Vote against referendum
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
2 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
A guest column by Boone Cole urging Flathead Indian Irrigation Project irrigators to vote for the FJBC referendum was misleading. Like Mr. Cole, I urge you to read your ballot carefully before voting, because the wording of the ballot is also misleading. It will not retain the FJBC as a “united representative” of all fee land irrigators. The referendum is non-binding. The Mission and Jocko districts’ withdrawal will be complete on December 12. It could not be clearer that the FJBC is not a “unified front,” regardless of the outcome of the referendum vote.
Second, Mr. Cole indicates that a vote for the referendum will ensure that “you will get at least the same amount of irrigation water you have received in the past” and will ensure that the State regulates this water. This is an incorrect statement. The Tribes have already made it clear that they intend to seek increases in the interim instream flows and already have the legal right to do so. With a compact, money for improvements will go to ensuring irrigation and desired in stream flows. With Mr. Cole’s option we have nothing.
The Tribes have made it clear that at least two of the three points raised by the FJBC, ownership of the Project right and state control of new permitting on the Reservation, are non-starters for negotiation. The Tribes will not have control of the water under the compact. Equal participation is assured. Without the compact, non-tribal members may have no opportunity for new development of water.
The FJBC’s three points are not reasonable negotiation positions. What the FJBC is doing is attempting to ensure long and expensive litigation. My farm cannot afford the uncertainty that the current joint board is pursuing. I urge you to vote “against” the FJBC referendum.
Jack Lake
Ronan
