CSKT questions remain unanswered by Vincent

Guest Commentary:

Lincoln County citizens, long concerned over the implications of passing the CSKT Water Compact, were dismayed and taken aback to learn that Senator Chas Vincent had reversed his former position against the Compact, and now planned to champion its provisions through this session of the Montana Legislature.

Failure to get specific responses to questions prompted several county residents to travel to Helena Feb. 16 to attend the water bill’s hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Even after the almost five hours of testimony those reported back still had not learned Sen. Vincent’s reasons for the 180-degree switch.

At issue is the claim of the Salish-Kootenai Tribes to water not only on the reservation, but in headwaters outside the reservation as well. That includes waters arising in 11 counties outside reservation boundaries. Flathead and Kootenai waters are included.

Precedent-setting provisions in the 1,400 page document negotiated by the Reserved Water Rights Commission include setting up a five-member management board on the reservation which would have authority to allocate water use. Several county commissions have expressed opposition to the Compact, even though the governor and the attorney general are supporting it.

Also supporting the compact is the newly formed lobbying group, Farmers and Ranchers for Montana, and the tribes. Both are reportedly engaged in million-dollar ad campaigns to help assure passage through the Legislature. Minutes of a tribal council meeting indicate the Tribes’ contracting with a public relations firm, Mercury, which engages high profile lobbyists to work for specific agendas. The website claiming support of Farmers & Ranchers, instead of educating about the compact, which was their expressed intent, lists unidentifiable names as supporters and glowing claims.

Lincoln County opponents declare the Compact violates the Montana Constitution, which declares all waters in Montana belong to the state for the use of its people. Provisions in the document would grant immunity from liability to those implementing terms of the Compact and exempt it from compliance with Montana’s Environmental Policy Act, raising questions over 85-2-402 of Montana Codes Annotated which relates to changing appropriation uses and the role of DNRC oversight. Opponents believe the Compact’s intent is to divert water from beneficial uses such as agriculture to in-stream flows. They believe it could also give this board the ability to control generation at four dams in the Clark Fork Basin: Libby, Hungry Horse, Noxon and Kerr. Critics statewide have expressed concern about a bill which must be voted up or down by legislators with no way to amend out intolerable sections.

Proponents are basing their arguments on research done by the Reserved Water Rights Commission and when asked what Montana stands to gain, state it would avoid litigation. We know that terms of the Compact commit the state to an expenditure of $55 million and the federal government has indicated willingness to pony up $1.2 billion for reparation to the tribes. For the tribes it is a win-win deal. Those opposing the compact do not begrudge them water sufficient to supply the purposes on the reservation but believe they should not be given control of all the water in Western Montana.

A very shrewd trial lawyer has commented that in any contested action, one needs to follow the money. Those spending the most money, almost always have the most to gain. Those genuinely engaged in agriculture haven’t the money to spend and surely have the most to lose. Some could be our neighbors.

— Aubynn Curtiss is a former Montana state senator from District 1