Delivered irrigation water more important than water right
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
It is often asserted in letters and public comments that under the CSKT Water Compact “individual state based water rights are being transferred to the CSKT.” But irrigators currently do not have individual state based water rights on FIIP project water; no one does. A purpose of the state water adjudication process started decades ago is to determine who has a project water right.
The Compact provides the Tribes instream and project water rights but the Tribes would be obligated to defer their instream objectives until project infrastructure improvements would permit instream increases without reducing project water delivered to farms and ranches. Under the Compact, such improvements would be financed by state and federal money.
If the Compact is not passed by the state legislature, it will be up to the Montana Water Court to determine the instream and project water rights. The court could decide to give the Tribes a water right for project water and their instream flow objectives as provided under the Compact but the Tribes would be under no obligation to protect irrigation water delivered to farms and ranches. But even if the court provided the Tribes a water right for only a modest increase in instream flows and denied the Tribes a project water right, irrigators still would get less water delivered unless they found a way to finance improvements in the management of water.
For many of us who have been supporting the Compact, delivered water to our farms is far more important than having a project based water right on significantly less water that may or may not get delivered. I do not want to imply that there are no risks and uncertainties for irrigators in the Compact agreement. But going to the Water Court almost certainly would reduce the amount of water available for irrigation.
Dick Erb
Moiese
