Waking the Sleeping Giant

©2018 Montana Land and Water Alliance

We have been waiting for the moment when compact proponents would cross a line and fail in their relentless efforts to destroy the Flathead Irrigation Project. That point came last week when a judge, pursuant to a lawsuit funded by wealthy loudmouth compact proponents, dissolved the Flathead Joint Board of Control (FJBC).

The irony is these compact proponents sued to dissolve the FJBC with the intent of reforming it so that they could assert compact proponent control over the FJBC and force the CSKT Compact down their neighbors’ throat.

Well guess what?  The FJBC may not be reformed as the individual irrigation districts now see this as having been freed from the incompetent “leadership” of compact proponents, and those commissioners who just “want to get along” regardless of the  intended uncompensated and unconstitutional theft of property rights represented by and inherent in the CSKT Compact.

Make no mistake here: the wealthy, loudmouthed compact proponents want the irrigators to lose their ability to protect their property rights, paving the way for the improper and unlawful transfer of the water rights and project infrastructure to the CSKT as described in  Tester’s Bad Burrito, or S. 3013. These compact proponents—agents of the state and tribes–just blew it by their actions.

As long as this Board existed and was compromised by the Flathead District and other willing “get along-ers”, it was the largest and easiest target for the proponents, Tribes, and the state of Montana to push a central feature in the compact–the transfer of the bare legal title of the irrigators’ water rights to the Tribes for their control. Since that title would be transferred, the Tribes would claim and the state would comply with the wholesale transfer of water management authority to the unconstitutional, ill-formed, and unaccountable Unitary Management Board.  The big fat target is no more.

For those of you who still think this is an “Indian Irrigation Project”, now is the time to face reality: it is NOT.  The FIPP was built for all residents in this area, and by 1924 over 80% of the project was serving non-Indian settlers invited by the United States to settle the remaining unallotted lands.  Oh, and don’t forget that Tribal members sold their lands to the settlers. These lands were not “stolen” as some would have you incorrectly believe.  The Tribes have in fact received millions of dollars from the federal government to “repay” them for irrigated land the Indians sold to non-Indians. In 2018, over 90% of project lands are owned by non-Indians.

The Tribes can have their own opinion of this–aka its an Indian project– but they are not entitled to their own facts.

Project Turnover–Time to Move Forward

As required by Reclamation law and by the 1908 amendments to the Flathead Allotment Act, when the construction costs for the irrigation project are repaid by the project irrigators, the management and operation of the project shall be turned over to the landowners therein.

While some privately worry that the FJBC dissolution means that the project will never be turned over to the irrigators, its time to think again.  The FJBC was formed to achieve project turnover, that much is certain.  However because of the politics, compact, questionable “consultants and advisors”, and the incompetence of previous FJBC commissioners, that mission has failed.  But does that mean that the operation and management of the FIP cannot be turned over to the “project landowners” within the three, soon to be five, separate irrigation districts?  In our view, the answer is NO.

Face it: under the scenario of the project landowners having the authority for project operations and management, the FJBC would not have been the entity to manage the project.  Even in current  discussions of project turnover, and in the current lawsuit which was filed under both the FJBC and the three irrigation districts, Commissioners have been designing an entity that is separate from and NOT the FJBC.

The irrigation project management and administration would be left up to an irrigator-determined and paid technical staff, consisting of engineers, agronomists, hydrologists, economists/accountants, and ditch riders, supplemented by fish biologists and water quality specialists to inform the management of the project given existing instream flows and water quality objectives. The Tribes presumably would participate through staff who would manage  the 10% of Tribal lands within the project.

If we are to think at all about project management and administration, its time to think big, and think outside the box we have placed ourselves in—i.e., that the FJBC must exist to turn over the project management and administration to the landowners.

The CME: A Fake FIP Project Turnover?

The Cooperative Management Entity (CME), part of the agreement with the Department of the Interior, the irrigators,  and the CSKT, was destroyed by the withdrawal of two irrigation districts from the FJBC in December 2013.  Again a group of small-minded rogue commissioners who initiated this withdrawal—without permission from or agreement by their constituents–did this so as to push the CSKT compact forward.

Our analysis indicates that these commissioners had planned to use the CME as the entity to “agree” to the Compact since the FJBC would not.  Notice, if you will, the parallels between the Compact Implementation Technical Team (CITT), which was a last minute addition to the 2014-15 Compact because the irrigators did NOT support the compact.  The CITT is effectively a way to bring back the CME to implement the Tribes’ plan, which is to destroy irrigation in favor of instream flow.  Here again, the compact proponents’ plans failed when they intentionally broke upf the FJBC.

The reality of the CME was that it had the wrong proportionate representation according to the law and irrespective of the “approval of the Secretary”.  When 90% of the project is owned by non-Indians, who in part bought the land from Indians who sold it, and only 10% in Indian hands, why was it that the tribes had 50% representation and essentially controlled the CME because any tie was broken by the BIA member of the CME?

The CME was an illusion that gave irrigators a false sense of “local control”.  It was never designed for local control, it was always meant for Tribal control.

The only salvageable product of the CME is the 2010 Operations Plan, which is now the only legal plan that exists to operate and manage the Flathead Irrigation Project.  That’s a good thing.  It means that while the irrigators work in their own districts, litigate the issue, consider a plan for organization, operation and management, and while the compact is being considered by Congress, a solid operations plan exists to simply run the project as is without an FJBC.  That includes the delivery of non-quota water in the spring, which was approved in the 2010 plan.

Furthermore, the CITT is constrained because it cannot, pursuant to an unapproved compact, change or “adaptively manage” irrigation operations in a federal irrigation project.  To do so would turn federal law on its head, and transform a facial taking of water rights to an actual taking.

State law cannot supplant federal law in a federal irrigation project.

Next Steps?

We believe there are a number of steps that can and should be taken that will restore and strengthen the irrigation districts’ desire to take over the management and operations of the Flathead Irrigation Project:

1. Request that the Secretary of the Interior, through the BIA, manage the FIP according to the 2010 operations plan.  Remember that everyone–the tribes, the irrigators, and the United States–agreed on and cooperatively developed this plan.
2. Continue the litigation forcing the Interior Department’s turnover of the operations and management of the project to the landowners, and continue to develop the management entity–separate from the FJBC– as has been underway by the districts for over two years.  Remember that this litigation is in the name of all three of the districts and the now-defunct FJBC.
3. Break up the Flathead Irrigation District into two or three separate districts so as to eliminate the ability of one district to control all the other districts.  This should be done before any consideration of forming a new FJBC.
4. Remove liens on irrigator lands. The FIP was paid off in full in 2003.
5. Learn from the mistakes of the past FJBC. In addition to administrative procedures and better communication with irrigator constituents, consider eliminating all avenues for the breakup or control of the FJBC by a small group of rogue commissioners or a single district.

