© 2024 Concerned Citizens of Western Montana

NOTE:  We are not attorneys, and the information in this article is not intended to give legal advice to anyone.  As an objector to the Flathead Compact, only you can decide what pathway you must follow to protect your specific interests and rights.

As pro se objectors to the Flathead Compact decree, you have already been bold. 

You have filed your objection, persevered through the mediation and “settlement” track of the proceeding, and must now prepare for participation in the coming motions and hearing track.

It is understood that this overreaching, unlawful and fraudulent compact must continue to be BOLDLY CHALLENGED.

More than a thousand people have done so, giving a very strong message to the compact parties, and to the Water Court, that they are not buying what the government is trying to cram down their throats. 

The compact parties are already expressing concerns about the burden of so many objectors and the Water Court has to know that by virtue of so many objections, this compact is like no other in the state of Montana. 

Our reality is that the Flathead Compact is not even in the same legal or constitutional universe as any of the other tribal water rights settlement compacts in the state of Montana.

We must Object to the Process being Used by the Water Court

We’ve already written about the court’s standard of review and the compacting parties’ motion to place the compact into a “special proceeding” because of the “uniqueness” of the water rights in it.

Had the compact accurately and fairly quantified only what remains of the Flathead Reservation Federal Reserved Water Rights, there would be no controversy.  The Compact would be done and people would have already moved on with their lives.

Simply put, the compact parties want the Water Court and the public to think that this compact is no different from the other tribal water settlements, and should be treated similarly.

Unfortunately what has happened instead is that the three compact parties, United States, Montana and the CSKT agreed to “settle” many open and controversial issues of federal law pertaining to federal reserved water rights, and are asking the court to review their agreement as a consent decree that they will say was “fairly” negotiated over a period of thirty years. 

Part of that process also includes the codification of their unlawful and deceitful “settlement” of into both state and federal law.  If the compact is approved by the water court, that codification makes the compact effectively irrevocable and unamendable.

Having been through 17 other compacts pertaining to federal reserved water rights, the Compact Parties understood, and were counting on the fact that the Water Court standard of review for a consent decree would limit the court’s review to a cursory consideration of the fairness of the “negotiation” process and whether the compact is the product of government fraud, collusion or overreaching. 

The compact itself and the parties to it also placed limitations upon what portions of the compact that the court can review and which they cannot review.

This is wholly unlawful and inappropriate. 

The compact should be reviewed in its entirety because it was ratified by the Montana legislature with every map, every appendix and every unlawful legal and constitutional issue intact.  And it is codified into state law.   Said compact was also then incorporated into the Daines’ legislation by reference in its entirety.

The goal of the compact parties is to get the compact through the Water Court and the Montana Supreme Court intact, without a court reviewing or ruling on any of its inherent flaws, illegalities and constitutional violating provisions.

Points of Fact and Points of Law, and Getting Information on the Record for Appeal

With all of this in mind, our friend Christopher has kindly shared his thoughts about the next phase of the Flathead Compact Water Court proceeding for your consideration:

Christopher Comments Water Court