Two questions for legislators
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
3 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
I am hoping to get a response from Representative Salomon and Senator Hamlett to a recent email. I haven’t had much luck in the past.
Representative Salomon and Senator Hamlett, by your bill draft requests for the purpose of implementing/ratifying the CSKT water compact, I conclude that you support the compact.
As you know, the process contained in the compact for administration of water rights within the boundaries of the Flathead Reservation clearly diminishes direct representation in state government for non-tribal member state citizens who live within those boundaries and who are 100 percent subject to state laws and taxation. Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission Chairman Chris Tweeten has recognized this fact in a public statement.
I hope you consider my questions worthy of an answer. I have two: Why do you support this diminishment of citizenship status for these particular individuals? If Art. VIII of the Montana Constitution (State taxing authority and jurisdiction) applies fully to these individuals and their property, why would Art. IX (Duty of the legislature regarding water rights administration) not apply fully as well?
I would be happy to provide you with specific language in the Hellgate Treaty that authorized allotment to individual Indians and Indian families and, thereafter, the sale of excess land to non-Indians. Also, I can provide you with specific language in the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act, which expressly excluded any land “so withdrawn” from reservation status from being “restored” to tribal ownership by that act.
Rick Jore
Ronan
