Unconstitutional issues plague SB 262
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
We didn’t really need a judge to tell us the “immunity” clause pertaining to the “Flathead Reservation Water Management Board” created by the CSKT water compact violated the Montana Constitution; anyone with “eyes to see” could see it. In the words of Judge Manley, “This was not a close call. The conclusion is clear by resort to either facial interpretation or legislative history.”
Interestingly, both the Tribes and the State argued in this case that the Board “is not a political subdivision of the state” and therefore Art. II Sec. 18, the constitutional provision in question, did not apply. That is astonishing to me because by making such an argument, the state is acknowledging that the compact places taxpaying state citizens under the “exclusive” authority of an autonomous board for the administration and control of their water rights ... and does so even while its own Constitution mandates a state duty to “provide for the administration, control, and regulation of water rights.” (Art. IX Sec. 3)
Mr. Manley is correct on another point: “This controversy is broader than the limited scope of this lawsuit.” It certainly is. There are numerous other constitutional issues within SB 262, not the least of which is the “Flathead Reservation Water Management Board” itself. It is safe to say that the legislature, by assuming that it legally passed SB 262, unconstitutionally granted “immunity from suit” to an unconstitutional board, in an unconstitutional “Law of Administration,” that unconstitutionally requires the consent of a “sovereign government” to become state law.
Rick Jore
Ronan
