Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 122.djvu/2998

 12 2 STA T . 2 975PUBLIC LA W 11 0– 297 —J UL Y3 1, 200 8PublicLaw1 1 0–297 110 thCongres s A n Act Toap p r o ve, ra tify ,a ndc onfir m t h e s ett l ement a g reement entered into to resolve claims b y the S oboba B and of Lu iseno I ndians relating to alleged interferences w ith the water resources of the Tribe, to authori z e and direct the Secretary of the Interior to e x ecute and perform the Settlement A greement and related waivers, and for other purposes .Beit e nac te dby t h e S enate and Hous eo fR e pr esentati v es of the U nited States of Am erica in C on g ress assemb l ed ,SECTION1. S H O R T TIT L E. ThisActmaybe cite d as the ‘ ‘ So boba B a n do fLu isen ˜ o I ndians Sett l ement Act ’ ’ . SEC. 2 . F IN D IN G S A ND PU RPOSES. ( a )FIND IN GS . — The C on gr ess finds the follo w ing

( 1 ) The Soboba Band of Luisen˜ o Indians is a federally recogni z ed Indian tribe whose R eser v ation of a p pro x imately 6,0 00 acres, extending east and north from the ban k softhe San J acinto River in Riverside County, California, was created by an E xecutive O rder dated June 1 9 ,1 8 8 3, and enlarged and modified by subse q uent Executive Orders, purchases, and an Act of Congress. ( 2 ) The Tribe’s water rights have not been quantified, and the Tribe has asserted claims for interferences with the water resources of its Reservation, which the Tribe maintains have rendered much of the Tribe’s Reservation useless for habitation, livestock, or Agriculture. On April 20, 2000, the Tribe filed a lawsuit against The M etropolitan W ater D istrict of Southern California for interference with the Tribe’s water resources and damages to its Reservation allegedly caused by Metropolitan’s construction and operation of the San Jacinto Tunnel, which is part of the Colorado River Aqueduct. The lawsuit, styled Soboba Band of Luisen˜ o Indians v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, N o. 00 – 0 4 208 G AF (MANx), is pending in the U nited States District Court for the Central District of California. (3) The Tribe also has made claims against Eastern Munic - ipal Water District and Lake H emet Municipal Water District, located ad j acent to the Reservation, seeking to secure its water rights and damages arising from alleged past interference with the Tribe’s water resources. (4) After negotiations, which included participation by rep- resentatives of the Tribe, the United States on behalf of the Tribe, The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Eastern Municipal Water District, and Lake Hemet Municipal Sob ob aB a nd o fLuise n ˜ o I ndians Se t t l e m ent Ac t .C alifo r nia. J ul y31,20 0 8[H . R. 4 841 ]

