© 2024 Concerned Citizens of Western Montana
The water court came out with new service lists and we see that a significant number of Objectors remain in the Flathead Compact proceedings.
If we counted correctly there are 466 pro se, and 168 attorney represented individuals for a total of 634 “Davids” still standing against the three headed government Goliath.
This brings a big smile, because we are convinced that the compact parties, and perhaps even the water court had hoped that the number of objecting parties would be significantly smaller at this point in the process.
We think our legal adversaries completely underestimate the passion and commitment of compact objectors to stopping this compact and having their voice and concerns heard by a judge in a court of law.
Our sincerest thanks to objectors for being steadfast in your efforts to defeat this compact.
As documents are now moving through the water court, it is easy to see the disparity that exists with respect to the unlimited resources and extent of legal representation available to the three amigo governments in contrast to a very large number of self-represented objectors.
It’s also clear that the compacting parties are currently focused on the use of technicalities and various sets of rules in their efforts to thwart objectors so as to avoid the compact’s serious legal and constitutional issues. For all intents and purposes they are attempting to exploit any weaknesses of pro se litigants with respect to their lack of knowledge and understanding of the legal rules and procedures that the compact party attorneys are well versed in, and have been using for decades.
This tactic is not new to the Flathead Compact, however the sheer number of objectors in this proceeding certainly is. For the most part, objectors in previous compact proceedings were fewer in number and most were represented by attorneys who themselves failed to adequately challenge the compact’s review standards of fairness and adequacy, or compliance with applicable law. As to the court’s review of fraud, collusion and overreaching, it may not have been necessary in other compacts, but in Flathead there appears to be information that strongly points in that direction.
We fully expect the same technical error strategy and tactics will be used for the compacting parties’ motions to dismiss objectors (April 3, 2024). and to request a water court determination as to the compact’s fairness and adequacy (July 10, 2024).
Objectors with non-irrigation water rights should begin preparing themselves for a request by the parties that the court dismiss your objection because the compact “protects” your existing uses of water, or that you failed to adequately demonstrate that the compact causes material harm to your water and property rights.
As we know, irrigation uses of water are not protected in the compact, however we are sure the compact parties already have determined their strategy for dismissal of irrigator objectors. They too will also need to respond to any motion to dismiss their objection and the compacting parties’ fairness and adequacy motion.
Lawfare: Could it all Come Tumbling Down?
We have noted in the past that the compact was designed to legally hamstring objectors, making it difficult for them to protect and defend what is rightfully theirs.
Legal warfare, also known as lawfare, is the use of legal systems and institutions to damage an opponent or to deter or restrict an individual’s use of their legal rights and constitutional protections. Another of its goals seems to be using the system to bankrupt individuals via legal fees and massive “settlements” awarded to the winning party. Lawfare also describes a tactic used by repressive regimes to discourage or prevent individuals from protecting their legal rights via the legal system.
The court’s consent decree standard of review, coupled with the compact’s mutual defense provisions, and retroactive revision of history and the law are just the tip of the legal arsenal iceberg that the compact parties have in store for those who dare object to the compact.
However we are hopeful in the fact that one can’t help but notice that the national news is slowly beginning to focus on the unraveling of the lawfare strategy and tactics currently being used against former President Trump in three separate court cases.
We are beginning to see significant cracks in those efforts, shining a very bright light upon the corruptness and the political ties that bind the the people behind a concerted effort to bankrupt and destroy Trump, his family and the people that have supported him.
It seems that perhaps these people are not as all powerful or infallible as they would like us to believe, and the plans they’ve made could very well collapse under the weight of their own corrupt motives and personal or political vendettas.
This gives us great hope for our own situation with this compact.
The Tribes have made it Personal
Because so many David’s remain standing against this compact, we believe that the “all powerful” CSKT are already showing stress cracks in these proceedings.
It’s becoming clear that the tribe is taking objections to the compact personally, because in our humble opinion, this compact was never about a water settlement. It is more about using a water rights settlement as an opportunity to further enrich the tribal government, and to gain jurisdictional control over the people who have settled in western Montana via their water. It is also about the United States and the state of Montana not only allowing, but also helping the tribe get away with it.
Ultimately it could be that their motives, coupled with their inability to bridle their vengeful intent that will lead to the compact’s, and perhaps even the tribe’s own undoing.
A perfect example is the tribe’s 2023 Flathead Lake level debacle. No one was fooled by the tribe’s attempt to sweep their excessive releases of water through Kerr Dam under the “Climate Change” rug.
Instead, the tribes’ actions with respect to Kerr Dam and their response to it exposed the fact that the CSKT has the ability to control and create water shortages in, around, and below Flathead Lake. Any such tribal created shortages would very likely precipitate calls on irrigator’s water once the compact has been approved and is fully enforceable.
