Irrigators encouraged to review new PME draft
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
2 of 3 free articles.
In response to Dick Erb’s Nov. 25 letter to the editor: I am not surprised by Erb’s logic. He has been and will continue to be a mouthpiece for the servitude to government agencies, both tribal and federal.
The problem with the BIA’s proposal was four representatives for the irrigators, four for the tribe and the tie breaker being appointed by the BIA.
While I think the Cooperative Management Entity worked well for four years, it was only meant to be in place for 10 years. Then what? It was obvious that Erb did not read the proposal that was submitted to the FJBC, regarding the new Project Management Entity or he would have not have stated that the board was appointed by the FJBC. He was correct on the eight members. Assuming that the PME is excepted in 2016, a special election would be expensive.
It is proposed that the first PME members would be appointed out of interested individuals from the seven different watershed districts and the BIA and CSKT would also appoint one member. After the first year, the selection would be by rotational election for the seven districts and the CSKT and BIA would still be by appointment.
A draft of the new PME was submitted to the FJBC board, including Erb. This draft was clearly marked “draft” on every page. It was to be reviewed by the JBC, with a public comment period. This time would be used to address any concerns before the FJBC would consider passing or rejecting it, it would then be used in mediation with the BIA for transfer of the Irrigation project.
If the CME, that Erb supports, is reactivated it is highly unlikely that any changes would occur as the Tribe/BIA would have a majority vote. Let’s make changes now and set up a board that has a proportionate representation of all fee and tribal lands. If the guidelines for the PME are followed the only job they would have is running the irrigation project. Trust responsibilities and fisheries are federal law and will be enforced, regardless of irrigation operation.
I believe that the proposed PME will work better than the old CME because of the proportional representation. Elected from seven watershed districts, each with unique needs, voiced by irrigators representing each district and one appointment from the Tribe/BIA. I know that 7-to-1 seems like an imbalance, but remember that this board is only for the day to day operation of the irrigation project. All tribal lands are represented by both their district representative and by the appointed representative.
If politics are left to the FJBC and CSKT, the PME will operate more efficiently than the old CME.
I encourage all irrigators to review the PME draft and voice your support or concerns.