Importantly, remember that no amount of nicey-nice talking with the CSKT will change their objectives, which have been clear for more than a decade.  They want total unequivocal control of the FIP so that eventually they can dismantle it.

The sleeping GIANT—the irrigators of the Flathead Irrigation Project–is WOKE.  You have more power than you realize, now harness it for your future!

Time for a Divorce

© 2016 Concerned Citizens of Western Montana

With Donald Trump’s upcoming presidency, the people of Montana have been given a golden opportunity for the serious course correction it needs.

One area that could make a huge difference to our future is to petition congress to remove Montana out from under the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit court of appeals and placing it under the 10th district court of appeals instead.

The sad truth is that the 9th Circuit Court has long been bad news for Montana and our water and property rights.  It was this court that gave us the bad decision in the Namen cases during the 70’s and 80’s ruling that the CSKT own the banks and bed of the south half of Flathead Lake, contrary to federal statutes and policy indicating otherwise and contradicting other high court decisions on the same issue.  The 9th circuit court also gave the CSKT “time immemorial” priority date to significant amounts of water on the Flathead Irrigation project for fisheries in the 1980’s.  Leveraging off of that decision, the tribe is now proposing through the water compact to own 100% of the project water, 90% of it for fish and only 10% earmarked for irrigation.  In other words the 9th circuit court of appeals gave the tribe a foot in the door to turn a federal irrigation project that is supposed to be accountable to irrigators, into a fishery that is accountable to the tribes.

The CSKT often uses these bad decisions, repeating out of context sentences and using them to incrementally advance their aggressive agenda to gain jurisdiction and control over non-members and their property using whatever means necessary.  We must never forget that the tribe’s mission statement says: “we will strive to regain control of all lands within our reservation boundaries…”  Keep in mind their definition of their reservation boundaries includes all land, even land that is privately owned.

Unfortunately for Montana, when these important decisions come down from the 9th circuit court, it is difficult to get it heard in the United States Supreme Court.  Petitions for a Writ of Certiorari requesting the Supreme Court to review a lower court’s ruling are denied more often than not. The denial of a Petition for Certiorari by the Supreme Court in a federal case means the decision of the Court of Appeals stands as the final decision.  That is exactly what happened in the cases we’ve mentioned.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Facts

Did you know that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overturned of the Courts of Appeal in the United States?

From Wikipedia:

Headquartered in San Francisco, California, the Ninth Circuit is by far the largest of the thirteen courts of appeals.  In 2010, the population under jurisdiction of this court was 61.7 million people, or 19.74% of the United States Population.  States and territories falling under the 9th Circuit Court include:

Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, North Mariana Islands, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington

What are the odds that a San Francisco based court would share or advocate for any of the same values as Montanans?

Based on 2010 United States Census figures, the population residing in each circuit is as follows.

Circuit	Population	Percentage of US population
D.C. Circuit	601,723	0.19
1st Circuit	13,970,816	4.47
2nd Circuit	23,577,940	7.54
3rd Circuit	22,498,612	7.19
4th Circuit	29,788,417	9.52
5th Circuit	32,646,230	10.44
6th Circuit	32,105,616	10.26
7th Circuit	25,001,420	7.99
8th Circuit	20,568,237	6.58
9th Circuit	61,742,908	19.74
10th Circuit	17,020,355	5.44
11th Circuit	33,268,699	10.64

It is this California based 9th circuit court whose just plain bad decisions have eroded the Constitution and diminished the  property rights of many in Montana for the benefit of a few.

So What can we do?

With a Donald Trump presidency and control over the house and senate, now is the time to make sure that action is taken.  We may never get another opportunity to divorce our state from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Montana Legislators have been asked to draft a resolution to get Montana out of the 9th Circuit Court, and to send that request to Congress.  We ask you to support that effort and when the time comes, to put pressure on our Congressional delegation to do the right thing.

In addition to working with the legislature on this issue, a petition has been started (12/28/2016) to urge Congress to act and get Montana OUT of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and into the 10th Circuit Court.

Please sign this petition TODAY and send it to everyone on your email list who lives in Montana.  It can be found at this link:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/get-montana-out-9th-circuit-court-and-put-us-under-jurisdiction-10th-circuit-court

Note:  To sign the petition, you must enter your NAME AND EMAIL ADDRESS.  Look carefully because there is a checkbox right below that information that says:  President Obama and the White House may send me emails about this and other issues.  If you’d like to receive email from the white house, leave it checked.  If you prefer to NOT receive email from the White House, you can remove the check mark by clicking on it.

Please sign the petition and pass it along to everyone on your email list.  Let us make sure our voices are heard loud and clear on this issue.

Thanks to all of you for your help.

More Information:  Arizona seeks a divorce from the 9th Circuit Court

Montana Congressional Delegation Playing with Fire

©2016 Concerned Citizens of Western Montana

The rule of law, in its simplest form, is that nobody is above the law.

Citizens who have opposed the CSKT Compact have always known that the compact was about some larger agenda which was buried in the details of a 1,500-page monstrosity.

The Compact was so important to certain state elected officials, the federal government, proponents, and the CSKT that they stopped at nothing to get the compact “passed” by hook or by crook.  We believe it was mostly by”crook” as the Compact only passed through outright lying to the public, rule changes in the House, deliberate, knowing defiance of the Montana and U.S. Constitutions, and the expenditure of millions of dollars of taxpayer monies.

In defiance of the law, common sense, and common decency, Senator Tester introduced a rewritten, new CSKT compact to the Senate in June of this year which ironically exposed this larger agenda, demonstrating the true expanse of the attack on private property rights in Montana.

In brief review, the CSKT compact sets precedent across the west by:

• Rewriting the Treaty of Hellgate
• Ignoring history, private property rights, and state law
• Rewriting the definition of “reservation”
• Expanding the ‘federal reserved rights’  beyond that which can legally be claimed by Tribes, resulting in the unlawful condemnation of existing water rights on and off reservation
• Ceding state constitutionally-derived authority for water ownership, administration and protection of citizens to the CSKT/United States

Simply stated, the CSKT Compact had nothing to do with water rights or Indians or culture.  It was instead about expanding federal control over states, citizens, our economies, livelihood, freedom, and liberty.  Aided and abetted by the state of Montana, it is  a completely lawless, dangerous and immoral attempt to destroy Montana.

Senator Daines, Senator Tester and Congressman Zinke turned a blind eye to these issues and concerns of Montanans. But now they have decided to take advantage of CSKT Compact precedent and expand it’s concept across the west to federal lands, particularly National Forests and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rangelands.  The effort is a blatant attempt to circumvent western state priorities.

