterm utilization of the CAP water
available for reallocation under the 1992
decision and from the uncontracted M&I
water was a central issue in negotiations
to resolve various operational and
financial disputes between Reclamation
and CAWCD. After attempts at
negotiations failed, water contracting
issues were included in litigation and a
resulting stipulated settlement between
the United States and CAWCD. To
implement some of the conditions
contained in the stipulated settlement,
new Federal legislation was required.
After the 1992 decision but before
Federal legislation was enacted, the
Secretary published in the Federal
Register on June 4, 2002 (67 FR 38514),
a notice of proposed modification to the
1983 decision. The 1983 decision
provided that the M&I allocation can be
made more firm by execution of feasible
non-potable effluent exchanges with
Indian tribes and the M&I allocation was
subject to adoption of a pooling concept
whereby all M&I entities share in the
benefits of effluent exchanges. The
pooling concept provision was included
in the CAP M&I water service
subcontracts. The 2002 proposed
modification to the 1983 decision was to
delete the mandatory effluent pooling
provision in M&I subcontracts with the
cities of Chandler and Mesa and from
other M&I water service subcontracts
upon request. That provision in the CAP
M&I water service subcontracts was an
impediment to effluent exchanges and
effective water management in central
Arizona. The final decision was
published in the Federal Register on
June 18, 2003 (68 FR 36578), that
deleted the mandatory effluent pooling
provision, after review and
consideration of public comment.
On December 10, 2004, the
Settlements Act was enacted (Pub. L.
108–451). The Settlements Act provides,
among other things, for (1) A final
allocation of CAP water, with a CAP
supply permanently designated for
Indian uses and a CAP supply
designated for non-Indian M&I or nonIndian agricultural uses, (2) a
reallocation by the Secretary of 65,647
acre-feet of currently uncontracted CAP
M&I water to 20 specific M&I entities,
(3) ratification of the Arizona Water
Settlement Agreement (the ‘‘master
agreement’’) among the United States,
ADWR, and CAWCD, which provides a
statutory-based framework to enable the
CAP non-Indian agricultural districts to
relinquish existing rights to the delivery
of CAP non-Indian agricultural priority
water under their CAP water service
E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM
25AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 165 / Friday, August 25, 2006 / Notices
subcontracts, including their rights, if
any, to the reallocated water, and (4) a
reallocation of the relinquished and
uncontracted non-Indian agricultural
supply to various Arizona Indian tribes
and ADWR for future M&I use. The
Settlements Act provides, in section
111, that certain actions, including the
allocation decisions referenced herein
‘‘shall be void’’ if ‘‘the Secretary [of the
Interior] does not publish a statement of
findings under section 207(c) by
December 31, 2007.’’ The Settlements
Act also repeals section 11(h) of the
SRPMIC Act. To reallocate the CAP nonIndian agricultural water and the
uncontracted CAP M&I water in
accordance with the Settlements Act, it
is necessary to modify the 1983
decision, as amended and
supplemented, rescind the 1992
decision, and publish a final
reallocation decision.
Decision
The 1992 CAP Water Reallocation
Decision is rescinded as of the date of
this notice. The Final Decision of CAP
Water Reallocation, in accordance with
the Settlements Act that modifies the
1983 CAP Water Allocation Decision, as
amended and supplemented, follows.
Except as modified herein, the 1983
CAP Water Allocation Decision, as
amended and supplemented, shall
continue to be in full force and effect.
