Adjudication costs being exaggerated
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
2 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
It is very telling that the supporters of the FIIP water use agreement have to use scare tactics to force people to think it’s a good idea. It’s a bad agreement and cannot be sold on the benefits.
What really happened in the Big Horn adjudication on the Wind River Reservation? I have spoken with individuals involved in that case and have found the truth about the costs and who paid for what. The quantification of the reserved water rights on the Wind River Reservation involved, as here on the Flathead Reservation, three parties: the state, the federal government and the tribes. There, as here, was a federal irrigation project serving the non-Indians.
The state, as here, represented its citizens and bore all costs of securing the non-Indian water claims through the Wyoming Attorney General and the state engineer offices. The federal government represented all water users in the irrigation projects. The tribes also hired their own attorneys. It is important to note that, despite the fears expressed in both Susan and Roy Lake’s doomsday letters, less than 1 percent of the litigation costs was borne by individual irrigators.
No matter what the costs of the Wind River adjudication, they were pretty evenly split between the federal government and the state.
Before you accept the nonsense expressed in the recent letters to you in the Valley Journal, look into the true facts.
Lloyd Ingraham
Ronan
