Irrigation proposal full of assumptions
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
Like most valley residents, I have followed the unfolding of the proposed Flathead Indian Irrigation Project water use agreement, along with the news releases on the overall state, federal, tribal waters adjudication process, in numbed silence. The only public meeting I attended was Feb. 5 in the Ronan Middle School auditorium. I do not claim to have all the facts of what years of negotiating has produced. Based on the visual presentation, as offered by representatives of the state and the local irrigation control board (FJBC), several glaring facts became painfully apparent.
First, the rights of private property holders are of little or no official interest. Second, the negotiator employed by the State of Montana, whose duty is to represent the state’s interests and ensure the protection of private property rights, is more interested in crusading for tribal claims than the citizens who pay his salary. Third, the whole compact presentation evolved around threats aimed at non-tribal irrigators of the consequences of not agreeing with the proposed FIIP agreement.
Fourth, the vision of millions of dollars of tribal investment in upgrading of the worn-out and decrepit collection and distribution system, their description, we irrigators refer to as “the project.” When this item was revealed, the little voice in my head asked the first of many questions.
Whose money is the tribe spending? Is it out of the tribal treasury, or is it the hope that the feds will keep borrowing from China? The project was first financed by Washington, along with the power grid, but paid for by users of both the water and electrical utility. It was organized to become, on the day of federal obligation payoff, a private consumer-owned company, locally owned and managed by local shareholders; I guess we can say that part of the deal hasn’t happened.
Fifth, and to me the greatest issue, is the overall arrogance of the proposal. “We negotiators are smart and you dumb farmers don’t know what’s good for you.” The attitude displayed during the public presentation is typical of what I have come to expect from the professional bureaucrats, who given the power of their title, are always right and always know what is best for you.
This compact proposal is full of assumptions. As proposed, the federal government as trust agents for the tribe, will further advance the bureaucratic control of all lands, including tribally owned lands, in Western Montana.
Joe Durglo and the Tribal Council’s letter in the Journal’s Feb. 6 issue confirmed every doubt that concerns me. Thank you for your threats and the attitude your letter displays. It confirmed my vote.
Joseph G. Brooks
Ronan