Final Reallocation Decision
This final reallocation decision is
effective as of the date of this notice
subject to section 111 of the Settlements
Act and is made to memorialize the
reallocation of CAP water in accordance
with the Settlements Act, as set forth
below:
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Reallocation to Arizona Indian Tribes
(A) I hereby reallocate 197,500 acrefeet of agricultural priority water per
year pursuant to section 104(a)(1)(A) of
the Settlements Act, made available
pursuant to the master agreement for
use by Arizona Indian tribes, of which
(i) 102,000 acre-feet per year is hereby
reallocated to the Gila River Indian
Community;
(ii) 28,200 acre-feet per year is hereby
reallocated to the Tohono O’odham
Nation; and
(iii) 67,300 acre-feet per year is hereby
retained for reallocation to Arizona
Indian tribes, subject to the following
conditions as specified in section
104(a)(1)(B) of the Settlements Act.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:57 Aug 24, 2006
Jkt 208001
(B) Conditions: The reallocation of
agricultural priority water made herein
pursuant to section 104(a)(1)(A)(iii) of
the Settlements Act shall be subject to
the conditions that
(1) Such water shall be used to resolve
Indian water claims in Arizona, and
may be allocated by the Secretary of the
Interior to Arizona Indian tribes in
fulfillment of future Arizona Indian
water rights settlement agreements
approved by an Act of Congress. In the
absence of an Arizona Indian water
rights settlement that is approved by an
Act of Congress after the date of
enactment of the Settlements Act, the
Secretary shall not allocate any such
water until December 31, 2030. Any
allocations made by the Secretary after
such date shall be accompanied by a
certification that the Secretary is making
the allocation in order to assist in the
resolution of an Arizona Indian water
right claim. Any such water allocated to
an Arizona Indian tribe pursuant to a
water delivery contract with the
Secretary under this clause shall be
counted on an acre-foot per acre-foot
basis against any claim to water for that
Tribe’s reservation.
(2) Notwithstanding clause 1 above
and in accordance with section
104(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Settlements Act, I
hereby retain 6,411 acre-feet of water
per year for use for a future water rights
settlement agreement approved by an
Act of Congress that settles the Navajo
Nation’s claims to water in the State of
Arizona. If Congress does not approve
this settlement before December 31,
2030, the 6,411 acre-feet of CAP water
shall be available to the Secretary of the
Interior under clause 1 above; and
(3) The agricultural priority water
shall not, without specific authorization
by Act of Congress, be leased,
exchanged, forborne, or otherwise
transferred by an Arizona Indian tribe
for any direct or indirect use outside the
reservation of the Arizona Indian tribe.
(C) In consultation with Arizona
Indian tribes and the State of Arizona,
the Secretary of the Interior shall
prepare a report for Congress by
December 31, 2016, that assesses
whether the potential benefits of section
104(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the Settlements Act
are being conveyed to Arizona Indian
tribes pursuant to water rights
settlements enacted subsequent to the
Settlements Act. For those Arizona
Indian tribes who have not yet settled
water rights claims, the report shall
describe whether any active
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50451
negotiations are taking place and
identify any critical water needs that
exist on the reservation of each such
Indian tribe. The report shall also
identify and report on the use of unused
quantities of agricultural priority water
made available to Arizona Indian tribes
under section 104(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the
Settlements Act.
2. Reallocation to ADWR
(A) I hereby reallocate up to 96,295
acre-feet of agricultural priority water
per year to ADWR, pursuant to section
104(a)(2)(A) of the Settlements Act and
subject to subparagraph 9.3 of the
master agreement, to be held under
contract in trust for further allocation
pursuant to section 104(a)(2)(C) of the
Settlements Act. Direct use of the
agricultural priority water by ADWR is
prohibited under the master agreement
and this notice.
(1) Further Allocation: In accordance
with section 104(a)(2)(C) of the
Settlements Act, before water may be
further allocated the Director of ADWR
shall submit to the Secretary of the
Interior a recommendation for
reallocation. As soon as practicable after
receiving the recommendation, the
Secretary shall carry out all of the
necessary reviews of the proposed
reallocation in accordance with
applicable Federal law. If the Director’s
recommendation is rejected, the
Secretary shall request a revised
recommendation from the Director of
ADWR and proceed with any reviews
required.
(B) The reallocation of agricultural
priority water to ADWR pursuant to
section 104(a)(2)(A) and section
104(a)(2)(C) of the Settlements Act is
subject to the master agreement,
including certain rights provided by the
master agreement to water users in Pinal
County, Arizona.
(C) The agricultural priority water
reallocated to the ADWR shall be
subject to the condition that the water
retain its non-Indian agricultural
delivery priority.
