Do you truly understand agreement, compact?
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
Some of my friends and acquaintances are proponents of the proposed CSKT Water Compact. I strongly oppose the Compact but hold these folks in high regard. Wondering if I was missing something, I called several of them.
Frankly, I discovered plenty of confusion and misunderstanding. Many of them have been focused and involved in the debate on the Water Use Agreement and do not know details of the actual Compact.
Some that I spoke with did not know the WUA and the Compact are two different documents. Many were not aware of significant language in the Compact, nor the Hellgate Treaty. No one knew how the Compact defines “reservation,” for example, and that it assumes “all land” within the reservation boundaries is in reservation status.
Please consider these questions honestly before making a decision to support this compact:
Do you understand the WUA and the Compact are separate documents and that the WUA, if agreed upon, would simply be a part of the overall Compact?
Are you ok with the Compact defining private fee land as reservation land?
Do you understand the implications of the State accepting this definition? Can you reconcile this definition with the Enabling Act and Article I of the Montana Constitution?
Are you fine with the State having inconsistent definitions that lead to inconsistent policies — one to sanction its taxing and regulatory authority within the boundaries of the reservation and a contrary one to allow it to disregard a Constitutional duty to state citizens for the “administration, control and regulation” of their water rights?
Do you understand the Unitary Management Ordinance in the Compact? Do you know the “Flathead Reservation Water Management Board” is established under the UMO? Do you know how the members of this board are appointed and the authority they will have? Does a separate and distinct water rights administration process, with diminished representation for certain citizens, maintain the “equal protection” guarantee in the MT Constitution?
Do principles matter?
Rick Jore
Ronan
