Note: A great letter to the Editor from well respected former legislator Aubyn Curtiss.
To the Editor,
MEDIA BLITZ RAISES NEW QUESTIONS
Yes, we know that the Salish/Kootenai tribes are promised $ 1.2 billion if the CSKT Compact is approved & Montana is committed to pony up another $ 55 million. Now we hear that upwards of another million has been added to the mix with the emergence of an intensive media campaign purported to be in the scope of a gubernatorial or presidential campaign—that much in radio contracts alone.
Concerned water users in the Clark Fork Basin, puzzled by the dubious assertions made by the spokesperson for the newly formed group, Farmers and Ranchers for Montana, have had their attention jerked to this even more puzzling development. Who is paying for the radio ad campaign? What special interest can afford the side bar ads on the Internet? They are not cheap.
In an editorial printed here on 1/15 it was indicated that the expressed purpose of the above group is to “educate Montanans about the CSKT. Yet there seems to be no substantive information made available and it seems to be the case with the other promotional ads too. Only glowing statements supporting passage. How can they be so certain when the sponsor of the CSKT bill is still endeavoring this week-end to prepare what he described as a “risk analysis.” This, too, grabs attention when the senator has stated that our county, one of eleven “off-reservation” counties whose water rights could be compromised, is protected.
Montanans do need educating about the 1400 (1500?) page CSKT Compact! We need to learn exactly what Montana stands to gain, other than an ethereal promise of less water litigation. We need to know the cause of these actions hanging over our heads. Are they related to 12,000 actions threatened by the tribes if the CSKT is not passed by the Montana Legislature? Anywhere else that could be perceived as a threat.
We need to know if Montana’s best interest here is the same as the interests of non-tribal water users who have properly filed on water they are putting to beneficial use and depending upon Montana’s Constitution and court system to protect their rights.
We need to know the ramifications of agreeing to a precedent-setting deal—the like of which never before in these United States has given a sovereign tribal nation the right to control distribution of off-reservation water. We know that the U.S. Justice Department will enforce that right, once it is surrendered by Montana, but the big question is who will be defending the rights of John or Jane Doe? Has any thought been given to the number of suits when they discover that their rights have been literally sold down the river? And once other Tribal Nations view the bonanza granted the Salish/Kootenai, what is to prevent them from bringing actions to obtain the same advantage? Endless litigation.
Wake up, Montana, before special interests; Uncle Sam and/or the Salish Kootenai buy enough advertising to convince your legislator to capitulate to their demands. Make no mistake—they want it all. and too many people we have sent to Helena seem willing to help them get it. The U.S. Justice Department has never backed off from representing tribal interests on the reservations—now the Compact opens the door to a whole new playing field. It makes perfect sense for the federal government to ante up 1.2 billion dollars if it can buy them the ability to see that control of water in the entire Clark Fork Basin is placed within their grasp as custodians of tribal interests. Water is today’s gold!
Thanks for opportunity to comment.
Aubyn Curtiss (termed from Senate in 2010)
Twenty-four year veteran of Montana Legislature
House & Senate Judiciary & Natural Resources Committees
Select Water Committee Assignments
Chair, State/Federal Relations Committee
concerned citizen said:
On top of this, apparently the montana farm bureau has voted as policy to support the water compact.
veryconcernedcitizen42 said:
As I read who all is supporting this i.e.; Montana Farm Bureau I cannot help but wonder why are farmers and ranchers members of organizations such as this? What possible perk could come from an organization that has no problem what so ever with killing off its membership? Hello, anybody out there? Are you sitting like lumps on a log, where are the questions concerning the actions of NGO (Non Governmental Organization) such as Montana Farm Bureau and if you for one moment believe that the MFB is not a member walking in lockstep with the State and Federal government you’re not of this world sadly because the MFB has betrayed you and our Republic at the same time. Ignorance is not going to work, there is absolutely no excuse for not being able to read the written word and not understand what it is you are reading.