3. Reallocation of Uncontracted Central
Arizona Project M&I Priority Water, as
recommended by the Director of ADWR
(A) I hereby reallocate 65,647 acre-feet
of uncontracted M&I water per year to
the State of Arizona entities, pursuant to
section 104(2)(D)(b)(1) of the
Settlements Act, as shown in the
following Table 1—Uncontracted M&I
Water.
E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM
25AUN1
50452
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 165 / Friday, August 25, 2006 / Notices
TABLE 1.—UNCONTRACTED M&I WATER
Amount
in acrefeet per
year
State of Arizona entity
State of Arizona entity
Amount
in acrefeet per
year
Town of Superior ...................................................................
Cave Creek Water Company ................................................
Chaparral Water Company ...................................................
Town of El Mirage .................................................................
City of Goodyear ...................................................................
H2O Water Company ............................................................
City of Mesa ..........................................................................
City of Peoria .........................................................................
City of Scottsdale ..................................................................
AVRA Cooperative ................................................................
285
806
1,931
508
7,211
147
7,115
5,527
2,981
808
City of Chandler ...................................................................
Del Lago (Vail) Water Company .........................................
City of Glendale ...................................................................
Community Water Company of Green Valley .....................
Metropolitan Domestic Water Improvement District ............
Town of Oro Valley ..............................................................
City of Phoenix ....................................................................
City of Surprise ....................................................................
City of Tucson ......................................................................
Valley Utilities Water Company ...........................................
4,986
1,071
3,053
1,521
4,602
3,557
8,206
2,876
8,206
250
Total Water Reallocated ................................................
................
..............................................................................................
65,647
4. Contracting for Reallocated Water
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
(A) I hereby direct the Commissioner
of Reclamation, through his Regional
Director, Lower Colorado Region,
Boulder City, Nevada to proceed, in
accordance with the Settlements Act,
with offering to enter into contracts,
amendments to contracts, subcontracts,
or amendments to subcontracts for the
delivery of the agricultural priority
water to the Arizona Indian tribes as
described in this notice, the agricultural
priority water to ADWR as described in
this notice and in accordance with the
master agreement, and the uncontracted
M&I water to entities as described in
Table 1 of this notice.
(B) If the Secretary is precluded under
applicable Federal law from entering
into a subcontract with an entity
identified in Table 1 of this notice, then
the Secretary shall request a revised
recommendation from the Director of
ADWR and reallocate and enter into a
subcontract for the delivery of water in
accordance with section 104(b)(2)(B) of
the Settlements Act and section 4 (A) of
this notice.
Bureau of Land Management
Effective Date: This Final
Reallocation Decision is effective as of
the date of this notice and is revocable
under the applicable provisions of the
Settlements Act. In the event that a
statement of findings is not published in
the Federal Register by December 31,
2007, as required by section 207(c) of
the Settlements Act, this Final
Reallocation Decision and all decisions
made herein will, be void and
automatically revoked as of January 1,
2008, and shall have no force or effect
as of that date.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
DATES:
Dated: August 22, 2006.
Dirk Kempthorne,
Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. E6–14153 Filed 8–24–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:47 Aug 24, 2006
Jkt 208001
[AK–964–1410-HY–P; F–14898–A, F–14898–
A2]
Alaska Native Claims Selection
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of decision approving
lands for conveyance.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR
2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that an
appealable decision approving lands for
conveyance pursuant to the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act will be
issued to Azachorok Incorporated. The
lands are in the vicinity of the Native
village of Mountain Village, Alaska, and
are located in:
U.S. Survey No. 4055, Alaska.
Containing 0.23 acres.
Seward Meridian, Alaska
T. 21 N., R. 80 W.
Secs. 4 to 9, inclusive;
Secs. 15 to 36, inclusive.
Containing 16,339.41 acres.
T. 24 N., 80 W.
Sec. 33.
Containing 192.82 acres.
T. 21 N., 81 W.
Secs. 1 to 36, inclusive.
Containing 20,163.79 acres.
T. 23 N., 81 W.
Secs. 1, 2, and 3;
Secs. 10 to 15, inclusive;
Secs. 21 to 28, inclusive;
Secs. 35 and 36.
Containing 10,191.18 acres.
Aggregating 46,887.43 acres.
Kara Marciniec,
Land Law Examiner, Branch of Adjudication
II.
