[Federal Register: April 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 76)]
[Notices]
[Page 19950-19955]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20ap07-98]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Rate Adjustments for Indian Irrigation Projects
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Rate Adjustments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) owns, or has an interest
in, irrigation facilities located on various Indian reservations
throughout the United States. We are authorized to establish rates to
recover the costs to administer, operate, maintain, and rehabilitate
those facilities. We are notifying you that we have adjusted the
irrigation assessment rates at several of our irrigation facilities for
operation and maintenance.
DATES: Effective Date: The irrigation assessment rates shown in the
tables are effective on January 1, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For details about a particular BIA
irrigation project, please use the tables in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section to contact the regional or local office where the project is
located.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice of Proposed Rate Adjustment was
published in the Federal Register on November 24, 2006 (71 FR 67897),
to adjust the irrigation rates at several BIA irrigation facilities.
The public and interested parties were provided an opportunity to
submit written comments during the 60-day period prior to January 23,
2007.
Did the BIA defer any proposed rate increases?
For the Uintah Indian Irrigation Project, the BIA, in consultation
with the tribes and Irrigation Project water users, has deferred the
rate increase for 2007.
For the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project, the BIA, in
consultation with the tribes and Irrigation Project water users, has
deferred the rate increase for 2008.
Did the BIA receive any comments on the proposed irrigation assessment
rate adjustments?
Written comments were received for the proposed rate adjustments
for the Blackfeet Irrigation Project, Montana, Fort Peck Irrigation
Project, Montana, Fort Belknap Irrigation Project, Montana, the
Flathead Irrigation Project, Montana, the San Carlos Irrigation
Project--Joint Works (SCIP-JW), Arizona, Walker River Irrigation
Project, Nevada, and the Wind River Irrigation Project, Wyoming.
What issues were of concern by the commenters?
The commenters were concerned with one or more of the following
issues: (1) How funds collected from stakeholders are expended on
operation and maintenance (O&M); (2) the impact of an assessment rate
increase on the local agricultural economy and on individual land
owners and irrigators; (3) BIA O&M subsidies for trust land; (4)
drainage of water from farm lands and on farm improvements; (5) non-
delivery of water to water users with outstanding O&M charges. The
following comments are specific to the Walker River Irrigation Project,
Nevada: (1) Safety of dams project which will shorten water delivery
time; (2) breach of trust issues; and (3) whether the rate increase
violates federal law. The following comments are specific to the San
Carlos Irrigation Project--Joint Works: (1) The amount of project
reserve funds, income, and expenditures; and (2) the timeliness of the
rate adjustment notice.
How does BIA respond to the concern of how funds are expended for O&M?
BIA includes the following expenses in irrigation project budgets:
Project personnel costs; materials and supplies; vehicle and equipment
repairs; equipment; capitalization expenses; acquisition expenses;
rehabilitation costs; maintenance of a reserve fund for contingencies
or emergencies; and other expenses we determine necessary to properly
operate and maintain the irrigation projects.
One common misconception water users have is that all salary costs
are administrative. Only a portion of each project budget is for
administrative costs. The administrative costs include the office
costs, office staff (accounting and clerical), and a portion of the
project manager's salary. The O&M workers are considered O&M costs for
operating and maintaining the project.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) completed an audit
report (GAO-06-314) in February 2006. In that report, the GAO
recommended that the BIA require project managers to meet at least
twice annually with water users. On July 21, 2006, the Director, BIA,
directed each BIA revenue-generating irrigation project to meet, at a
minimum, twice annually with its water users--once at the end of the
irrigation season and once before the next season. For projects that
operate year round, those projects will determine their best schedule
for holding these meetings. At these meetings, the irrigation staff
will
[[Page 19951]]
provide to the waters users information on project operations,
including budget plans and actual annual expenditures, and will obtain
feedback and input from the water users.
The BIA's budget estimates and records of expenditures for all of
its irrigation facilities are public records and available for review
by stakeholders or interested parties. Stakeholders (project water
users/land owners/tribes) can review these records during normal
business hours at the individual agency offices.
