©2015 Concerned Citizens of Western Montana

Under the BusSome people will go to enormous lengths to prove that the Compact really is okay…despite its obvious failings over 14 years of “negotiation”.  Really, if the Compact was that good, we wouldn’t need a $2.8 million advertising campaign…including 300,000 “push calls”, purchased politicians, front groups like FARM, and a $600,000  republican lobbyist designed to spread money around to influence legislators.  It reeks of desperation.

Moreover, the ads contain no substance–no facts to prove that the CSKT Compact is anything more than a land and water give-away, supported by weak, unprincipled elected and unelected cowards.  Some very powerful people have put their integrity, political future and constituents out to pasture on the line, attempting to prove they are right and have the best talking points around.  What a rude awakening for them when they find out most Montanans see right through the horsepucky being shoveled around Helena. 😀

Let’s review

  • The Compact’s off-reservation water right claim to support the ability to “take fish” in common with the citizens of the territory is unsupported by the U.S. Supreme Court, and is in fact creating a new type of water right called a “tribal reserved water right”–something that does not legally exist right now.  Moreover, the Compact gives this right– in common with the citizens of the territory–to the Tribe with a time immemorial priority date, giving the Tribes a ‘super citizen’ status.  Does the Montana legislature have the legal authority to create a new type of water right?  We don’t think that even compact proponents know what they are doing here.  The Compact Commission’s talking points mix these two up as if they are interchangeable.
  • The Compact results in a taking of irrigator’s water rights, plain and simple, without compensation.  This was the failed plan in the 2013 Compact, which a judge ruled unconstitutional, and was known as a ‘right to receive water’. The similarly failed plan in the 2015 compact is called a “delivery entitlement”, fabricated by the Attorney General’s office to mask the Compact’s transferring the bare legal title to the water right to the CSKT, which they cannot even legally defend.  The origin of this taking is that the Tribes claim they own all the water on the reservation–a claim that the compact commission swallowed hook, line and sinker. Oh we know of the false excuses being promoted by some legislators that the irrigators never paid for their lands.  Wow, are these people in for a rude and embarrassing awakening when the evidence is presented for all the world to see!  😆
  • No LipstickThe Unitary Management Ordinance, or Law of Administration, is forever tainted and illegal by Chris Tweeten’s “Grand Bargain” comment, where an unelected Commission agreed to remove state citizens out from underneath the protection of the laws and constitution of the State of Montana, and “place them somewhere else, and the request of the Tribes”.  Legislators have laughingly tried to put lipstick on this pig, by having county commissioners choose two members of the Unitary Management Board.  Does the state of Montana have the authority to extend tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians?  Does Montana have a right to abandon its citizens?

To all those politicians who have bought the fear mongering lie as an excuse to vote for the Compact, and to those that have claimed to do a “legal risk analysis”, the elephant in the living room is the class action lawsuit filed against the State of Montana by its citizens which will be carried to, and won in, the United States Supreme Court.  Hey, even the Ninth Circuit will have a hard time buying this Compact, and in any case, the Ninth Circuit Court is the most overruled court in the United States.

A Conspiracy to Defraud Montana?

No amount of money or political power will ever be able to buy the truth of this Compact. The law and the truth are on the side of ordinary, regular, real Montanans, the irrigators, the ranchers, the citizens, and the principles and prerogatives of state law.  Put that one in your so-called “risk analysis” basket.

 

Advertisements