[FR Doc. E6–14091 Filed 8–24–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–$$–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[AK–910–06–1610–DQ–086L]
The subsurface estate in these lands
will be conveyed to Calista Corporation
when the surface estate is conveyed to
Azachorok Incorporated. Notice of the
decision will also be published four
times in the Tundra Drums.
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The time limits for filing an
appeal are:
1. Any party claiming a property
interest which is adversely affected by
the decision shall have until 30 days
after publication in the Federal Register
to file an appeal.
2. Parties receiving service of the
decision by certified mail shall have 30
days from the date of receipt to file an
appeal.
Parties who do not file an appeal in
accordance with the requirements of 43
CFR Part 4, Subpart E, shall be deemed
to have waived their rights.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may
be obtained from: Bureau of Land
Management, Alaska State Office, 222
West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage,
Alaska 99513–7599.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: The
Bureau of Land Management by phone
at 907–271–5960, or by e-mail at
ak.blm.conveyance@ak.blm.gov. Persons
who use a telecommunication device
(TTD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–
8330, 24 hours a day, seven days a
week, to contact the Bureau of Land
Management.
DATES:
Notice of Availability of the Ring of Fire
Proposed Resource Management Plan
and Final Environmental Impact
Statement
Anchorage Field Office, Bureau
of Land Management, Interior.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM
25AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 165 (Friday, August 25, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50449-50452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-14153]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
Central Arizona Project (CAP), Arizona; Water Allocations
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Modification to the Secretary of the Interior's
Record of Decision, Publication of a Final Decision of CAP Water
Reallocation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department is rescinding the February 5, 1992, CAP Water
[[Page 50450]]
Reallocation Decision that modified the March 24, 1983, CAP Water
Allocation Decision. The Department is publishing a Final Decision of
CAP Water Reallocation in accordance with the Arizona Water Settlements
Act (Settlements Act).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Chandler, 623-773-6215 .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Previous Notices Related to CAP Water
II. Background of CAP Water Reallocations
I. Previous Notices Related to CAP Water
Previous notices related to CAP water were published in the Federal
Register (FR) at 37 FR 28082, December 20, 1972; 40 FR 17297, April 18,
1975; 41 FR 45883, October 18, 1976; 45 FR 52938, August 8, 1980; 45 FR
81265, December 10, 1980; 48 FR 12446, March 24, 1983; 56 FR 28404,
June 20, 1991; 56 FR 29704, June 28, 1991; 57 FR 4470, February 5,
1992; 57 FR 48388, October 23, 1992; 65 FR 39177, June 23, 2000; 65 FR
43037, July 12, 2000; 67 FR 38514, June 4, 2002; 68 FR 36578, June 18,
2003; and 69 FR 9378, February 27, 2004. These notices and decisions
were made pursuant to the authority vested in the Secretary of the
Interior (Secretary) by the Reclamation Act of 1902, as amended and
supplemented (32 Stat. 388, 43 U.S.C. 391), the Boulder Canyon Project
Act of December 21, 1928 (45 Stat 1057), the Colorado River Basin
Project Act of September 30, 1968 (82 Stat. 885, 43 U.S.C. 1501), and
in recognition of the Secretary's trust responsibility to Indian
tribes.
II. Background of CAP Water Allocations
In the Record of Decision published in the Federal Register on
March 24, 1983, the Secretary, among other things, allocated CAP water
for Indian uses, non-Indian municipal and industrial (M&I) uses, and
the remaining amount for non-Indian agricultural uses. Subject to
certain conditions, the CAP water for Indian uses was allocated to 12
Indian tribes for irrigation use or for maintaining tribal homelands.
Also subject to certain conditions, the CAP water for M&I uses was
allocated based on the State of Arizona's 1982 allocation
recommendations for non-Indian entities that provided an amount of CAP
water for M&I use to certain non-Indian entities, with the remaining
amount of CAP water allocated for non-Indian agricultural use.