Playing with Fire: Giving Management of National Forests and Public Lands to the Tribes: H.B. 2647 and S. 3014

S. 3014 began as House Bill 2647, or the 2015 Resilient Federal Forests Act,  which started out as a bill to reduce the threat of wildfire in national forests and public lands caused in part by environmental lawsuits, unnessesary federal regulations capturing the budget, and requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. All of these “constraints” mean that effective reduction of fuel load and thus fire danger in forests and on public lands cannot occur.  The same concerns have been espoused and documented by the American Lands Council in the effort to turn these lands over to the States for their more effective control and management.

The intent of H.B. 2647 was also to include and assist forest  or range lands on Tribal lands or reservations.  Importantly, “Indian forests or rangelands” were defined as in the Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004 and meant:

The term ‘‘Indian forest land or rangeland’’ means land that—(A) is held in trust by, or with a restriction against alienation by, the United States for an Indian tribe or a member of an Indian tribe; and(B)(i)(I) is Indian forest land (as defined in section 304 of the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act); or (II) has a cover of grasses, brush, or any similar vegetation; or (ii) formerly had a forest cover or vegetative cover that is capable of restoration.

The house bill was amended and proposed that federal forest and rangeland could be treated as Tribal Forest land or Rangeland with the following new and expanded definition:

The Department concerned, at the request of an Indian Tribe, may treat federal forest land as Indian forest land… if the federal forest land is located within, or mostly within, a geographic area presenting a feature or involving circumstances principally relevant to that Indian tribe.

The bill passed the House in July 2015, with full Zinke support.

S. 3014: Daines Adds Fuel and Strikes the Match

Senator Daines’ “version” of H.B. 2647, S. 3014, renamed and retooled the Resilient Federal Forests Act to:

A Bill to Improve the Management of Indian Forest Land, and for Other Purposes

The bill has the same goal as the House bill–ostensibly to reduce fire hazard and to create better management of the federal forests.  However, Senator Daines blatantly redefines federal forest lands to be “Indian Forest Land” or “Tribal forests”. From a discussion with Senator Daines’ staff provided to us by a colleague:

First, the intent of the bill is to have “more effective forestland management” because it will “bypass and streamline NEPA requirements,” including bonding requirements because the tribes are exempt from lawsuits and many, if not most of the requirements.  They are accepting and using the status of the tribes in a “pragmatic way” (their words) to do an “end run around the environmental groups and their lawsuits” (my words).

As Congress has made it easy for the Tribes to not have to follow the laws as other citizens do, and has insulated them from litigation, Senator Daines further expands the definition of Tribal Forest or Rangelands to include lands:

1. Ceded to the United Sates by Treaty or other agreement with that Indian Tribe;
2. Within the boundaries of a current or former reservation of that Indian Tribe; or
3. Adjudicated by the Indian Claims Commission or a federal court to be the tribal homeland of that Indian Tribe

With this expansive definition, it means that every National Forest and BLM rangeland in Montana is included and now under the management of the Tribes, as in this map showing the “homelands” of the seven Montana Tribes that were ceded to the United States.

Just a minor question, didn’t the Treaty of Hellgate–and other treaties– provide that the CSKT ceded all rights, title and interests to their aboriginal lands?  Now this federal forest land is described and treated as “Indian forest land”?

The west-wide implication of Senator Daines’ bill and the redefinition of of “Tribal Forest or Rangeland” is shown below:

So under the guise of “effective forest management”, and for the purpose of cynically avoiding environmental lawsuits and regulations, the turnover of federally-managed public lands to the states as per the American Lands Council, and spending more taxpayer money, Senator Daines gives away the management of lands not only all of Montana, but all of the western states to the Tribes.

From our colleague’s conversation with Daines’ staff:

The staffer says they are “taking a lot of heat from the left”, and that they “have put ‘sideboards’ on the bill to prevent over-expansion”.  These sideboards  are”making sure the land remains in federal ownership, public access is protected, timber is subject to competitive bid,” etc.  I asked why give the tribes this “favored” status when they have ceded all this land via treaty.  The answer pertained mostly to the “end run around environmental lawsuits” notion. Without any proof or examples, the staffer claimed that “Tribes are better at managing forest lands than the Forest Service.”

In defiance of history, the American Lands Council, private property rights, and the rule of law, Senator Daines has created a firestorm which will engulf the western United States.

Tribes to Contract Management of National Forests and Rangelands Under “638” Contracts

To add insult to injury, Senator Daines contemplates that the Tribes can contract from federal agencies for the management of all forest or rangeland activities previously conducted by the federal agency under the Indian Self Determination Act, P.L.93- 638 (25 USC 450 et seq)

However, under the law–the Indian Self Determination Act, or “638 contracts”–a Tribe may only contract federal functions if those federal functions were designed specifically for Indians because of their status as Indians. National forests, public rangelands were not set aside solely for Indians–they were established for the public.

Back to the CSKT Compact

The root of this “forest land” malfeasance by our federal officials starts with their use of Indian Tribes as a wedge against citizens.  Of course it is labeled “racist” to oppose this federal overreach and intrusion. Remember that the CSKT Compact, and Tester’s rewrite:

• Rewrote history–the title, rights and interest were never ceded, and the chain of title never broken
• Redefined the reservation–to include aboriginal and subsistence lands as “homelands” for the purpose of the treaty and to ignore fee patented lands and rights of way
• Expanded rights and privileges to water beyond what Tribes are legally entitled to, specifically off reservation and into Eastern Montana
• Granted Tribes the management authority over resources that do not belong to them and jurisdiction over non-Indians
• Took over a federal irrigation project and the project water rights of non-Indian citizens
• Eliminated state jurisdiction over state citizens and water resources within the exterior boundaries of the reservation

Senators Daines and Tester, along with Congressman Zinke are playing with matches and created a firestorm that is outside the law, outside of any legal authority they have, and outside the Constitution.

Their oath of office?  Heh, “what difference does it make”?

Call to Action

Let them know how you feel about S. 3014 and its companion CSKT Compact bill S. 3013 and Congressman Zinke’s blind support of the definition of Indian forest lands in  H. 2647 and S. 3014!

Senator Steve Daines: (202) 224-2651

Senator Jon Tester: (202) 224-2644

Congressman Ryan Zinke: (202) 225-3211

Lake County Ignores FJBC Election Cancellation

©2016 Concerned Citizens of Western Montana

THE IRRIGATOR’S RIGHT TO VOTE IS POWERFUL

For many years, irrigators of the Flathead Irrigation Project thought that their agricultural business and property interests were being fairly represented by their elected officials on the Flathead Joint Board of Control.  Irrigators had faith in the board, the board’s consultant, and its attorney.