Walter Morris said:
I just called the Montana Farm Bureau Office and the first person answering the phone assured me that they were working in our best interest. When I asked him how the CSKT was going to help me protect my water right he assured me it was. When I asked him how it would protect the water rights of those In the principal area in discussion, he informed me that all water right holders had voluntarily surrendered their water rights. When I said that I doubted that statement, he said I am not going to talk to you if all you want to do is argue and that he wasn’t authorized to answer any more of my questions and he was turning me over to his boss. He transferred the call and all I heard was conversations in the background and then a buzz and an answering machine saying that his superior wasn’t available and to leave a message. I imagine I will hear a response at a later date. Is there none of these organizations that actually have the membership speaking or is it all hired people without a dog in the fight. Almost all of these organizations are saying they represent me, but I can’t find anybody that has an idea of what is happening. Could it be that a handful of people are deciding the future of thousands of irrigators and the future doom of our economy?
drkate said:
wow, “voluntarily surrendered their water rights”…what a lie, and what a stupid organization to buy that B.S.!
Jim Greaves said:
Thank you Aubyn Curtiss for your succinct, pointed questions. As you intimate, when is graft not graft and when is extortion not extortion (felonies in any gangster and other political contexts)?
John Dorne said:
I’m tired of this nonsense , not one tribal member has ever had their land taken nor been in a skirmish over their land, any of those people are long dead. Any land or other property that they no longer own They sold to a non Indian , It was not taken.
Ok they are an autonomous nation, fine , I’m fine with that, we have no say in their government , fine, but, then how is it they can vote, hold office , vote for candidates that will give them more and more freebees that we have to pay for.
I don’t know no about the rest of you but I think they have been given too much and they own and ruin enough.
Make up your mind are you a self governing nation or a nation blood suckers. You have free schools free land , you already have the same water rights as the rest of us. lets cut the crap. John Dorne
Walter Morris said:
John, do you have a water right and what is its priority date? If you have a water right, has it been filed on any time that the people in control have ordered for all water right holders to refile? Could anybody tell me where I can access the history of the historic recorded flows in all the rivers West of the Continental Divide? There are a lot of questions that seem to have been avoided by the statement that if we don’t do this, there will be a lot of lawsuits, it seems to me that if we do do this, there will be more lawsuits and the taxpayers won’t be paying the lawyers from both sides. Could it be that the feds are afraid that the water users will use the old ploy of the EAJA. Wouldn’t it be nice if we were the ones receiving some of our money back instead of the Enviros getting it all.
drkate said:
I think the proponents don’t realize the scale of lawsuits that will follow against Montana by its own citizens if this passes. And when it arrives at the US Supreme Court—maybe even directly without going through other courts–and the state, tribes and feds lose, and the state is required to pay its citizens back, perhaps they will realize what they’ve done.
Re water information, go to the U.S Geological Survey site—lots of water data and atlases.
1mike49 said:
I like Walter’s idea, maybe we should all call that famous, long standing grassroots org, FARM, and drive them nuts with simple questions. Let’s put their name and number in the local papers and have EVERYONE call. What fun that would be.
GOT RIGHTS (@GOT_RIGHTS) said:
Farmers and Ranchers for Montana (FARM)? Sounds very similar to the Vote4Farmers fake grassroots aka “astro turfing” effort created a couple of years ago by the CSKT’s Public Relations Firm Pyramid Communications doesn’t it to try and convince irrigators to vote for the compact and FIIP water use agreement – giving up their water rights in exchange for the right to receive water? The FARM website is montanawatercompact.com and is registered by proxy including no organizational information (how convenient). If it were a true grassroots organization why would it hide the identity of who created and who manages their website? Also it would appear by their website name they are only concerned with the water compact. Wouldn’t a true grassroots organization made up of Montana farmers and ranchers be concerned with much more broad subjects than just the water compact?