Indian Issues
Spokane Tribe's Additional Compensation Claim for the Grand Coulee Dam Gao ID: GAO-04-125T October 2, 2003The Grand Coulee Dam was constructed on the Columbia River in northeastern Washington State from 1933 to 1942. The reservoir behind the dam covers land on the Colville Reservation along the Columbia River and land on the adjacent Spokane Reservation along both the Columbia and Spokane rivers. Under a 1940 act, the federal government paid $63,000 and $4,700 to the Colville and Spokane tribes, respectively, for the land used for the dam and reservoir. Subsequently, the Colville tribes pursued additional claims for their lost fisheries and for "water power values" and in 1994 were awarded a lump sum payment of $53 million and, beginning in 1996, annual payments that have ranged between $14 million to $21 million. The Spokane tribe is currently pursuing similar claims. S. 1438, introduced in July 2003, is a proposed legislative settlement for the Spokane tribe's claims. While settlement proposals introduced in the 106th and 107th Congresses directed the settlement costs to be split between Bonneville and the Treasury, S. 1438 provides that the settlement be paid entirely from the Treasury. This statement for the record addresses the (1) impact of a settlement on Bonneville if the costs were split between Bonneville and the Treasury and (2) possible allocation of these costs between Bonneville and the Treasury.
A settlement with the Spokane tribe along the lines provided to the Colville tribes would likely necessitate a small increase in Bonneville's rates for power. While the rate increase would amount to less than 20 cents per month per household, it comes at a time when (1) Bonneville's customers have already absorbed rate increases, including those announced on October 1, 2003, of over 40 percent and (2) the economy of the northwestern region, Bonneville's primary service area, is experiencing difficulties. However, the bulk of Bonneville's obligations in any settlement similar to the Colville settlement will occur in the future, when the conditions causing Bonneville's current financial difficulties--such as costly long-term contracts to purchase power from other suppliers--will probably have abated. Therefore, Bonneville's current financial difficulties should not unduly influence current discussions about how to compensate the Spokane tribe. A reasonable case can be made to settle the Spokane tribe's case along the lines of the Colville settlement--a one-time payment from the U.S. Treasury for past lost payments for water power values and annual payments primarily from Bonneville. Bonneville continues to earn revenues from the Spokane Reservation lands used to generate hydropower. However, unlike the Colville tribes, the Spokane tribe does not benefit from these revenues. Spokane does not benefit because it missed its filing opportunity before the Indian Claims Commission. At that time, it was pursuing other avenues to win payments for the value of its land for hydropower. These efforts would ultimately fail. Without congressional action, it seems unlikely that a settlement for the Spokane tribe will occur.
GAO-04-125T, Indian Issues: Spokane Tribe's Additional Compensation Claim for the Grand Coulee Dam
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-125T
entitled 'Indian Issues: Spokane Tribe's Additional Compensation Claim
for the Grand Coulee Dam' which was released on October 02, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Committee on Indian Affairs, U.S. Senate:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT:
Thursday, October 2, 2003:
Indian Issues:
Spokane Tribe's Additional Compensation Claim for the Grand Coulee Dam:
Statement for the Record by Robert A. Robinson, Managing Director,
Natural Resources and Environment:
Spokane Tribe's Compensation Claim:
GAO-04-125T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-125T, a statement for the record for the
Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Grand Coulee Dam was constructed on the Columbia River in
northeastern Washington State from 1933 to 1942. The reservoir behind
the dam covers land on the Colville Reservation along the Columbia
River and land on the adjacent Spokane Reservation along both the
Columbia and Spokane rivers. Under a 1940 act, the federal government
paid $63,000 and $4,700 to the Colville and Spokane tribes,
respectively, for the land used for the dam and reservoir.
Subsequently, the Colville tribes pursued additional claims for their
lost fisheries and for ’water power values“ and in 1994 were awarded a
lump sum payment of $53 million and, beginning in 1996, annual
payments that have ranged between $14 million to $21 million. The
Spokane tribe is currently pursuing similar claims.
S. 1438, introduced in July 2003, is a proposed legislative settlement
for the Spokane tribe‘s claims. While settlement proposals introduced
in the 106th and 107th Congresses directed the settlement costs to be
split between Bonneville and the Treasury, S. 1438 provides that the
settlement be paid entirely from the Treasury.