Alternatively, BIA may treat requests to review project records as
requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and provide copies
of such records to the requesting party in accordance with FOIA. To
review or to obtain copies of these records, stakeholders, and
interested parties are directed to contact the BIA representative at
the specific facility serving them, using the tables in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
How does BIA respond to concerns about irrigation O&M assessment rate
increase and related impact on the local agricultural economy and on
individual land owners and irrigators?
All of the BIA's irrigation projects are important economic
contributors to the local communities they serve, contributing millions
in crop value annually. Historically, BIA tempered irrigation rate
increases based in part on the economic impact on water users. This
tempering of rate increases has resulted in a rate deficiency at most
of the irrigation projects.
Over the past several years, the BIA's irrigation program has been
the subject of several Office of Inspector General (OIG) and GAO
audits. In the most recent OIG audit, No. 96-I-641, March 1996, the OIG
concluded, ``Operation and maintenance revenues were insufficient to
maintain the projects, and some projects had deteriorated to the extent
that their continued capability to deliver water was in doubt. This
occurred because operation and maintenance rates were not based on the
full cost of delivering water, including the costs of systematically
rehabilitating and replacing project facilities and equipment, and
because project personnel did not seek regular rate increases to cover
the full cost of operation.'' A previous OIG audit, No. 88-42, February
1988, reached the same conclusion. A separate audit, No. 95-I-1402,
September 1995, performed on one of BIA's largest irrigation projects,
Wapato Indian Irrigation Project, reinforced the general findings of
the OIG on the BIA's irrigation program. This audit pointed out a lack
of response by the BIA to the original findings of the OIG in
addressing this critical issue over an extended period of time.
The BIA must systematically review and evaluate irrigation
assessment rates and adjust them, when necessary, to reflect the full
costs to properly operate, and perform all appropriate maintenance on
the irrigation facility infrastructure for safe and reliable operation.
If this review and evaluation are not accomplished, a rate deficiency
can eventually accumulate. Overcoming rate deficiencies can result in
the BIA having to raise irrigation assessment rates in larger
increments and over shorter time frames than would have been otherwise
necessary.
How does the BIA respond to removing O&M subsidies for trust land?
In the past, BIA has provided limited appropriated funds to
irrigation projects to assist the projects in their operations and
maintenance and, at a few projects, subsidized the O&M costs for trust
lands. Unfortunately, the BIA does not have sufficient discretionary
funding to continue this practice in the future. Without the necessary
rate increases, the impact to projects as a result of the lack of
adequate O&M funds could result in the inability to deliver water and
maintain irrigation system components adequately.
How does BIA respond to concerns about drainage of water off farm lands
and on-farm improvements?
The BIA is responsible for the O&M of the irrigation delivery
system and is not responsible for on-farm activities. In 25 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 171.8, Surface Drainage, it states
that the water users are responsible for surface drainage resulting
from their irrigation practices.
How does BIA respond to concerns about non-delivery of water to water
users with outstanding O&M charges?
The BIA's irrigation O&M regulations, 25 CFR 171.17, require
payment of annual O&M assessments before irrigation water may be
delivered. This requirement includes delinquent payments and balances
that have been referred to the Department of the Treasury pursuant to
the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 and Federal debt collection
standards at 31 CFR Part 901.
The Following comments Are Specific to Walker River Irrigation Project,
Nevada
The Walker River Paiute Tribe (Tribe) objects to the proposed O&M
rate increase from $7.32 to $10.00 per acre because: (1) Weber Dam and
Reservoir are subject to interim operating criteria for safety of dams
reasons, which require the operation of the Reservoir at lower
elevations than are normal, and the water users thereby receive a
reduced amount of stored water; (2) BIA failed to justify the increased
O&M rate; (3) it is a breach of trust duty for the BIA to increase the
O&M rate; and (4) the rate increase violates Federal law.
How does the BIA respond to objections that raising the O&M rates when
the safety of dams project may shorten water delivery time and that the
BIA failed to justify the rate increase?
Weber Dam Operations--In CY 2007, water supply shortages are more
likely to be caused by the below average snowfall and precipitation in
the basin (less than 40 percent of normal this year according to the
National Resources Conservation Service) than by the interim operating
criteria at Weber Dam. The Tribe and the BIA have worked closely in CY
2007 to manage the safety of dams repair activities in a way to
minimize inconvenience to the water users in the Project. The BIA's O&M
costs to operate the Project in 2007 remain the same regardless of the
available water supply in the system.