In 2012, when it was discovered that these parties had reached an agreement that would reduce on farm water deliveries by 50-70%, relinquish project water rights to the US / CSKT, and place all citizens living within reservation boundaries under a board that was accountable to no one, irrigators used the power of their vote in May 2013 to remove the offending commissioners from the FJBC.   It was used again in 2014 when recalls of two Mission District Commissioners were successful.  The voted out commissioners were replaced with individuals committed to protecting the irrigator’s water rights.

Because of the power held by irrigators, the state found it necessary to circumvent the FJBC to “renegotiate” a compact in 2014 with the same onerous provisions of the water use agreement, but without the input or approval of irrigators.

Since then, supporters of the compact have worked hard to make life difficult for the FJBC, including efforts to discredit their decisions.  Recently there have been a rash of letters to the editor, raising questions about the board’s use of irrigator funds for the defense of project water rights, turnover of project management to irrigators, and the low cost block of power.  Compact supporters would like irrigators and the public to believe that protecting the property interests of irrigators is not an acceptable use of irrigator money.  These same individuals would like nothing more than to restore the board to its former make up of a majority of compact supporters.

However no one could have been prepared for a decision by Lake County to not send out ballots to at least 1/3 of irrigators for the upcoming commissioner elections.  Shortly before the ballots were sent out, Lake County officials decided to  reinterpret and enforce a provision of the law requiring irrigators whose land is held in a trust, corporation, or LLC to have a proxy form on file with the elections office.    No form.  No ballot.  No notice.

This decision not only violated the special elections statutes, but also served to disenfranchise irrigators by suppressing their right to vote for irrigation district representatives.

In the midst of all this chaos, commissioners also discovered that the 2015 elections were compromised because the county did not mail ballots to “out of state” owners of property served by the project during that election, again without notification to the electors.

FJBC CANCELS ELECTION BECAUSE IT IS COMPROMISED

In response to the fiasco created by Lake County’s decision, the Flathead Joint Board of Control voted to cancel the election last Wednesday afternoon.   A reasonable person would think that the county would accept the cancellation and work with the FJBC to plan an uncompromised election sometime in the future.

LAKE COUNTY REJECTS FJBC CANCELLATION

But those of us living in Lake County forget that we are living in the TWILIGHT ZONE.  Lake County has refused to accept the cancellation notice , stating that the Flathead Joint Board of Control lacks standing to cancel an election, and is planning to proceed forward with the election in spite of the flawed process, and large number of disenfranchised voters.

FLATHEAD JOINT BOARD RESPONSE

This morning, the Flathead Joint Board submitted this letter to the county, stating once again the reasons for the cancellation and giving them notice that the Joint Board will not honor the result of this election should the county proceed with it.

The ball is now in the county’s court.

WHAT CAN IRRIGATORS DO? 

If Lake County chooses to dig in its heels instead of working cooperatively with the FJBC to resolve the election fairly, it is possible that this issue will need to be resolved in the courts.

Let’s be clear: Lake County officials are entirely responsible for this fiasco and it is their responsibility to ensure a fair and clean election.

Because of the confusion caused by Lake County officials, let your conscience be your guide as to the instant election.  However, if you plan to vote, and in order to ensure that each irrigator is prepared for the next election, whenever that may be called, it is critically important to take the following steps now, to ensure that you will have your vote:

1. First, verify that for this year, you received a ballot for every parcel of land you own that is served by the FIP. We are getting feedback that this problem may extend beyond the issue of trusts and corporations.  If you have not received your ballots for ANY of your parcels of project land, we ask you to document this information for your records.  It will be helpful for the Joint Board’s records too.  Note: This step only applies to the Mission and Flathead Districts because no ballots were mailed in the Jocko district due to uncontested elections.

2. If you  did not receive a ballot for every parcel of land you own (in the Flathead and Mission Districts), contact the elections office at 883-7268 to determine the reason why your ballots are missing.

3. Complete the required proxy form if necessary – If the reason for a missing ballot is that you reside out of state or have your property designated as a trust, partnership, or corporation, it will be necessary for you to complete this form, have it notarized, and take it directly to the Elections Office in Polson to get your Ballot for the parcels in question. The elections office will give you the ballots upon receipt of the form, and if you so choose, you can vote your acreage at that point in time.

Note:  It is recommended that you complete one form that lists all of the parcels you own that are in question.

4. For landowners who did not receive a ballot for lands that are owned by an individual, but who want to vote, because of the county’s May 3^rd deadline, we recommend you drive to the election office to receive your ballot and vote it while at their office.

5. For anyone who did not receive a ballot who would like to file a complaint with the Montana Secretary of State, click on this link to do it electronically.

6. Contact the Flathead Joint Board of Control with questions at 745-2090 or check their website at http://www.flatheadjointboardofcontrol.com/.

SUMMARY

We began this post by discussing just how powerfully irrigators have used their vote to make sure their water and property rights are protected.

Irrigators know it and so do proponents of the compact.

By all appearances it seems that outside forces are once again trying to work against irrigators to accomplish an agenda that most irrigators do not agree with, and to stop efforts by the Joint Board to protect the irrigation community’s interests.

This is a travesty and speaks to the corruption that seems to permeate throughout Montana.  Irrigators and non-Irrigators alike no longer have the luxury of voting people into office expecting these officials to do the right thing.   As many of you know, our county government has not been our friend in the water compact battle.  To the best of our knowledge they continue to support the water compact as it is written.   We must remain vigilant, and speak out when these types of injustices occur.

We ask each irrigation project landowner to document any missing ballots and take steps to make sure that your voice is not stifled in this election, or any other.

Flathead Joint Board Issues Press Release

FLATHEAD JOINT BOARD OF CONTROL for the FLATHEAD, MISSION AND JOCKO IRRIGATION DISTRICTS

P.O. Box 639
St. Ignatius, Mt 59865
(406) 745-2090
Fax: (406) 745-3090

PRESS RELEASE

On Tuesday, July 21, the Flathead Joint Board of Control (FJBC), as well as all three irrigation districts, voted unanimously to maintain the 2016 Operations and Maintenance tax assessments for the Flathead Irrigation Project at the current rate of $26 per acre. The BIA, as the interim Project Operator, had indicated via the Federal Register that they would be requesting an increase of $7.50 per acre. The FJBC requested budget information from BIA to determine the need for the dramatic increase and how they intended to use the nearly $1 million in additional funds. No information was provided to the FJBC, prompting them to maintain funding at current levels.

The FJBC needed to take action on the issue by August 3 to meet the deadline for getting the assessment on the tax statements. The deadline for public comment on the proposed increase requested by BIA is August 10. For information on how to comment, please contact the FJBC office at 745-2090.