This statement for the record addresses the (1) impact of a settlement
on Bonneville if the costs were split between Bonneville and the
Treasury and (2) possible allocation of these costs between Bonneville
and the Treasury.
What GAO Found:
A settlement with the Spokane tribe along the lines provided to the
Colville tribes would likely necessitate a small increase in
Bonneville‘s rates for power. While the rate increase would amount to
less than 20 cents per month per household, it comes at a time when
(1) Bonneville‘s customers have already absorbed rate increases,
including those announced on October 1, 2003, of over 40 percent and
(2) the economy of the northwestern region, Bonneville‘s primary
service area, is experiencing difficulties. However, the bulk of
Bonneville‘s obligations in any settlement similar to the Colville
settlement will occur in the future, when the conditions causing
Bonneville‘s current financial difficulties”such as costly long-term
contracts to purchase power from other suppliers”will probably have
abated. Therefore, Bonneville‘s‘ current financial difficulties should
not unduly influence current discussions about how to compensate the
Spokane tribe.
A reasonable case can be made to settle the Spokane tribe‘s case along
the lines of the Colville settlement”a one-time payment from the U.S.
Treasury for past lost payments for water power values and annual
payments primarily from Bonneville. Bonneville continues to earn
revenues from the Spokane Reservation lands used to generate
hydropower. However, unlike the Colville tribes, the Spokane tribe
does not benefit from these revenues. Spokane does not benefit because
it missed its filing opportunity before the Indian Claims Commission.
At that time, it was pursuing other avenues to win payments for the
value of its land for hydropower. These efforts would ultimately fail.
Without congressional action, it seems unlikely that a settlement for
the Spokane tribe will occur.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-125T.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click
on the link above. For more information, contact Robert A. Robinson at
(202) 512-9894 or robinsonr@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
We are pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the Spokane
tribe's additional compensation claim for the Grand Coulee Dam and the
proposed legislative settlement, S. 1438. As you know, the Grand Coulee
Dam was constructed on the Columbia River in northeastern Washington
State from 1933 to 1942. When finished, the 550-foot high dam was the
largest concrete dam in the world. It is still the largest
hydroelectric facility in the United States. The Franklin D. Roosevelt
Reservoir, which was created behind the dam, extends over 130 miles up
the Columbia River and about 30 miles east along the Spokane River. The
reservoir covers land on the Colville Reservation along the Columbia
River and land on the adjacent Spokane Reservation along both the
Columbia and Spokane rivers. Under a 1940 act, the federal government
paid $63,000 and $4,700 to the Colville and Spokane tribes,
respectively, for the land used for the dam and reservoir.[Footnote 1]
Subsequently, the Colville tribes pursued additional claims for their
lost fisheries and for "water power values" (i.e., a share of the
hydropower revenues generated by the dam from the use of their lands)
before the Indian Claims Commission. The Colville tribes' fisheries
claim was settled in 1978 for about $3.3 million. Under a 1994 act--the
Confederated tribes of the Colville Reservation Grand Coulee Dam
Settlement Act (P.L. 103-436, Nov. 2, 1994)--the Colville tribes were
awarded a lump sum payment of $53 million for lost hydropower revenues
and, beginning in 1996, annual payments that have ranged between $14
million and $21 million for their water power values claim.[Footnote 2]
The lump sum payment was made from the U.S. Treasury, and the cost of
the annual payments is shared between the Bonneville Power
Administration (Bonneville), which markets the power generated at the
dam, and Treasury.
The Spokane tribe is currently pursuing similar claims. S. 1438,
introduced in July 2003, is a proposed legislative settlement for the
Spokane tribe's claims. While settlement proposals introduced in the
106th and 107th Congresses directed the settlement costs to be split
between Bonneville and the U.S. Treasury, S. 1438 provides that the
settlement be paid entirely out of the U.S. Treasury.[Footnote 3] In
this context, you asked us to address the (1) impact of a settlement on
Bonneville if the costs were split between Bonneville and the U.S.
Treasury and (2) possible allocation of settlement costs between
Bonneville and the U.S. Treasury. To meet these objectives, we relied
on information developed for a preliminary GAO report to the
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, House Committee on
Appropriations;[Footnote 4] interviewed officials at Bonneville and
representatives of the Spokane tribe; and reviewed numerous documents
on the Colville and Spokane tribes' claims for additional compensation.