BIA's O&M Budget Justification--BIA provided a detailed O&M budget
justification to the Project water users on May 23, 2006, and the O&M
budget justification was discussed with the Project water users again
on September 28, 2006. The budget justification shows that the
increased O&M rate proposed for 2007 still does not cover all of BIA's
costs for O&M of the Project and does not include funds to maintain a
reserve fund or to pay for deferred maintenance costs.
How does the BIA respond to comments regarding breaching its trust
duty?
The BIA disagrees that increasing O&M rates for Indian irrigation
projects violates any trust duty to Indian tribes. The BIA, pursuant to
25 U.S.C. 381 et seq. and 25 CFR part 171, has responsibilities to
administer constructed Indian irrigation projects, set rates, collect
assessments, and make decisions regarding water delivery on BIA
irrigation projects. The BIA must collect O&M assessments in order to
operate and maintain the irrigation infrastructure. Over time, costs of
[[Page 19952]]
operating and maintaining the projects increase, and rates must be
adjusted accordingly to enable the BIA to continue to provide
irrigation services. This is particularly true because O&M rates are
the only regular source of funding for the BIA's irrigation projects.
Contrary to the assertion of the commenter, there is no fiduciary
obligation for the Department's O&M of irrigation projects. See, e.g.,
Grey v. United States, 21 Cl. Ct. 285 (1990), aff'd, 935 F.2d 281 (Fed.
Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1057 (1992).
How does the BIA respond to the rate increase that violates federal
law?
The Tribe stated that ``* * * 25 U.S.C. Section 385 states that
costs incurred by the BIA may be reimbursed by farmers only if the
farmers have adequate funds to repay the Government.'' This statement
misconstrues 25 U.S.C. 385. The Secretary's authorization to set O&M
charges is not subject to a determination of an individual's ability to
pay. The provision quoted from 25 U.S.C. 385 refers only to repayment
of construction costs. 25 U.S.C. 385 codifies several separate
provisions taken from the Act of August 14, 1914, Pub. L. 63-160, 38
Stat. 582, 583. In addition to authorizing the Secretary to set and
assess O&M rates on irrigation projects, the 1914 Act also appropriated
a lump sum of money to use for construction of irrigation projects. The
second provision of 25 U.S.C. 385, regarding reimbursement of
construction costs where Indians have the ability to pay, only applies
to the construction money appropriated in the 1914 Act and does not
relate to the Secretary's O&M rate-setting authority.
The following comment is specific to San Carlos Irrigation
Project--Joint Works (SCIP-JW).
How does BIA respond to concerns regarding how funds collected from
stakeholders are expended on O&M; the amount of project reserve funds,
income and expenditures; and the timeliness of the rate adjustment
notice?
By letter dated January 22, 2007, an Attorney for the San Carlos
Irrigation and Drainage District (District) submitted comments on the
proposed 2008 budget and O&M rate for the San Carlos Irrigation Project
(Project). On August 8, 2006, the District filed a Complaint in the
United States Court of Federal Claims (Case No. 06-576C). The Complaint
raises most of the same factual and legal issues the District raised in
its comments about the Project's proposed O&M rate and budget for 2008.
Because Federal court litigation is pending concerning most of the
issues raised in the District's comments on the proposed 2008 O&M rate
and budget, specific responses to these issues will not be discussed
here.
As noted in the District's comments, on or before December 31,
2007, the Project and the District will learn whether the provisions of
the Arizona Water Settlement Act (Settlement Act) are deemed effective,
which will then trigger the timelines for establishment of the Joint
Works Board under the Settlement Act. This process will require the
Project and the affected water users to clarify and evaluate future O&M
rates, activities and costs, and responsibilities as required by the
Settlement Act and implementing agreements.
Did the BIA receive comments on any proposed changes other than rate
adjustments?
No.
Does this notice affect me?
This notice affects you if you own or lease land within the
assessable acreage of one of our irrigation projects or if you have a
carriage agreement with one of our irrigation projects.
Where can I get information on the regulatory and legal citations in
this notice?
You can contact the appropriate office(s) stated in the tables for
the irrigation project that serves you, or you can use the Internet
site for the Government Printing Office at http://www.gpo.gov.