Warm Regards,

Johanna Clark
FJBC Executive Manager
fjbc@blackfoot.net
406-745-2090

Note:  Don’t forget to send comments concerning this issue to the BIA.  See our recent post for additional information, including deadline and timing.

Flathead Irrigation: Call to Action

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS PROPOSES RATE INCREASE:

The Bureau of Indian Affairs has submitted a proposed increase to the Operating and Maintenance Tax Assessment for all districts of the Flathead Irrigation Project in the amount $7.50 per acre for every fee-land irrigator.

No reason has been given for the increase, and the BIA has so far refused to provide any accounting for why the additional funding is necessary. For this reason and others, the Flathead Joint Board of Control voted against the proposed rate increase earlier this week.

A comment period is now in effect and concerned citizens and irrigators can offer input to the Federal Government regarding this matter. See the official notification, along with a list of questions and answers concerning the process for commenting here:  Federal Registry

IRRIGATOR COMMENT LETTER

The comment letter below was written by Roy and Sheila Vallejo of St. Ignatius, MT, along with several others concerning this rate increase.  They are hoping that you would like to add your name to their letter which will be submitted by the pending deadline.  Details on how to get your name added to the letter can be found below.

July 23, 2015

Julan Jin, Chief
Division of Water and Power
Office of Trust Services,
Mail Stop 4637-MIB,
1849 C Street NW
Washington DC 20240

RE  Flathead Indian Irrigation Project (Aka FIIP, FIP, FIPP, Project) Proposed Rate Increase

The BIA has filed in the Federal Register for an increase on Operation and Maintenance (O&M) to be imposed upon Flathead Joint Board of Control (FJBC) irrigators. By law, BIA federal, state and tribal governments cannot assess irrigation districts. Only the irrigation districts have the power to assess themselves. (1948 Repayment Contract)

In requesting additional funds for the O &M there is no accountability as to when, why, where, and how the assessed money will be spent.  We require a budgeted cost breakdown by department. The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) requires a budgeted cost breakdown by department when considering bids. Why should we accept less information than the U.S. government requires.

BIA has shown a high level of disregard to the FJBC and its irrigators by refusing to present in-depth budget reports for the last two years when requested by the FJBC. Reports that were furnished were of a general nature. BIA has not shown or produced records of personnel, how many employees, staff, etc. We do know that 107 years of non-tribal workforce experience was replaced with minimally experienced tribal preferential hired and re-hired employees who received a substantial wage increase.

BIA terminated experienced, established workers who were not tribal or who disagreed with the CSKT Compact. These non-tribal men together had 107 years of in irrigation project experience among them. They held responsible positions. This is an act of discrimination that would not be tolerated anyplace in America by any other corporation or company.  The by-product of their questionable hiring practices has been significant staff turnover. Staffing is now short five to eight employees causing further hardship on the remaining staff as well as project irrigators.

From 2010 to 2014 the project operations under the FJBC cleaned and re-shaped 900 canal miles, sprayed over 1,000 canal miles, crews replaced hundreds of structures, 65 truckloads of saw-logs were removed from 26 miles of canal. Most of the saw logs were returned to the owners, predominantly tribal members. Fifty miles of canal were cleaned of brush, trees and logs.

The BIA repaired 150 yards or 450 feet in Camas District at a cost of $100,000. The repairs were inadequate and failed, and the area continues leaking worse than before. This is the driest year since 1910. The BIA did not capture 6 weeks of runoff water. Water should have been captured by March 15, 2015. Capture did not start until April 15^th, 2015. Pumps were not started until June 15^th, 2015. The pumps should have been started by the middle of April. One pump was not working until July 2, 2015. The BIA employees had all winter to work and repair the 3^rd pump for this irrigation season. This is why we are requesting the return of the project operation to the irrigators as was agreed upon in the 1948 payback contract.

Where former Project employees worked and made repairs during winter months, the current BIA employees did not accomplish any significant maintenance or repairs during this recent Winter.

This is a clear case of mismanagement that would not be tolerated by other corporations or companies. Within the BIA and CSKT tribal corporation systems, instances such as these are tolerated and accepted, to the direct harm of irrigators, tribal and non-tribal.

In mid-2014, the Cooperative Management Entity (CME) had $ 3 – $5 million in Eagle Bank, Polson, Montana. We are informed that the accounts were closed and the monies were moved to the federal treasury as of June, 2015. These funds were set aside for the purpose of operation and maintenance of the FIP and fisheries. Is it any wonder that we do not agree to an increase O & M fees? The BIA has shown disregard for the FJBC, the people who supply the monies, and the laws. Please do not give more of our money to a mismanaged, unaccountable entity, further financially burdening irrigators with additional O & M rate and fee increases. We work hard for our money. Our incomes are being adversely affected by pre-implementation of a non-ratified CSKT Compact being imposed on irrigators.

The BIA has shown itself to be incompetent at minimum. No further costs to irrigators should occur until the BIA is willing to do such minimal considerations as:

1) Return phone calls to the FJBC staff and Board;
2) Meet face-to-face with FJBC Board and staff;
3) Produce specific budget reports that provide a transparent and satisfactory document(s) of their operations
4) Stop unfair and inadequate hiring, operation and maintenance practices.

The BIA agency currently operating the Flathead Irrigation Project has not earned and should not be arbitrarily granted additional funds burdensome to every irrigator until communication and completions of urgently needed maintenance projects have been accomplished to the satisfaction of irrigators paying for this service.

Respectfully Submitted,

CALL TO ACTION:  ADD YOUR NAME TO THE LETTER OR SEND YOUR OWN COMMENTS

We would like to put out the call to all irrigators and other interested / concerned parties to either submit your own comments, or request to be added to the letter above.

To add your name to the letter, contact Sheila Vallejo at 745-4250 or Carol Lyons at 544-6721.  The deadline for getting your name added to the letter is AUGUST 1, 2015.  You can also email Shelia, giving her your permission to be added to the letter at rswhiskey@stignatius.net.

If you prefer to send in your own written comments (no email allowed), all comments on the proposed rate adjustment must be in writing and submitted on or before August 10, 2015,  addressed to:

Yulan Jin
Chief, Division of Water and Power
Office of Trust Services
Mail Stop 4637-MIB
1849 C. Street NW.,
Washington D.C. 20240
Telephone (202) 219-0941

CCWM COMMENTS

Keep in mind that the BIA took over operations of the project through a hostile takeover last year, which is the subject of an active lawsuit, frequently called the Turnover Suit.

To date the federal government has been using delay tactics on this suit, no doubt because they are awaiting the outcome of the water compact.  Their likely thinking is that if the water compact succeeds in giving all of the project water to the tribe, then management of the project is likely a moot point, after all, the tribe has been trying to gain control of the project for decades and if they get all the water, shouldn’t they be able to manage it too?