Our work for the Appropriations Subcommittee on Bonneville's financial
condition is continuing. We plan to issue our final report in June
2004. Also, as you know, we are continuing our review of Bonneville's
obligations for tribal fish and wildlife programs for this Committee.
See appendix I for a more detailed description of how we estimated the
impact of a settlement on Bonneville. We performed our work in
September 2003, according to generally accepted government auditing
standards. We provided a a draft of this statement to Bonneville for
comment but did not receive a response in time to include in this
statement.
In summary, we found the following:
* A settlement with the Spokane tribe along the lines provided to the
Colville tribes would likely necessitate a small increase in
Bonneville's rates for power. While the rate increase would amount to
less than 20 cents per month per household, it comes at a time when
Bonneville's customers have already absorbed rate increases, including
those announced on October 1, 2003, of over 40 percent and when the
region's economy is experiencing difficulties. However, the bulk of
Bonneville's obligations in any settlement similar to the Colville
settlement will occur in the future, when the conditions causing
Bonneville's current financial difficulties will probably have abated.
Therefore, Bonneville's current financial difficulties should not
unduly influence current discussions about how to compensate the
Spokane tribe.
* A reasonable case can be made to settle the Spokane tribe's case
along the lines of the Colville settlement--a one-time payment from the
U.S. Treasury for past lost payments for water power values and annual
payments primarily from Bonneville. Bonneville continues to earn
revenues from the Spokane Reservation lands used to generate
hydropower. However, unlike the Colville tribes, the Spokane tribe does
not benefit from these revenues. The Spokane tribe does not benefit
because it missed its filing opportunity before the Indian Claims
Commission. At that time it was pursuing other avenues to win payments
for the value of its land for hydropower. These efforts would
ultimately fail. Without congressional action, it seems unlikely that a
settlement for the Spokane tribe will occur.
Background:
The Colville and Spokane Indian reservations were established in 1872
and 1877, respectively, on land that was later included in the state of
Washington. The Colville Reservation, of approximately 1.4 million
acres, was created on July 2, 1872, through an executive order issued
by President Grant. The Spokane Reservation, of approximately 155,000
acres, was created by an agreement between agents of the federal
government and certain Spokane chiefs on August 18, 1877. President
Hayes' executive order of January 18, 1881, confirmed the 1877
agreement. In 2001, the Colville and Spokane tribes had enrolled
populations of 8,842 and 2,305, respectively.
The Indian Claim Commission was created on August 13, 1946, to
adjudicate Indian claims, including "claims based upon fair and
honorable dealings that are not recognized by any existing rule of law
or equity."[Footnote 5] Under section 12 of the act that created the
Commission, all claims had to be filed within 5 years. Ultimately 370
petitions, which were eventually separated into 617 dockets, were filed
with the Commission. The great majority of the claims were land claims.
Settlements awards were paid out of the U.S. Treasury.
The Colville tribes filed a number of claims with the Indian Claims
Commission within the 5-year window--on July 31, August 1, and August
8, 1951. Their fisheries claim and water power values claim became part
of Indian Claims Commission Docket No. 181, which was originally filed
on July 31, 1951. The original petition for Docket No. 181 included
broad language seeking damages for unlawful trespass on reservation
lands and for compensation or other benefits from the use of the
tribes' land and other property. The tribes' original petition did not
specifically mention the Grand Coulee Dam. In 1956, Docket No. 181 was
divided into four separate claims. The tribes' fisheries claim became
part of Docket No. 181-C. In November 1976, over 25 years after the
original filing of Docket No. 181, the Indian Claims Commission allowed
the Colville tribes to file an amended petition seeking just and
equitable compensation for the water power values of certain riverbed
and upstream lands that had been taken by the United States as part of
the Grand Coulee Dam development. This amended water power value claim
was designated as Docket No. 181-D, and it was settled in 1994 by
Public Law 103-436.