What authorizes BIA to issue this notice?
Our authority to issue this notice is vested in the Secretary of
the Interior by 5 U.S.C. 301 and the Act of August 14, 1914 (38 Stat.
583; 25 U.S.C. 385). The Secretary has in turn delegated this authority
to the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs under Part 209, Chapter
8.1A, of the Department of the Interior's Departmental Manual.
Who can I contact for further information?
The following tables are the regional and project/agency contacts
for our irrigation facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project name Project/agency contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Region Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Speaks, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Northwest
Regional Office, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4169,
Telephone: (503) 231-6702
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flathead Irrigation Project....... Ernest T. Moran, Superintendent,
Flathead Agency Irrigation
Division, P.O. Box 40, Pablo, MT
59855-0040, Telephone: (406) 675-
2700.
Fort Hall Irrigation Project...... Eric J. LaPointe, Superintendent,
Alan Oliver, Supervisory General
Engineer, Fort Hall Agency, P.O.
Box 220, Fort Hall, ID 83203-0220,
Telephone: (208) 238-2301.
Wapato Irrigation Project......... Pierce Harrison, Project
Administrator, Wapato Irrigation
Project, P.O. Box 220, Wapato, WA
98951-0220, Telephone: (509) 877-
3155.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rocky Mountain Region Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Parisian, Acting Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Rocky
Mountain Regional Office, 316 North 26th Street, Billings, Montana
59101, Telephone: (406) 247-7943.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackfeet Irrigation Project...... Stephen Pollock, Superintendent, Ted
Hall, Irrigation Project Manager,
Box 880, Browning, MT 59417,
Telephones: (406) 338-7544,
Superintendent, (406) 338-7519,
Irrigation Project Manager.
Crow Irrigation Project........... Ed Lone Fight, Superintendent, Karl
Helvik, Irrigation Project Manager,
P.O. Box 69, Crow Agency, MT 59022,
Telephones: (406) 638-2672,
Superintendent, (406) 638-2863,
Irrigation Project Manager.
Fort Belknap Irrigation Project... Judy Gray, Superintendent, Ralph
Leo, Irrigation Project Manager,
R.R.1, Box 980, Harlem, MT 59526,
Telephones: (406) 353-2901,
Superintendent, (406) 353-2905,
Irrigation Project Manager.
[[Page 19953]]
Fort Peck Irrigation Project...... Vacant, Superintendent, P.O. Box
637, Poplar, MT 59255, Vacant,
Irrigation Manager 602 6th Avenue
North, Wolf Point, MT 59201,
Telephones: (406) 768-5312,
Superintendent, (406) 653-1752,
Irrigation Manager.
Wind River Irrigation Project..... George Gover, Superintendent, Ray
Nation, Acting Irrigation Project
Manager, P.O. Box 158, Fort
Washakie, WY 82514, Telephones:
(307) 332-7810, Superintendent,
(307) 332-2596, Irrigation Project
Manager.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Region Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Morrin, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Southwest
Regional Office, 1001 Indian School Road, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104,
Telephone: (505) 563-3100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pine River Irrigation Project..... Ross P. Denny, Superintendent, John
Formea, Irrigation Engineer, P.O.
Box 315, Ignacio, CO, 81137-0315,
Telephones: (970) 563-4511,
Superintendent, (970) 563-1017,
Irrigation Engineer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Region Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Anspach Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western
Regional Office, Two Arizona Center 400 N. 5th Street, 12th floor,
Phoenix, Arizona 85004, Telephone: (602) 379-6600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado River Irrigation Project. Perry Baker, Superintendent, Ted
Henry, Irrigation Project Manager,
R.R. 1 Box 9-C, Parker, AZ 85344,
Telephone: (928) 669-7111.
Duck Valley Irrigation Project.... Robert Hunter, Acting
Superintendent, 1555 Shoshone
Circle, Elko, NV 89801, Telephone:
(775) 738-0569.
Fort Yuma Irrigation Project...... Sam Rideshorse, Superintendent P.O.
Box 11000, Yuma, AZ 85366,
Telephone: (520) 782-1202.