In other words, the water compact must be killed, and short of that litigation is the only answer.  No ifs, ands or buts.  The citizens of western Montana must resolve ourselves to do whatever is necessary to take this battle all the way up to the United States Supreme Court.

Compact Implementation Watch

©2015 Concerned Citizens of Western Montana

We learned from an article in the Daily Interlake, and by watching the proceedings of the Water Policy Interim Committee (WPIC, Tuesday June 2, item no. 7, approx 3 hours in), that the state is proceeding full steam ahead in implementing the CSKT Compact.  This is in spite of the fact that that the constitutionality of the of the compact vote is in question through litigation.

The two items that are being implemented are:

1. The formation of the Compact Implementation Technical Team (CITT) which is appointed by the “parties” (state, Tribe, United States) to start spending money “planning for adaptive management and project rehabilitation efforts”.    The adaptive management, as you recall, is the compact’s experimental measurement and adjustment program to try to get the field data to match the Tribes’ flawed computer model of the project.  Measuring devices and headgate control are in our futures.
2. Milltown Dam Co-Owned Water Right.  This is an off reservation instream flow right on the Clark Fork River held by the state as a FWP flow right for 2,000 cfs which has been allocated and split between two tributaries.  This is the “co-owned CSKT-MT FWP water right,” a creature whose legal existence is unknown and uncertain at this time.

Both components of the compact, when implemented immediately, have several key drawbacks, one of which has already drawn a legal challenge and request for injunction.

Some observations regarding these two immediately implemented items include the following:

• The state has used the “drop in the bucket” irrigation rehabilitation promise like they’ve used the 10,000 claims threat–“pass the compact and you’ll get the money, don’t pass it and you won’t”.  The truth is, any finished negotiation would have already have these projects identified and funds allocated.  You don’t see that anywhere in this half-baked water theft scheme known as the Compact.
• The CSKT  itself can’t co-own the water right, it is co-owned by the United States in trust for the CSKT.  Can that water right be implemented by the state without the United States approval?

Remember in the Compact debate, nobody said anything about immediate implementation of the Compact–the sponsor didn’t explain it and neither did the Compact Commission.  Even the Attorney General’s office, in responding to the FJBC suit, screamed out that the “case was frivolous” because the compact would “not be implemented for years” (note: looks like nobody read the compact, even the AG!).

Compact sponsor and WPIC member Vincent felt the need to explain those pieces of the compact, as if dumfounded that no one read that part of the compact but also realizing he’d not spoken about it either.   But I guess that’s the way they do business around there, now isn’t it?

The real Compact will now get exposed and those who supported it are going to be very uncomfortable as more people realize what are so called elected officials have given us.  As if on cue, Compact Commission and WPIC  member Kathleen Williams was just shocked, shocked, that people didn’t realize the Tribes were going to file their 10,000 claims anyway.  In 2013, as sponsor of the compact bill, her “dog in the fight” (her words, not mine) was that she didn’t want the Tribes  filing claims on her side of the mountain.  Ms. Williams has been an avid supporter of the hoax used to scare and divide Montanans.

Over a two-three year span, the compact was sold to Montana through deception, misinformation, and half-truths.  We have identified all the factual items of this compact that they have denied exist. Now all of these half-truths will come out into the light, as the compact proponents have to explain the harsh realities of this Compact to their neighbors and colleagues who they deceived.

The Compact Implementation Watch

Now that the compact proponents think they have it in the bag, they will by their actions and public statements gradually begin to reveal certain details of the Compact that they haven’t shared with others.  And in other cases, they will increase their efforts to hide the true impacts of the Compact, especially when asked about the Compacts details on the taking of water rights of the irrigation project.

In general we look forward to hanging the compact around the neck of politicians who brought us this compact these comments being revealed, and to learning more about how this very bad deal was perpetuated against negotiated on behalf of Montana.

In the meantime, here are some things you can do right now to help us keep track of the state and federal  pre- implementation of the Compact:

1. Stream Watch!  Pictures please of dry reservoirs and all the water being put into the stream and not used on fields!  This is the pre-implementation of the Compact instream flows.
2. Legal notices: instream flow Environmental Impact Statements, public meetings, or notices
3. Milltown Dam water right–streamflow/gauge watch (if interested let us know in the comments and we will contact you) AND reports of water delivery shortages or changes
4. Irrigation water deliveries–quota water, non-quota, stream flow (are they sending more water downstream than on the field).  We need pictures, dates, times and any other information
5. Disclaimers appearing on title insurance, bank loans, water rights certificates, land titles regarding Tribal water right
6. Governor’s/state spending of $3 million of discretionary fund
7. Legal notices of water court activity involving water claims in western Montana.

Please remember that documentation is evidence and is very, very important.  We must be sure and be able to prove our concerns in a court of law, because that’s where all of this is headed.

The protection of liberty demands that we protect our neighbor’s water rights and the regional water rights of western Montanans.  Please join us in this fight!

Hidden War

© 2015 Concerned Citizens of Western Montana

Most Western Montanans are not aware that a war is being waged against them, a  battle for their land and water.  This video is the first in a three part series of videos that lays out  the details of this war and introduces the Montana Land and Water Alliance, an organization created to protect the property rights of Montanans.

MLWA Update: How We Fight Back

©2015 Montana Land and Water Alliance

Submitted by Kate Vandemoer, Board Chair

It has been about a month since the dubious “passage” of the CSKT Compact by the 64th Montana Legislature and we still don’t know if the Compact was in fact legally passed or not.

From a review of the video record of the events leading to its dubious “passage”, it seems plain as day that a 2/3 vote of each house was required to pass the Compact, specifically because of the language in the Compact itself on pages 46 and 76 which granted the state immunity from suit.

The Montana Constitution permits the state to limit its ability to be sued but that requires a 2/3 vote of both houses of the legislature.  Neither the Montana House or Senate achieved the required vote margin for SB 262.  The Senate was short 3 votes and the House, 13.  But note: the House was within 3 votes of killing the compact 50-50.

Montanans have fought back against this Compact effectively and with truth.  And I think many believe, and the MLWA certainly does, that the fight now has just begun.  This post is an overview of our thinking as we move forward to fight back.

Phase I:  Legislative Strategy

The MLWA, along with many others, saw that our best and least inexpensive option to kill the compact was in the legislative process, although a lot of attention was paid to preemptive actions that would have prevented the state from even considering the Compact. Those were considered more detrimental to longer term challenges than simply killing the Compact in the legislative session. The legal strategy then was to develop and disseminate the ammunition to take down the Compact

Our attorneys focused on three major aspects of the Compact:  the Article IX and other constitutional violations through the UMO; the taking of agricultural water through the perversion of the Winters Doctrine; and the lack of merit to off-reservation instream flow claims in the aboriginal territory and east of the Rocky Mountains.  These papers document key aspects of history, federal reserved water rights of Tribes, the Montana Constitution, and water law that formed a basis for materials presented and utilized in legislative hearings and communications.