The Spokane tribe filed one claim with the Indian Claims Commission,
Docket No. 331, on August 10, 1951, just days before the August 13,
1951, deadline. The claim sought additional compensation for land ceded
to the United States by an agreement of March 18, 1887. Furthermore,
the Spokane tribe asserted a general accounting claim. These two claims
were separated into Docket No. 331 for the land claim and Docket No.
331-A for the accounting claim. Both claims were jointly settled in
1967 for $6.7 million. That is, the Spokane tribe settled all of its
claims before the Indian Claims Commission almost 10 years before the
Colville tribes were allowed to amend their claim to include a water
power values claim. In doing so, the Spokane tribe missed its
opportunity to make a legal claim with the Indian Claims Commission for
its water power values as well as its fisheries. At that time, the
Spokane tribe, as well as the Colville tribes, were pursuing other
avenues for compensation of water power values.
The Bonneville Power Administration was formed in 1937 to market
electric power produced by the Bonneville Dam.[Footnote 6] Bonneville's
marketing responsibilities have expanded since then to include power
from 31 federally owned hydroelectric projects, including the Grand
Coulee Dam. Under the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and
Conservation Act of 1980 (Northwest Power Act), Bonneville is
responsible for providing the Pacific Northwest with an adequate,
efficient, economical, and reliable power supply.[Footnote 7]
Bonneville currently provides about 45 percent of all electric power
consumed in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington and owns about 75
percent of the region's transmission lines.
Bonneville Would Have to Recover Settlement Costs from Ratepayers, but
Magnitude of Rate Increase Would Be Small:
A settlement requiring Bonneville to pay the Spokane tribe would add to
its costs of operation, and it therefore would probably pass these
costs to Bonneville's customers in the form of higher rates for power.
Bonneville is a self-financing agency, which means that it must cover
its costs through the revenue generated by selling power and
transmission services. Bonneville typically sets its rates for 5-year
periods in order to generate enough revenue to cover the costs of
operating the federal power system and to make its debt payments.
Assuming that the settlement with the Spokane tribe is similar in
nature to the settlement with the Colville tribe in 1994, the impact on
Bonneville's rates would be small. Under the settlement with the
Colville tribe, Bonneville has made annual payments since 1996 that
have ranged from about $14 million to $21 million. Currently,
Bonneville estimates that it will pay about $17 million per year over
the next 5 years.[Footnote 8] In its negotiations with Bonneville, the
Spokane tribe has asked for about 40 percent of the Colville tribe's
settlement, which would amount to about $7 million annually from
Bonneville. Bonneville uses a rule of thumb to determine rate
increases: between $40 million and $50 million in additional annual
costs will lead to a rate increase of 1/10th of a cent per kilowatt
hour (kWh). Using this rule, we estimate that a settlement with Spokane
that is equivalent to 40 percent of the Colville settlement would lead
to an increase in rates of less than 20 cents per month per household
for a typical household relying solely on power from Bonneville, or a
0.5 percent increase in rates over current levels.[Footnote 9]
Although the magnitude of the rate increase necessary to fund a
settlement with the Spokane tribe would be small, it comes at a time
when Bonneville's customers have recently faced large rate increases.
From 2000 through early 2003, Bonneville experienced a substantial
deterioration in its financial condition because of rising costs and
lower-than-projected revenues. As a result, Bonneville's cash reserves
of $811 million at the end of fiscal year 2000 had fallen to $188
million by the end of fiscal year 2002. To cope with its financial
difficulties, Bonneville raised its power rates for 2002 by more than
40 percent over 2001 levels. On October 1, 2003, Bonneville raised its
rates a further 2.2 percent. Despite Bonneville's current financial
difficulties, Bonneville predicts the conditions that led to the
financial problems--namely, consecutive years of low water conditions,
extreme market price volatility, and long-term contracts Bonneville
signed to buy power from other suppliers at a high cost, which are due
to expire in 2006--will abate. Therefore, because the bulk of
Bonneville's obligations in any settlement similar to the Colville
settlement will occur in the future, Bonneville's current financial
difficulties should not unduly influence current discussions about how
to compensate the Spokane tribe.
A Reasonable Case Can Be Made for Adopting the Colville Model in
Allocating Any Costs Associated with a Settlement for the Spokane
Tribe:
A reasonable case can be made for having Bonneville and the U.S.