San Carlos Irrigation Project Carl Christensen, Supervisory
Joint Works. General Engineer, P.O. Box 250,
Coolidge, AZ 85228, Telephone:
(520) 723-6216.
San Carlos Irrigation Project Joe Revak, Supervisory General
Indian Works. Engineer, Pima Agency, Land
Operations, Box 8, Sacaton, AZ,
85247, Telephone: (520) 562-3372.
Uintah Irrigation Project......... Lynn Hansen, Irrigation Manager,
P.O. Box 130, Fort Duchesne, UT
84026, Telephone: (435) 722-4341.
Walker River Irrigation Project... Robert Hunter, Superintendent, 311
E. Washington Street, Carson City,
NV 89701, Telephone: (775) 887-
3500.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What irrigation assessments or charges are proposed for adjustment by
this notice?
The rate table below contains the 2007 final rates for all of our
irrigation projects where we recover our costs for operation and
maintenance. The table also contains the proposed and final rates for
the 2008 season and subsequent years where applicable. An asterisk
immediately following the name of the project notes the irrigation
projects where rates are have been adjusted.
Northwest Region Rate Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final 2006 Final 2007
Project name Rate category rate rate Final 2008 rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flathead Irrigation Project....... Basic Per acre--A... $21.45 $23.45 $23.45.
Basic Per acre--B... 10.75 10.75 10.75.
Minimum Charge per 65.00 65.00 65.00.
tract.
Fort Hall Irrigation Project*..... Basic Per acre...... 24.00 27.00 To be determined.
Minimum Chare per 25.00 25.00
tract.
Fort Hall Irrigation Project-- Basic Per acre...... 15.00 17.00
Minor Units*. Minimum Charge per 25.00 25.00
tract.
Fort Hall Irrigation Project-- Basic Per acre...... 34.00 35.75
Michaud*. Pressure Per acre... 48.50 50.00
Minimum Charge per 25.00 25.00
tract.
Wapato Irrigation Project-- Billing Charge Per 5.00 5.00
Toppenish/Simcoe Units*. Tract. 13.50 14.00
Farm unit/land
tracts up to one
acre (minimum
charge).
Farm unit/land 13.50 14.00
tracts up to one
acre--per acre.
Wapato Irrigation Project--Ahtanum Billing Charge Per 5.00 5.00
Units*. Tract. 13.50 14.00
Farm unit/land
tracts up to one
acre (minimum
charge).
Farm unit/land 13.50 14.00
tracts up to one
acre.
Wapato Irrigation Project--Satus Billing Charge Per 5.00 5.00
Unit*. Tract. 53.00 55.00
Farm unit/land
tracts up to one
acre (minimum
charge).
``A'' farm unit/land 53.00 55.00
tracts over one
acre--per acre.
Additional Works 58.00 60.00
farm unit/land
tracts over one
acre--per acre.
[[Page 19954]]
``B'' farm unit/land 63.00 65.00
tracts over one
acre--per acre.
Water Rental 64.50 67.00
Agreement Lands--
per acre.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rocky Mountain Region Rate Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final 2006 Final 2007
Project name Rate category rate rate Final 2008 rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackfeet Irrigation Project*..... Basic-per acre...... 13.00 15.50 To be determined.
Crow Irrigation Project--Willow * Basic-per acre...... 17.30 19.30
Creek O&M (includes Agency, Lodge
Grass 1, Lodge Grass
2, Reno, Upper Little
Horn, and Forty Mile Units).
Crow Irrigation * Project--All Basic-per acre...... 17.00 19.00
Others (includes Bighorn, Soap
Creek, and Pryor Units).
Crow Irrigation Two Leggins Basic-per acre...... 2.00 2.00
Drainage District.
Fort Belknap * Irrigation Project. Trust Land per acre. 8.50 13.88 20.00.
non-Trust Land per 17.00 18.50 20.00.
acre.
Fort Peck Irrigation Project*..... Basic-per acre...... 17.50 20.00 To be determined.
Wind River Irrigation Project*.... Basic-per acre...... 14.00 15.00
Wind River Irrigation Project-- Basic-per acre...... 17.00 17.00
LeClair District.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Region Rate Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final 2006 Final 2007
Project name Rate category rate rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pine River Irrigation Minimum Charge $50.00 $50.00
Project*. per tract. 13.00 150.00
Basic-per acre.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Region Rate Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final 2006 Final 2007 Proposed 2008 Proposed 2009
Project name Rate category rate rate rate rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado River Irrigation Basic per acre up $47.00 $47.00 To be determined. To be
Project. to 5.75 acre- 17.00 17.00 determined.
feet.