The CAP non-Indian agricultural water was allocated to 23 non-
Indian irrigation districts or other agricultural entities. The CAP
non-Indian agricultural water was allocated to each entity as a
percentage of the non-Indian agricultural water supply that was
available in any given year. Based on the 1983 decision, CAP water
service contracts were executed with Indian tribes, which are two-party
agreements between the United States and the Indian tribe. CAP non-
Indian M&I water service subcontracts and CAP non-Indian agricultural
water service subcontracts were executed with those entities desiring
to enter into subcontracts for CAP water. The CAP water service
subcontracts for the non-Indian M&I water and the non-Indian
agricultural water are three-party subcontracts among the entity, the
Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD), and the Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation). Some of the entities that were allocated
non-Indian agricultural water and M&I priority water elected to not
contract for the offered allocations. After completing the initial
subcontracting process, 29.3 percent of the non-Indian agricultural
supply and 65,647 acre-feet of M&I water was not under contract.
Congress enacted the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 2558) (SRPMIC Act).
Pursuant to section 11(h) of the SRPMIC Act, the Secretary was required
to request a reallocation recommendation from the Arizona Department of
Water Resources (ADWR) for the remaining non-Indian agricultural water
that was not under contract. The Secretary was also required to
reallocate the uncontracted CAP water for non-Indian agricultural use
and to offer new or amendatory subcontracts for such water.
By letter dated January 7, 1991, ADWR recommended an allocation to
the Secretary. The Secretary published a notice in the Federal Register
on June 20, 1991 (56 FR 28404), inviting public comments on the
proposed reallocation of CAP water. After considering the public
comments, the Secretary published a final decision in the Federal
Register on February 5, 1992 (57 FR 4470). That decision contemplated
that new or amendatory CAP water service subcontracts would be offered
soon thereafter.
CAP water service subcontracts for the reallocated water were not
executed for several reasons, including but not limited to the
following: (1) Some entities could not meet the financial feasibility
requirements for receipt of CAP water; (2) lack of agreement on the
form of the CAP water service subcontract to offer the entities, and
(3) financial difficulties of the CAP non-Indian agricultural sector.
Beginning in the early 1990s, long-term utilization of the CAP
water available for reallocation under the 1992 decision and from the
uncontracted M&I water was a central issue in negotiations to resolve
various operational and financial disputes between Reclamation and
CAWCD. After attempts at negotiations failed, water contracting issues
were included in litigation and a resulting stipulated settlement
between the United States and CAWCD. To implement some of the
conditions contained in the stipulated settlement, new Federal
legislation was required.
After the 1992 decision but before Federal legislation was enacted,
the Secretary published in the Federal Register on June 4, 2002 (67 FR
38514), a notice of proposed modification to the 1983 decision. The
1983 decision provided that the M&I allocation can be made more firm by
execution of feasible non-potable effluent exchanges with Indian tribes
and the M&I allocation was subject to adoption of a pooling concept
whereby all M&I entities share in the benefits of effluent exchanges.
The pooling concept provision was included in the CAP M&I water service
subcontracts. The 2002 proposed modification to the 1983 decision was
to delete the mandatory effluent pooling provision in M&I subcontracts
with the cities of Chandler and Mesa and from other M&I water service
subcontracts upon request. That provision in the CAP M&I water service
subcontracts was an impediment to effluent exchanges and effective
water management in central Arizona. The final decision was published
in the Federal Register on June 18, 2003 (68 FR 36578), that deleted
the mandatory effluent pooling provision, after review and
consideration of public comment.
On December 10, 2004, the Settlements Act was enacted (Pub. L. 108-
451). The Settlements Act provides, among other things, for (1) A final
allocation of CAP water, with a CAP supply permanently designated for
Indian uses and a CAP supply designated for non-Indian M&I or non-
Indian agricultural uses, (2) a reallocation by the Secretary of 65,647
acre-feet of currently uncontracted CAP M&I water to 20 specific M&I
entities, (3) ratification of the Arizona Water Settlement Agreement
(the ``master agreement'') among the United States, ADWR, and CAWCD,
which provides a statutory-based framework to enable the CAP non-Indian
agricultural districts to relinquish existing rights to the delivery of
CAP non-Indian agricultural priority water under their CAP water
service
[[Page 50451]]
subcontracts, including their rights, if any, to the reallocated water,
and (4) a reallocation of the relinquished and uncontracted non-Indian
agricultural supply to various Arizona Indian tribes and ADWR for
future M&I use. The Settlements Act provides, in section 111, that
certain actions, including the allocation decisions referenced herein
``shall be void'' if ``the Secretary [of the Interior] does not publish
a statement of findings under section 207(c) by December 31, 2007.''
