It's time to follow intent of Constitution

Does anyone else think it’s fishy that the water compact’s technical study, being conducted by so-called experts, changed from 31 pages to more than 100 pages overnight? Or that the “scientific findings” took an about-face?

It is easy to see from the televised technical working group studies conducted during the summer that the “science” behind the compact’s irrigation water use agreement was found to be substantially lacking in accuracy.

Some of the findings of this summer-long review included that the computer model used to justify the reduction of water to irrigators within the Flathead Irrigation Project could not be used to regulate how much water should be used on the farm or at the farm water turnout.

 The “science” behind the compact also could not be used to predict how much water would be saved by the rehabilitation of the irrigation project.

Another key finding was that the proposed “instream flows” in the compact were not based on science at all - no field work, no fisheries biology, not even any solid hydrologic analysis.

The most stunning finding of the technical working group studying the compact was that despite all the “science,” none of the numbers in the compact were based on science - they are all negotiated values.  

There is of course no problem with negotiating, but to try to hide negotiated values behind “science” is just plain wrong.  

Yet the compact proponents will crow like roosters that the science is reasonable.

Well, if the “science” behind the compact was so great, there would be no need to bait the public into thinking experts were reviewing the compact, and then turn around and switch the answers the experts found.

The truth?  This compact cannot be justified on science.  

Montanans deserve better than that.

-Ed Wehrheim, Moiese, Mont.