Excess Water per
acre-foot over
5.75 acre-feet.
Duck Valley Irrigation Project Basic-per acre... 5.30 5.30
Fort Yuma Irrigation Project Basic-per acre up 65.00 72.00
(See Note 1)*. to 5.0 acre-feet. 10.50 10.50
Excess Water per
acre-foot over
5.0 acre-feet.
San Carlos Irrigation Project Basic-per acre... 30.00 30.00 $21.00 Final 2008 $21.00. Final
(Joint Works)* (See Note Rate. 2009 Rate.
2).
San Carlos Irrigation Project Basic-per acre... 77.00 77.00 To be determined. To be
(Indian Works). determined.
Uintah Irrigation Project..... Basic-per acre... 12.00 12.00
Minimum Bill..... 12.00 25.00
Walker River Irrigation Indian per acre.. 7.32 10.00 13.00............ $16.00.
Project*.
Non-Indian per 15.29 16.00 16.00............ $16.00.
acre.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Notes irrigation projects where rates are have been adjusted.
Note 1--The O&M rate for the Fort Yuma Irrigation Project has two components. The first component is
the O&M rate established by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the owner and operator of the Project. The BOR
rate for 2007 has been established at $65 which is an increase from the $62 rate in 2006. The second component
is for the O&M rate established by BIA to cover administrative costs, including billing and collections for
the Project. Through this notice, the BIA is establishing a $7/acre O&M rate for its component of the rate.
The BIA rate assessment would cover approximately 50 percent of the accounting technician and 40 percent of
the Natural Resource Officer at the BIA Fort Yuma Agency.
Note 2--The 2008 and 2009 irrigation rates are final through this notice. The 2007 rate was established
by final notice published in the Federal Register on April 5, 2006 (Vol. 71, No. 65, page 17131).
Consultation and Coordination With Tribal Governments (Executive Order
13175)
The BIA irrigation projects are vital components of the local
agriculture economy of the reservations on which they are located. To
fulfill its responsibilities to the tribes, tribal organizations, water
user organizations, and the individual water users, the BIA
communicates, coordinates, and consults on a continuing basis with
these entities on issues of water delivery, water availability, and
costs of administration, operation, maintenance,
[[Page 19955]]
and rehabilitation. This is accomplished at the individual irrigation
projects by Project, Agency, and Regional representatives, as
appropriate, in accordance with local protocol and procedures. This
notice is one component of the BIA's overall coordination and
consultation process to provide notice and request comments from these
entities on adjusting our irrigation rates.
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (Executive Order 13211)
The rate adjustments will have no adverse effects on energy supply,
distribution, or use (including a shortfall in supply, price increases,
and increase use of foreign supplies) should the proposed rate
adjustments be implemented. This is a notice for rate adjustments at
BIA-owned and operated irrigation projects, except for the Fort Yuma
Irrigation Project. The Fort Yuma Irrigation Project is owned and
operated by the Bureau of Reclamation with a portion serving the Fort
Yuma Reservation.
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)
These rate adjustments are not a significant regulatory action and
do not need to be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rate making is not a rule for the purposes of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act because it is ``a rule of particular applicability
relating to rates.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
These rate adjustments impose no unfunded mandates on any
governmental or private entity and are in compliance with the
provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995.
Takings (Executive Order 12630)
The Department has determined that these rate adjustments do not
have significant ``takings'' implications. The rate adjustments do not
deprive the public, State, or local governments of rights or property.
Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
The Department has determined that these rate adjustments do not
have significant Federalism effects because they pertain to Federal-
tribal relations and will not interfere with the roles, rights, and
responsibilities of States.
Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
These rate adjustments do not affect the collections of information
which have been approved by the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995. The OMB Control Number is 1076-0141 and expires August 31,
2009.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Department has determined that these rate adjustments do not
constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-
4370(d)).
Dated: April 12, 2007.
Carl J. Artman,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. E7-7558 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-W7-P
