Focus on planning, not litigation
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
At a public meeting in Missoula on September 3, state, federal and tribal officials began a limited reopening of the Compact negotiations to address the relationship between Flathead Indian Irrigation Project (FIIP) water rights and CSKT instream flow (ISF) rights. That relationship was at the heart of the Water Use Agreement (WUA) negotiated between the FJBC and CSKT but that agreement was never approved by the FJBC.
The September 3 negotiation centered on the State’s evaluation of the WUA and the State’s recommendations for including provisions of the WUA directly into the Compact. Tribal and state representatives recommitted to the principle that current crop consumption levels would be protected under a Compact agreement and that CSKT instream flows would be increased only when state and federal money became available to improve project efficiency. Technically that is easier said than done.
Thus the state also emphasized that the technical framework that has been developed to guide the allocation of water between instream flows and project water flows should be subject to verification and measurement under adaptive management provisions to be directly included in the Compact agreement. Important details need to be developed over the coming weeks and additional Compact negotiating sessions are planned.
I was surprised and disappointed that at the September 18 FJBC meeting there was no discussion of the state’s proposal given that the state’s proposal addresses one of the three concerns expressed by the Vice-Chairman of the FJBC in his September 18, 2013 letter to the CSKT Chairman. Unfortunately, since its reconstitution, FJBC meetings have concentrated primarily on litigation issues.
Finally, and as made clear during the September 3 Compact meeting, if a negotiated Compact is not approved by the legislature, state law requires that the CSKT submit its water claims to the Montana Water Court. Thus, a vote against the Compact would be a vote for litigation. Compact opponents have attacked the Compact agreement but they do not spell out the potential consequences of litigation. In my view, not only would the legal costs be high but more importantly farmers and ranchers would get less water.
Dick Erb
Moiese