The Settlements Act also repeals section 11(h) of the SRPMIC Act. To
reallocate the CAP non-Indian agricultural water and the uncontracted
CAP M&I water in accordance with the Settlements Act, it is necessary
to modify the 1983 decision, as amended and supplemented, rescind the
1992 decision, and publish a final reallocation decision.
Decision
The 1992 CAP Water Reallocation Decision is rescinded as of the
date of this notice. The Final Decision of CAP Water Reallocation, in
accordance with the Settlements Act that modifies the 1983 CAP Water
Allocation Decision, as amended and supplemented, follows. Except as
modified herein, the 1983 CAP Water Allocation Decision, as amended and
supplemented, shall continue to be in full force and effect.
Final Reallocation Decision
This final reallocation decision is effective as of the date of
this notice subject to section 111 of the Settlements Act and is made
to memorialize the reallocation of CAP water in accordance with the
Settlements Act, as set forth below:
Reallocation to Arizona Indian Tribes
(A) I hereby reallocate 197,500 acre-feet of agricultural priority
water per year pursuant to section 104(a)(1)(A) of the Settlements Act,
made available pursuant to the master agreement for use by Arizona
Indian tribes, of which
(i) 102,000 acre-feet per year is hereby reallocated to the Gila
River Indian Community;
(ii) 28,200 acre-feet per year is hereby reallocated to the Tohono
O'odham Nation; and
(iii) 67,300 acre-feet per year is hereby retained for reallocation
to Arizona Indian tribes, subject to the following conditions as
specified in section 104(a)(1)(B) of the Settlements Act.
(B) Conditions: The reallocation of agricultural priority water
made herein pursuant to section 104(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the Settlements
Act shall be subject to the conditions that
(1) Such water shall be used to resolve Indian water claims in
Arizona, and may be allocated by the Secretary of the Interior to
Arizona Indian tribes in fulfillment of future Arizona Indian water
rights settlement agreements approved by an Act of Congress. In the
absence of an Arizona Indian water rights settlement that is approved
by an Act of Congress after the date of enactment of the Settlements
Act, the Secretary shall not allocate any such water until December 31,
2030. Any allocations made by the Secretary after such date shall be
accompanied by a certification that the Secretary is making the
allocation in order to assist in the resolution of an Arizona Indian
water right claim. Any such water allocated to an Arizona Indian tribe
pursuant to a water delivery contract with the Secretary under this
clause shall be counted on an acre-foot per acre-foot basis against any
claim to water for that Tribe's reservation.
(2) Notwithstanding clause 1 above and in accordance with section
104(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Settlements Act, I hereby retain 6,411 acre-
feet of water per year for use for a future water rights settlement
agreement approved by an Act of Congress that settles the Navajo
Nation's claims to water in the State of Arizona. If Congress does not
approve this settlement before December 31, 2030, the 6,411 acre-feet
of CAP water shall be available to the Secretary of the Interior under
clause 1 above; and
(3) The agricultural priority water shall not, without specific
authorization by Act of Congress, be leased, exchanged, forborne, or
otherwise transferred by an Arizona Indian tribe for any direct or
indirect use outside the reservation of the Arizona Indian tribe.
(C) In consultation with Arizona Indian tribes and the State of
Arizona, the Secretary of the Interior shall prepare a report for
Congress by December 31, 2016, that assesses whether the potential
benefits of section 104(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the Settlements Act are being
conveyed to Arizona Indian tribes pursuant to water rights settlements
enacted subsequent to the Settlements Act. For those Arizona Indian
tribes who have not yet settled water rights claims, the report shall
describe whether any active negotiations are taking place and identify
any critical water needs that exist on the reservation of each such
Indian tribe. The report shall also identify and report on the use of
unused quantities of agricultural priority water made available to
Arizona Indian tribes under section 104(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the
Settlements Act.
