Valley Journal
Valley Journal

This Week’s e-Edition

Current Events

Latest Headlines

What's New?

Send us your news items.

NOTE: All submissions are subject to our Submission Guidelines.

Announcement Forms

Use these forms to send us announcements.

Birth Announcement
Obituary

CSKT Compact vote unconstitutional

Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local. You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.



Subscribe now to stay in the know!

Already a subscriber? Login now

Editor,

In April of 2015, the Flathead Joint Board of Control filed a complaint in Montana’s 20th Judicial District disputing the legality of the Montana Legislature’s vote passing SB262, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Water Compact Bill. The FJBC contended that that since SB262 conferred immunity from lawsuit for monetary damages, court costs, and attorney fees, it required a two-thirds majority of both houses of the legislature per Article II Section 18 of the Montana Constitution. Neither house complied. The issues were heatedly discussed in the House and after assurances from the Attorney General’s Office that all was well, with a simple majority, the House violated the state constitution and passed SB262 53-47.

On Monday, July 18, 2016, Judge Manley ruled that SB262 did indeed confer new immunity on the state and therefore required a two-thirds majority vote. Thus both houses of the legislature violated the provisions of the State Constitution.

This is clearly a victory for the irrigators represented by the FJBC. Further, the Compact itself is full of Constitutional violations. As the saying goes, “There’s plenty more where that came from,” so it is highly likely that more litigation, focused on the State’s lack of protection for all its citizens and their property rights, looms in the future.

It is my understanding that Judge Manley discussed the issue of severability and ruled that the offending clause could be severed from the compact, leaving the rest of the Compact in place. I would expect that the “severing action” would have to take place in the legislature since this is a revision to SB262 as originally presented to the lawmakers. It is interesting to note that during the 2015 legislative deliberations, compact proponents were adamant that no amendments to the SB262 would be allowed. I guess that position will have to change in light of Judge Manley’s ruling.

Jerry Laskody
St. Ignatius

Sponsored by: