Irrigation project management proposal
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
As reported in the Feb. 16 edition of the Valley Journal, at a special Flathead Irrigation District (FID) meeting on Feb. 8 the FID board approved an agreement that would establish with the CSKT, subject to U.S. Department of Interior approval, a Board of Directors (BOD) to operate the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project (FIIP) under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (PL 638). Such a possibility was provided for under the federal Montana Water Rights Protection Act that accompanied the Water Compact.
At the February meeting, some feared that project management based on PL 638 would work against irrigators. I was concerned because I thought that there were a number of issues that needed to be addressed in order to avoid misunderstandings and conflicts between the tribes and irrigators under such an entity. Apparently the CSKT also concluded that approval of the BOD agreement was premature.
Because uncertainties about the future of FIIP management make it difficult for the BIA’s current project management to maintain and recruit employees, I propose that the CSKT and FID each appoint three individuals to a committee to discuss and propose options for a potential agreement.
To avoid conflicts under a PL 630 agreement, an agreement should:
First, clearly define the organization and legal identity of the entity that would actually operate the FIIP, on a day-to-day basis, under the direction of the BOD.
Second, clearly define the responsibilities and authorities of the FID and CSKT with respect to the BOD.
Third, clearly define the BOD’s responsibilities and authority vs. the project’s operating entity.
Fourth, clearly define tribal laws and procedures that would apply to the BOD and project operations.
Fifth, clearly define how current FAID employees would be protected in any transfer from BIA project management to the new operating entity.
Dick Erb
Moiese
