© 2023 Concerned Citizens of Western Montana
Thanks to the folks who put on the Flathead Lake meetings over the past several days. We know how much work goes into coordinating such an effort. We heard that they were well attended.
As the water court proceedings continue to march forward, we wanted to provide some additional context to the Flathead Lake level issues by focusing briefly on Appendix 18 of the Flathead Water Compact that awards fictitious time immemorial tribal reserved water rights for all of the natural water in Flathead Lake.
Below is a pdf flyer that asks every person who uses water in the Flathead River Basin, including the entirety of the Flathead River, the Swan River area as well as the lake, to take time to fully inform themselves about the amount of damage just this one water right has the potential to create throughout western Montana.
At a minimum, we should be asking these questions to those who are responsible for the Flathead Water Compact, before it is ratified in the Montana Water Court.
This list includes Steve Daines, Jon Tester, Greg Gianforte, Ryan Zinke, and any state legislator that voted for compact ratification:
If they deny such possible impacts, ask them for the studies and the guarantees that prove otherwise. To the best of our knowledge, there are no sideboards that exist within the confines of the compact to protect us from these possible outcomes, or even worse.
Keep in mind, that governor Gianforte and the other compacting parties are treating the compact as though it is a done deal by placing it on an implementation fast track. In other words, if the water court should throw out the compact, the damage will already be well underway.
Thanks for considering these questions about the possible implications of just one water right in the compact. We all should be seeking answers before it’s too late.
We must never forget that there is a reason Montana refused to do studies concerning the economic, environmental and property rights sucking provisions of the compact, including the undermining of our land patents and our right to due process and equal protection under the law.
A truthful look at what the state has actually ceded in the compact would have killed it in its tracks.
WE STILL CAN KILL THE COMPACT IF THE PEOPLE STAND TOGETHER AGAINST IT.
Other Information:
- Protecting Flathead Lake’s Shoreline
- CSKT’s Push to Protect Flathead Lake and its Native Trout
- CSKT Shoreline Protection
- CSKT Ordinance 64A Rules and Regulations – this now applies just to the shorelines within reservation boundaries, but if the Water Court approves the compact, will it expand the tribe’s jurisdiction over the shoreline for the entirety of the Lake?
- Kerr Dam Water Rights (top 10 feet of Flathead Lake)
Follow Our Blog
If you’d like to receive email notifications when we post something on the blog here’s how to do it:
To Follow the Blog: While on any page of the blog, you will see a list of recent blog posts on the left side of the page. Scroll down to just below the articles and you will see a section that says:
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Simply enter your email address in the box provided and click the button that says FOLLOW.
Western Montana Water Rights 
This pre-Compact lake level draw down should be waking up those sleepy-heads, in the county north of Lake County. Their shore lines will be impacted, and their coffers for such as dock fees and licensing will be redirected to the tribe. One more of a thousand cuts. A rather sanguine affair.
Is there someplace we can join a Class Action rather than each finding an attorney on our own?
We’re not attorneys and aren’t sure if a class action lawsuit is what is needed.
While it may take care of damage claims, WHAT WE REALLY NEED IS A LAWSUIT THAT WILL KILL THE COMPACT. Not amend, not modify, but to kill it.
Posting your comment so that other folks can weigh in if they’d like to.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Another bombshell! Thank you again!
I hadn’t seen the CSKT Abstract Appendix #18 before. The more I discover about this (largely through yours and those holding the meetings efforts); this whole thing is a house of cards.
Aside from the obvious “fictional time immemorial” con job; I’m wondering what lawyer came up with that theory. It reminds me of the joke about man arrogantly claiming he could create man. He started to use some dirt and God said, “Wait a minute. Get your own dirt.”
I have had a reoccurring thought again as I looked at this- Moisture from the Pacific in the form of snow and rain comes every year to replenish the Flathead Valley. Do they really believe they own that or just when it gets there? Does that sound as foolishly absurd to anyone else as it does to me?
The “Abstract” (which the word is defined as immaterial, intangible, mental) claims the “owners” are USA (but narrows that to a Department of BIA) “in trust” for the CSKT as an out of state owner in Portland, OR. Generally a trust isn’t applicable or enacted until the owner is deceased I thought.
“All communication shall be copied to the CSKT Tribal Chairman as the beneficial owner.” So multiple owners- USA as trustee, CSKT as beneficiary and the “beneficial owner” Tribal Chairman?
The “Purpose (use)” is explicitly described as being solely for “fish and wildlife.” Not irrigation. Not electric revenues. No mention of either of those things.
“THE PURPOSE OF THIS WATER RIGHT IS FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF FISH HABITAT. THIS WATER RIGHT SHALL NOT BE CHANGED TO ANY OTHER OR ADDITIONAL PURPOSE.” I’m pretty sure they said the quiet part out loud… or neglected to pay someone to proof read it before they went to print. How has fish habitat or fish in general benefited from the 2’+ low water levels in Flathead Lake?
“No flow rate is defined for this [imaginary] water right.” As undefined; there’s no way to specify a flow rate.
I hadn’t realized they’re claiming water from Flathead Lake OUTSIDE the boundaries of their reservation.
OK, one last question. Is there such a thing as unnatural water? Asking for a friend. 😏
On a sidenote, has there been any discussion yet on a class action lawsuit against those financially profiting from selling the electricity generated from the Flathead/Kerr dam drawdown?
GUNNER
“There are moral situations where it is immoral to say nothing and basely immoral to do nothing.”- A. W. Tozer
A couple of notes:
Perhaps it is not as much a matter of the tribal government believing they own all the on and off reservation water, but instead it boils down to a matter of how much the state of Montana was willing to cede to them.
In the end Montana holds the accountability bag for the mess they allowed to happen under their watch, and with their consent.
The top 10 feet of the lake are part of the Kerr Dam reservoir and are in addition to this claim. That is where the power comes into the equation. It is a state based water right with a 1920 priority date.
However should we have to deal with the 10,000 claims, that water right as well as at least the two water rights. for the Buffalo Rapids dams are listed with an 1855 priority date, as though the United States reserved the reservation for the purpose of tribal ownership of hydro facilities, and fisheries.
We updated the article above with links to the Kerr dam water rights for anyone interested:
Also of note is the fact that the compact provides no water for the benefit of individual Indians.
Click to access tribal-reserved-claims-in-cskt-compact.pdf
Is this because the compacting parties didn’t think that the purpose of the reservation was specific to the needs of individual Indians? If that’s the case, perhaps they may also be targeted to be “displaced” by the United States when it is all said and done.
Pingback: Food for thought: The Flathead Lake Water Right – Save Flathead Lake
Pingback: No One Dares Tell the CSKT What They Can or Can’t Do | Western Montana Water Rights