Treasury allocate any costs for the Spokane tribe's claims along the
lines agreed to for the Colville tribes. Any settlement would attempt
to re-institute a commitment the federal government made to the tribes
in the 1930s. Under the Federal Water Power Act of 1920, licenses for
the development of privately owned hydropower projects should include a
"reasonable annual charge" for the use of Indian lands.[Footnote 10]
Originally, the Grand Coulee site was licensed, and the Spokane tribe
expected to receive annual payments for its lands used for the project.
However, the license was cancelled when the federal government took
over the project (federalized the project). Since the federal
government is not subject to the Federal Water Power Act, it was not
required to make annual payments to the tribes. Nevertheless, the
federal government made a commitment in the 1930s to make annual
payments to the Colville and Spokane tribes as if the project had
remained a nonfederal project. However, the federal government did not
follow through on this commitment after the project was completed and
started generating revenues from electricity sales in the 1940s. In
pursuing this matter, the tribes weathered various administrations and
changes in the federal government's Indian policy. In the 1950s and
1960s, the federal government actively sought to terminate its
relationship with a number of tribes, including the Spokane tribe.
In the early 1970s, when it became clear that the federal government
was not going to make these payments, the Colville tribes were able to
amend their claim with the Indian Claims Commission to pursue this
matter. After agreeing to the overall legitimacy of the Colville
tribes' claims, the Congress ultimately approved a settlement that
primarily required Bonneville to provide annual payments for water
power values. This settlement was a compromise to split the costs
between Bonneville and the U.S. Treasury. Bonneville is primarily
paying the recurring annual payments, and the U.S. Treasury's Judgment
Fund provided the one-time lump sum payment in settlement of the past
annual payments--$53 million.[Footnote 11] The Spokane tribe, however,
had already settled its claim years earlier and therefore could not
file an amended claim with the commission. Nevertheless, since
Bonneville collects the annual revenues for the electricity generated
by the dam, it could be argued that Bonneville should make annual
payments to the Spokane tribe out of those revenues, as it does for the
Colville tribes; the U.S. Treasury would then pay a lump sum to settle
any claims for past years. The current House settlement proposal, H.R.
1753, and previous House and Senate settlement proposals introduced in
the 106th and 107th Congresses directed the settlement costs to be
split between Bonneville and the U.S. Treasury.
It could also be argued that the U.S. Treasury should pay the Spokane
tribe's claim, as it does for most claim settlements against the
federal government. S. 1438 provides for the settlement of the tribe's
claim from the U.S. Treasury. However, we do not believe a compelling
case can be made to have the nation's taxpayers fully absorb an
additional cost of doing business associated with Bonneville's
production of power in one region of the country.
In conclusion, since the Spokane tribe missed its opportunity to file
claims with the Indian Claims Commission for its fisheries and water
power values, it is unlikely that the tribe's claims and any associated
settlement or final resolution will move forward in any meaningful way
without some form of congressional intervention. If the Congress is
satisfied with the merits of the tribe's claims, settlement
legislation, such as the current House and Senate bills, could be used
as a method to resolve the tribe's claims. A reasonable case can be
made for adopting the model established in the Colville settlement to
allocate the settlement costs between Bonneville and the U.S. Treasury.
Another option would be to enact legislation providing for some form of
dispute resolution, such as mediation or binding arbitration. If the
Congress has any doubts about the merits of the claim, it could enact
legislation to allow the tribe to file its claim in the U.S. Federal
Court of Claims.[Footnote 12] The merits of the claims could then be
decided in court. Such an action was discussed in 1994 when the
Colville settlement was reached.
Contacts and Acknowledgments:
For further information, please contact Robert A. Robinson on (202)
512-3841. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony
included Jill Berman, Brad Dobbins, Samantha Gross, Jason Holliday,
Jeffery Malcolm, Frank Rusco, Rebecca Sandulli, and Carol Herrnstadt
Shulman.
