Binding effect; judicial approval; enforceability

(a) In general (1) Lawsuit 1 or more Parties may file suit in the Court requesting the entry of a final judgement and decree approving the Tribal Water Right and the 2007 Agreement, provided that no such suit shall be filed until after— (A) the Tribe has confirmed that the Phase I Reservoir will be sited at the location described in section 3.4.B.(1) of the 2007 Agreement and that Exhibit E governs operation of the Phase I Reservoir; or (B) the Tribe has selected a substitute site for the Phase I Reservoir pursuant to section 3.4.B.(2)(a) of the 2007 Agreement and— (i) the Parties have agreed on Operation Rules and the Secretary has executed the 2007 Agreement; or (ii) if the Parties have reached an impasse in attempting to negotiate Operation Rules, at least 1 Party has developed proposed Operation Rules to submit for judicial review and approval, and has shared the proposed Operation Rules with the other Parties at least 90 days in advance of filing the lawsuit. (2) Joining United States as party Where suit is filed pursuant to this subsection, including the satisfaction of the requirements in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), the United States may be joined in litigation for the purposes set forth in this section. (b) Judicial approval The Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review and determine whether to approve the Tribal Water Right and the 2007 Agreement, and on doing so over any cause of action initiated by any Party arising from a dispute over the interpretation of the 2007 Agreement or this Act, and any cause of action initiated by any Party for the enforcement of the 2007 Agreement. (c) Failure To agree on operation rules (1) In general Subject to subsection (a)(1)(B)(ii), the Court shall have jurisdiction over a cause of action that a Party initiates to establish Operation Rules, where the Parties failed to reach agreement on such Operation Rules. (2) Voluntary dispute resolution If a suit is filed under paragraph (1), the Court shall refer the Parties to the voluntary dispute resolution program of the Court. (3) Court selection of Operation Rules (A) In general If the voluntary dispute resolution program does not, after a reasonable amount of time as determined by the Court, result in agreed-on Operation Rules, the Court shall set a deadline by which any Party or Downstream Water User may submit proposed Operation Rules and, after briefing and hearing evidence, select among the proffered Operation Rule based on the criteria set forth in paragraph (4). (B) Implementation of agreed-on Operation Rules Once the Court selects Operation Rules pursuant to subparagraph (A), such Operation Rules shall thereafter control and shall be implemented by the Parties pursuant to the terms directed by the Court. (4) Criteria for Court selection of Operation Rules (A) In general The Court shall select the proffered Operation Rules that, if implemented, would be the most effective in— (i) regulating the flows in the South Tule River to comply with the terms contained in the 2007 Agreement and the following diversion limits, where the South Tule Independent Ditch Company’s point of diversion is the point of measurement, including— (I) where the natural flow is less than 3 cubic feet per second (referred to in this clause as cfs), the Tribe has a right to 1 cfs; (II) where the natural flow is greater than or equal to 3 cfs and less than 5 cfs, the Tribe has a right to 1½ cfs; (III) where the natural flow is greater than or equal to 5 cfs and less than 10 cfs, the Tribe has a right to 2 cfs; and (IV) where the natural flow is greater than or equal to 10 cfs, the Tribe has a right to any amount; (ii) minimizing adverse impact on the Parties other than the Tribe; and (iii) maintaining the right of the Tribe to the reasonable and economic use of water for domestic and stock purposes on the Reservation. (B) Consideration of Exhibit E In applying the criteria set forth in subparagraph (A), the Court should consider the Operation Rules governing the Phase I Reservoir described in section 3.4.B.(1) of the 2007 Agreement, as set forth in Exhibit E to the 2007 Agreement, which the Parties agreed on based on consideration of that criteria. (C) Inconsistency of proposed Operation Rules with criteria (i) In general The Court shall not approve the 2007 Agreement if the Court finds that none of the proffered Operation Rules are consistent with the criteria set forth in subparagraph (A). (ii) Alternative Operation Rules If the Court finds that none of the proffered Operation Rules are consistent with the criteria set forth in subparagraph (A), the Court may establish an alternate process to allow the Parties to develop alternate Operation Rules that are consistent with that criteria.