Lawsuit meant to scare into acceptance
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
In a recent article, Education vs. Litigation, it appears as compact opponents and the individuals named in the CSKT lawsuit are responsible for, or worse yet, wanted to litigate concerning ownership of the land and water within reservation boundaries. The article left out the most important part of the Mountain States press release that said: In their lawsuit, the Tribes claim all water and land within the boundaries of the Reservation, and thus challenge the validity of the original homesteaders’ patents—signed by the President—and seek to acquire those lands and their water rights.
The parties named in the lawsuit were not given a choice except to respond to the tribe’s aggressive suit. In it, the tribe attempts to bypass the state courts and the process of adjudication asking the federal courts for a favorable decision.
The suit is not “narrowly tailored,” and was designed with the intention of scaring people into accepting the compact and Unitary Management Ordinance giving the tribes control over the water needs of non-Indians. The CSKT have aggressively gone after compact opponents using tribal leases as a means to squash dissent. How might compact opponents fare for their water needs with a water board designed to serve that same tribal agenda?
Proponents of the compact would like the public to believe that the compact will provide us with “certainty.” The only certainty is that the goals of the CSKT written into the pages of their lawsuit will become a reality if the current proposed water compact is ratified as it is written.
The next time you see Representative Dan Salomon, ask him if he’s okay with the tribe’s lawsuit. After all, it’s no different than what is written into the compact that he blindly supports without understanding its future implications for all western Montanans.
David Passieri
St. Ignatius