[End of section]
Appendix I: Methodology for Estimating the Impact of a Settlement on the
Bonneville Power Administration:
Because a settlement has not yet been negotiated, we used the terms of
the Colville settlement to estimate the potential effect of the Spokane
settlement on electricity rates in the Pacific Northwest. Assumptions
used in this calculation are designed to provide a conservative (high-
end) estimate of the impact of the settlement on Bonneville's rate
payers. For planning purposes, Bonneville estimates that payments to
the Colville tribes total $17 million annually.[Footnote 13] The
Spokane tribe is requesting as much as 40 percent of the Colville
settlement, or approximately $7 million annually. To estimate the
impact of increasing costs on power rates, Bonneville uses a rule of
thumb that $40 million to $50 million in increased costs over a year
necessitate a rate increase of approximately $0.001 per kilowatt-hour
(kWh). Using this rule of thumb, a $7 million per year cost increase
would raise Bonneville's wholesale power rates by approximately
$0.00016 per kWh.
According to the Oregon Department of Energy, the average household in
Oregon uses approximately 1,000 kWh of electricity per month. An
average household in Washington uses 1,170 kWh of electricity per
month, according to the Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission. Using the approximate rate increase calculated above, the
electricity bills for average households in Oregon and Washington would
increase approximately 16 cents and 19 cents, respectively. These
calculations assume that the household receives all its electricity
from Bonneville and that its retail utility passes through the
wholesale rate increase. The impact on the region as a whole would be
smaller because Bonneville provides only about 45 percent of the
region's power. Our calculations also assume that Bonneville would not
be permitted to deduct any portion of its payment to the Spokane tribe
from its debt payment to the U.S. Treasury. Public Law 103-436 enables
Bonneville to deduct a portion of its annual payment to the Colville
tribes as an interest credit on its Treasury debt payments. If a
similar provision were included for any payments for the Spokane tribe,
the impact on ratepayers would be reduced.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Pub. L. No. 76-690, 54 Stat. 703 (1940), an act for the acquisition
of Indian lands for the Grand Coulee Dam and Reservoir, and for other
purposes, granted the United States title to Indian lands the Secretary
of the Interior designated as necessary for the Grand Coulee Dam
project and authorized the Secretary to determine the appropriate
amount to be paid to the tribes for lands so designated.
[2] Pub. L. No. 103-436, 108 Stat. 4577 (1994).
[3] The legislative settlement proposals introduced in the 106th
Congress were S. 1525 and H.R. 2664. In the 107th Congress, the
proposals were S. 2567 and H.R. 4859. The proposals pending in the
108th Congress are S. 1438 and H.R. 1753. Under S. 1438 the settlement
costs would all be paid out of the U.S. Treasury, while under H.R.
1753, the settlement costs would be split between Bonneville and the
Treasury.
[4] U.S. General Accounting Office, Bonneville Power Administration:
Long-Term Fiscal Challenges, GAO-03-918R (Washington, D.C.: July 1,
2003).
[5] Pub. L. No. 79-726, § 2, 60 Stat. 1049, 1050 (1946).
[6] Pub. L. No. 75-329, § 2, 50 Stat. 731, 732 (1937).
[7] Pub. L. No. 96-501, § 2, 94 Stat. 2697 (1980).
[8] The payments are to be made in perpetuity, but Bonneville gave us
an annual estimate for the next five years that conforms to its 5-year
rate case planning horizon. While Bonneville will make these payments
to the Colville tribes, it will receive interest credits in the amount
of $4.6 million per year from the U.S.Treasury--also in perpetuity--
effectively reducing its payments by about 27 percent.
[9] This estimate also assumes that Bonneville pays the entire $7
million per year. If Bonneville receives interest credits from Treasury
for part of the amount, the impact would be proportionally smaller.
[10] Pub. L. No. 66-280, §10(e), 41 Stat. 1063, 1069 (1920).
[11] The Judgment Fund is a permanent indefinite appropriation
available to pay certain settlements and judgments against the federal
government.
[12] See, e.g., Pub. L. No. 95-280, § 2, 92 Stat. 244 (1978), Pub. L.
No. 96-251, 94 Stat. 372 (1980), Pub .L. No. 96-404, 94 Stat. 1711
(1980), or Pub. L. No. 104-198, 110 Stat. 2418 (1996).
[13] From fiscal year 2000 onward, Bonneville receives a $4.6 million
interest credit on its Treasury debt payment to offset some of the cost
of the Colville settlement. Therefore, Bonneville's share of the
Colville payments total $12.4 million net of the credit. This
calculation conservatively assumes that Bonneville will be responsible
for the entire Spokane payment.