2. Reallocation to ADWR
(A) I hereby reallocate up to 96,295 acre-feet of agricultural
priority water per year to ADWR, pursuant to section 104(a)(2)(A) of
the Settlements Act and subject to subparagraph 9.3 of the master
agreement, to be held under contract in trust for further allocation
pursuant to section 104(a)(2)(C) of the Settlements Act. Direct use of
the agricultural priority water by ADWR is prohibited under the master
agreement and this notice.
(1) Further Allocation: In accordance with section 104(a)(2)(C) of
the Settlements Act, before water may be further allocated the Director
of ADWR shall submit to the Secretary of the Interior a recommendation
for reallocation. As soon as practicable after receiving the
recommendation, the Secretary shall carry out all of the necessary
reviews of the proposed reallocation in accordance with applicable
Federal law. If the Director's recommendation is rejected, the
Secretary shall request a revised recommendation from the Director of
ADWR and proceed with any reviews required.
(B) The reallocation of agricultural priority water to ADWR
pursuant to section 104(a)(2)(A) and section 104(a)(2)(C) of the
Settlements Act is subject to the master agreement, including certain
rights provided by the master agreement to water users in Pinal County,
Arizona.
(C) The agricultural priority water reallocated to the ADWR shall
be subject to the condition that the water retain its non-Indian
agricultural delivery priority.
3. Reallocation of Uncontracted Central Arizona Project M&I Priority
Water, as recommended by the Director of ADWR
(A) I hereby reallocate 65,647 acre-feet of uncontracted M&I water
per year to the State of Arizona entities, pursuant to section
104(2)(D)(b)(1) of the Settlements Act, as shown in the following Table
1--Uncontracted M&I Water.
[[Page 50452]]
Table 1.--Uncontracted M&I Water
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount in Amount in
State of Arizona entity acre-feet State of Arizona acre-feet
per year entity per year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town of Superior............ 285 City of Chandler.... 4,986
Cave Creek Water Company.... 806 Del Lago (Vail) 1,071
Water Company.
Chaparral Water Company..... 1,931 City of Glendale.... 3,053
Town of El Mirage........... 508 Community Water 1,521
Company of Green
Valley.
City of Goodyear............ 7,211 Metropolitan 4,602
Domestic Water
Improvement
District.
H2O Water Company........... 147 Town of Oro Valley.. 3,557
City of Mesa................ 7,115 City of Phoenix..... 8,206
City of Peoria.............. 5,527 City of Surprise.... 2,876
City of Scottsdale.......... 2,981 City of Tucson...... 8,206
AVRA Cooperative............ 808 Valley Utilities 250
Water Company.
--------------------------------
Total Water Reallocated. ......... .................... 65,647
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Contracting for Reallocated Water
(A) I hereby direct the Commissioner of Reclamation, through his
Regional Director, Lower Colorado Region, Boulder City, Nevada to
proceed, in accordance with the Settlements Act, with offering to enter
into contracts, amendments to contracts, subcontracts, or amendments to
subcontracts for the delivery of the agricultural priority water to the
Arizona Indian tribes as described in this notice, the agricultural
priority water to ADWR as described in this notice and in accordance
with the master agreement, and the uncontracted M&I water to entities
as described in Table 1 of this notice.
(B) If the Secretary is precluded under applicable Federal law from
entering into a subcontract with an entity identified in Table 1 of
this notice, then the Secretary shall request a revised recommendation
from the Director of ADWR and reallocate and enter into a subcontract
for the delivery of water in accordance with section 104(b)(2)(B) of
the Settlements Act and section 4 (A) of this notice.
DATES: Effective Date: This Final Reallocation Decision is effective as
of the date of this notice and is revocable under the applicable
provisions of the Settlements Act. In the event that a statement of
findings is not published in the Federal Register by December 31, 2007,
as required by section 207(c) of the Settlements Act, this Final
Reallocation Decision and all decisions made herein will, be void and
automatically revoked as of January 1, 2008, and shall have no force or
effect as of that date.
Dated: August 22, 2006.
Dirk Kempthorne,
Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. E6-14153 Filed 8-24-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P