It also exposes the fact that the compact parties were negligent by failing to place specific sideboards upon, and to provide for independent oversight or scrutiny pertaining to monitoring the fulfillment, or possible over fulfillment of the tribe’s compact awarded water rights. This means the U.S. / tribes have been given a blank check from the state of Montana when it comes to the use of the water in western Montana, all to the detriment of state based water users.
We ask all of our Davids to prepare for and stay on the lookout for the tricks, traps and landmines that the multitude of government attorneys will build into their documents and send your way.
Perhaps it also is time to figure out a way to consolidate some of the pro se effort for the purpose of taking advantage of the various skillsets of objectors, and for the purpose of conserving and better utilizing limited resources.
As you do prepare, please keep in mind that Concerned Citizens has spent more than a decade maintaining this blog and doing research pertaining to the compact. If you have a need for documents or information please feel free to contact us through the CONTACT page of this blog with your question or information request. We will do our best to point you in the right direction if we can.
In the meantime we will pray that objectors will continue to expose the compact’s flaws, and that every revealing of compact’s destructive provisions will soundly backfire against the compacting parties.
May the weapons and destruction they are attempting to impose upon their fellow citizens result the in the death of their ill conceived, flawed and overreaching Flathead Water Compact.
Pingback: Update Flathead Water Compact objection progress | Points of Perspective
tvfmontana said:
Yes, I agree re the consolidation of some of the pro se litigants. Good idea!
BTW I understand that a number of people received the reply brief notifications of the compacting parties directly from the CSKT(return addresses, regular mail) Isn’t there a problem with this? If yes, please contact in private.
Gerald J. Cuvillier said:
Yes, I have received a second claim on a spring on my property. That happened just after I went to Helena to testify before the senate committee a few years back and again last year after I had a law firm file my objection to the compact. They will single us out and attack us separately.
Gerald (Frenchy) Cuvillier
Trout Creek, Montana
icthe4est said:
We have heard of others who also have had the tribe “squat” on their water rights for lack of a better word.
Perhaps it is time to shine some light on this new aspect of tribal retribution. If it’s not exposed and stopped, the tribal government will be empowered to become even more aggressive.
In fact, for everyone in western Montana going through the statewide adjudication process in addition to having to deal with this so called “negotiated settlement” they should be aware that the tribe and United States filed blanket objections to every water right in every basin in western Montana.
See the link below. The table in it hyperlinks to the US and CSKT objections that were filed with the water court back in the 1980’s:
Click to access table-of-blanket-objections-hyperlinked-to-objections.pdf
If this doesn’t tell people where the US and CSKT plan to take this, we don’t know what will.
Montana’s leadership needs to be held accountable for acquiescing to the Feds and CSKT. They’ve mismanaged these issues from the beginning of so called negotiations, and are now fully participating in a three government partnership to force the federalization of our water upon western Montana via their “settlement.”
For all intents and purposes the US and CSKT have succeeded in compromising Montana’s federal reserved water rights process from the gitgo, up to and including the 10,000 claims made by the US / CSKT in June 2015 that are not in shown in and of the adjudication decrees throughout the state that are affected by them.
Montana allowed (and perhaps assisted with) the bastardization of its adjudication process by the US / CSKT. Coupling that with the DNRC’s Flathead Compact bias and advocacy, we do not believe it is possible to get a fair adjudication of water rights in the state of Montana.
Karen said:
Thank you for all your hard work!
Sherry K Caldwell said:
I`m trying to figure out I I need to update my objection. I didn’t appreciate what the mediator said in the Jan 9 call in meeting, when she stated that the DNRC is reevaluating all water rights and anyone can object to your water rights, ie your neighbor etc. I asked her, since my water right is not in the basin currently being looked at by the tribe. if I needed to update my objection. She said, she was not qualified to comment on that. Since I want to preserve my water right, I’m confused as to whether or not I need to update. What are your thoughts on this, please. Thank you!
icthe4est said:
I’m a bit confused by your question. Are you talking about an active adjudication in your water basin, or the Flathead Water Compact Decree?
If you’re asking about the Flathead Compact Decree, its too late to update your objection. The deadline for filing motions to amend was in December 2023.
I took the liberty of looking up your water right in the state database and it says you are in Basin 76N which in addition to the Flathead Water Compact proceeding is currently in an active adjudication proceeding. It looks like you have until March 19, 2024 to file an objection in that proceeding.
Your water right is absolutely in a basin being looked at by the tribe.
Here is the notice of entry for the adjudication proceeding in basins. This proceeding is separate from the Flathead Compact Decree.
Click to access Notice-of-Entry-76N-PD-2023.pdf
Hope this helps answer your question.