We assert that we–all of us– did kill the Compact in 2015.  And, not only did we stop it in the legislature, we defeated the Compact’s arguments hands down:

• the existence of off-reservation water rights,
• the Tribes’ ownership of everyone’s water including that belonging to irrigators,
• the unconstitutionality of the State’s actions in giving away the state’s water and abandoning citizens
• the unsupported expansion of federal reserved rights under the Winters doctrine
• the unlawful and unsupported Tribal/federal jurisdiction over state citizens in violation of Montana’s constitution, state and federal law, and case law
• the failure of the state to conduct any studies of the Compact’s impacts on the economy, environment, private property,

Those facts are on the record that has been built in these past two years, and it is a more factual record than the State of Montana’s, which bodes well for any future challenge by anyone.

The most unexpected outcome was a potentially invalid vote–from the “immediate” planning standpoint, it was either “yes” or “no” but not “maybe”.  So the most important thing that has happened to support all the work of the legislative strategy  is the filing of the lawsuit by the Flathead Joint Board of Control (FJBC) members challenging the validity of the vote, discussed previously on this blog with all legal documents here.

The Compact/SB 262 has not passed until there is resolution to this case and in spite of the governor’s signature.

Nevertheless, the “injunction phase” is the immediate action underway with an eye toward effective and cost effective practices to stop the compact in place if it is ruled valid.  We are fortunate to have the unexpected filing of the FJBC individuals(FJBCI) case as an excellent, sharp immediate response to an unconstitutional vote.  The FJBCI action  requests injunctive relief on implementation of the compact, but only until the vote issue/constitutionality is resolved.

The time afforded by this action has provided an opportunity to widely analyze and consider all the institutional levels in which the implementation of the Compact should be stopped, including the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs in any operation of the irrigation project, the Tribes’ federal action in terms of how much weight the unapproved Compact carries in resolution of that case (updated here),  and finally, the state DNRC and MTFWP roles in immediate implementation of the CSKT Compact without congressional approval.  Multiple legal tools will be employed.

The strategy and ultimate legal action(s) of the MLWA in this phase is to stop the compact from being implemented in any fashion or used in other proceedings until the Compact has been approved by Congress, the Montana Water Court, and the Tribe. This will entail a variety of legal forums, activities, and other actions.

Phase II– Pre-Congressional Review Challenges

Because of the Compact opposition factual record developed in the last three years, many legal, unconstitutional,economic, environmental, and property rights issues have been exposed and documented.

More importantly, the public is alerted and more engaged in this issue than ever before and “wise to” the antics of the media, politicians, and rule changes, all pointing toward corruption in high places.

When the injunctions are securely in place and/or with the compact vote ruled void, the next phase of legal, constitutional, administrative law, and other challenges begin. The Compact as a whole may be long, but it is an “easy” target in many ways as it stands on weak legs. Even the state admitted there would be pre-congressional challenges to the compact arising under legal and constitutional grounds.

But with the  long-term issues raised by the Compact, the Tribes’ federal lawsuit set to gear up again in early June (update here) and other on-going litigation, the likelihood is that all or some of these issues (land, water, liberty) will end up in the United States Supreme Court.  And probably should be to be finally resolved.  Original jurisdiction may apply here.

Our view is that this is where the multiple actions begin that are both independent and in support of existing legal actions. Some or all of these actions could be class action suits and/or collaboration with other on-going action.  And, while multiple actions may be appropriate, strategy is crucial—the MLWA’s guide in this phase–aside from funding– is to be sure the cases are meaningful whether they  win or lose.

To that extent, we will use the work of our attorneys  and on-going research as a basis for moving forward, and will engage our litigation arm as needed and collaborate with others in related litigation. Whatever the mix of efforts during this phase, it could be an important opportunity to get these issues to the Supreme Court and directly resolve the issues now.

Phase III–Congressional Review

We have always anticipated that when and if the compact got to Congress, it would be on a fast track., but when the Compact gets to congress it will indeed get a fundamental  review.

The rules for that review have changed as of February 26, 2015 according to the Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee and described in this letter.  The Compact must undergo Interior and Justice Department review and certify that the compact meets the federal criteria—described in the letter– before the Committee even looks at it.

Ok, so the federal agencies will have a chance to review it.  Any likelihood they will provide the same robust review of the Compact that the state and tribes did?

The federal failure to perform any rigorous study of the scientific basis for or impact of its decision-making in the compact on and off reservation, including EPA evaluation, is a ripe target for action here, whether working with agencies during this review to change to or delay/defeat the compact, litigating the results of their review, or testifying before/working with Congress on such an evaluation.

And, what if, this is purposely ‘fast tracked’ to get it signed by Obama before he leaves office?  Will agencies implement the agenda look the other way and will Congress do the same?

It would appear that another  opportunity to litigate the issue in the US Supreme Court may arise.

Phase IV–Montana Water Court Phase

This is the phase where the particulars of the Compact— if they survive the vote constitutionality issue, and if they remain following congressional review–are challenged, many of them at the summary judgment level. Again, the foundation laid by the papers of MLWA attorney Richard Simms will be most useful in guiding legal challenges to the heart of the compact.It is in this phase that the 10,000 claims could be disposed of through summary judgment.

There must be an Attorney General in Montana at that time to ensure that Montanans and Montana’s rights are protected in this last-chance phase.  If it were held today, this Attorney General would give away the store and the kitchen sink. (note added: when the AG finally got involved in the Tribes’ federal lawsuit in June of 2014, he did move for dismissal in the case based in part on  a rule that the federal court cited in its current dismissal of the Tribes’ federal lawsuit.)

After the water court rules, then the next series of challenges ensue, most assuredly by the Tribes. If it hasn’t gone to the U.S. Supreme Court already, it will then.

The Path Forward: Action Now

In the long run, no one can afford to let all the other phases pass by before getting involved, and again, the Alliance’s effort is to stop this thing now and never let it get out of Montana. There are significant opportunities to stop and/or derail the compact through existing and new litigation now and into the future.

The MLWA welcomes your thoughts and suggestions.

Helena Handbasket 04/15/15

SB262 passed the 2nd reading in the house by a vote of 53-47.  Here are details of the days events in a nutshell,

HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE UPHOLDS SPEAKER KNUDSEN’S RULING THAT SB262 REQUIRES 2/3 VOTE OF BOTH HOUSES

This morning, the house rules committee upheld Speaker Knutson’s ruling requiring a 2/3 vote of both houses for SB262, ratification of the water compact.

HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE DECISION OVERRULED BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY ON THE HOUSE FLOOR 

The rule committee action was reported out to the house floor this afternoon as of normal protocol and procedure.  As was expected, 41 democrats with the help of 11 republicans appealed the ruling and voted to overrule the committee ruling with a vote of 52-48.

COMPACT DISCUSSED ON FLOOR – ALL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS VOTED DOWN

SB262 was moved up on the agenda and Steve Fitzpatrick introduced it on the floor.

Rep Jeff Essmann brought an amendment to the bill to change the state’s waiver of immunity on the bill.  The amendment failed by a vote of 48-52.

Rep Steve Lavin proposed an amendment to guarantee the historic levels of Flathead Lake.  It was resisted and voted down 48-52.

Rep Jerry Bennett proposed an amendment to move the $55 million into HB2 budget bill.  It was defeated 47-53.

Rep  Keith Regier proposed an amendment to ensure tribe would not interfere with the operation of Hungry Horse Dam.  Failed 47-53.

Rep Keith Regier proposed an amendment to exclude FIP water right from the tribal water right and allow it to be adjudicated in the Montana Water Court.  It was resisted, and failed on the floor by a vote of 47-53.

Rep Clayton Fiscus proposed an amendment to have no time immemorial water right off the reservation.  It was also resisted and failed on the floor by a vote of 47-53.

Rep Kelly Flynn also proposed amendments that failed on the floor.

Rep Matthew Montforton’s amendments also failed.

Rep Kelly Flynn’s amendment to set duty of water to the water to a BIA report, and to revise the delivery entitlement certificate to include promised amounts based upon the type of soil.  This amendment also failed 46-54.

Rep Keith Regier’s amendment to restrict access to tribal members only.  This amendment failed on a vote of 49-51.

Rep Clayton Fiscus recommended an amendment to comply with judicial interpretation of Tarrant v. Herman, states have absolute all right and authority to all water and the lands beneath them.  This amendment was voted down 46-54.

Rep Keith Regier moved an amendment for no off reservation water rights.  This amendment failed 47-53.

Rep Keith Regier moved an amendment to eliminate CSKT’s exclusion from state law concerning off reservation water transfers.  This amendment was voted down 47-53.

Many wonderful legislators spoke against the compact citing their doubts and concerns.

Many others through a show of hands admitted that they have not read the entire compact.

Rep Miller moved for cloture 59 voted yes 41 no.

WATER COMPACT PASSES 2^ND READING IN THE HOUSE

At 3:00 p.m. the compact bill was brought to a vote.  It passed 2^nd reading with a vote of 53-47.

Here is the vote as recorded on the legislature website:

N  Ballance, Nancy	Y  Funk, Moffie	Y  MacDonald, Margaret (Margie)	Y  Price, Jean
Y  Bennett, Bryce	N  Garner, Frank	N  Mandeville, Forrest	N  Randall, Lee
N  Bennett, Gerald (Jerry)	N  Glimm, Carl	N  Manzella, Theresa	N  Redfield, Alan
N  Berglee, Seth	N  Greef, Edward	Y  McCarthy, Kelly	N  Regier, Keith
Y  Berry, Tom	N  Hagstrom, Dave	Y  McClafferty, Edith (Edie)	N  Ricci, Vince
N  Brodehl, Randy	N  Harris, Bill	Y  McConnell, Nate	Y  Richmond, Tom
N  Brown, Bob	Y  Hayman, Denise	N  McKamey, Wendy	Y  Salomon, Daniel
Y  Brown, Zach	Y  Hertz, Greg	Y  Mehlhoff, Robert (Bob)	Y  Schreiner, Casey
N  Burnett, Tom	N  Hess, Stephanie	Y  Meyers, G. Bruce	N  Schwaderer, Nicholas
Y  Clark, Christy	Y  Hill, Ellie Boldman	N  Miller, Mike	Y  Shaw, Ray
Y  Cook, Rob	Y  Hollandsworth, Roy	N  Monforton, Matthew	Y  Smith, Bridget
Y  Court, Virginia	N  Holmlund, Kenneth	N  Moore, David (Doc)	N  Staffanson, Scott
N  Cuffe, Mike	Y  Hunter, Chuck	N  Mortensen, Dale	Y  Steenberg, Tom
Y  Curdy, Willis	Y  Jacobson, Tom	N  Noland, Mark	Y  Swanson, Kathy
Y  Custer, Geraldine	N  Jones, Donald	Y  Noonan, Pat	Y  Tropila, Mitch
N  Doane, Alan	Y  Karjala, Jessica	Y  Olsen, Andrea	N  Tschida, Brad
Y  Dudik, Kimberly	Y  Kelker, Kathy	N  Olszewski, Albert	N  Wagoner, Kirk
Y  Dunwell, Mary Ann	Y  Kipp, George	N  Osmundson, Ryan	Y  Webber, Susan
Y  Eck, Jennifer	N  Knudsen, Austin	Y  Pease-Lopez, Carolyn	Y  Welborn, Jeffrey
N  Ehli, Ron	N  Lamm, Debra	Y  Peppers, Rae	N  White, Kerry
Y  Ellis, Janet	N  Lang, Mike	Y  Perry, Zac	Y  Williams, Kathleen
N  Essmann, Jeff	N  Laszloffy, Sarah	Y  Person, Andrew	Y  Wilson, Nancy
N  Fiscus, Clayton	N  Lavin, Steve	Y  Pierson, Gordon	N  Wittich, Art
Y  Fitzpatrick, Steve	Y  Lieser, Ed	N  Pinocci, Randall	Y  Woods, Tom
N  Flynn, Kelly	Y  Lynch, Ryan	Y  Pope, Christopher	N  Zolnikov, Daniel

TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY THE BILL WILL NOT BE SENT TO APPROPRIATIONS

The motion to move SB262 to House Appropriations was voted down 40-59.

This bill has followed the path for Medicaid Expansion to the T.

CALL TO ACTION: NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO GIVE UP

Keep contacting legislators and pray that at least 3 of them change their minds on the third reading tomorrow.

You can contact them individually using the online messaging form at this link, or email or telephone them at the contact information noted below.

When talking to legislators, be sure to convey to them that all of the amendments proposed today to clarify and improve the compact and to protect Montanans were voted down.

None of the amendments proposed today would have stopped the compact.

This demonstrates that there are very serious problems with the process, the legality, the constitutionality and the practical impacts on Montana citizens. This is a forever document that is too big, too complicated with too many unknowns.  It will impact Montana for generations to come..

Then urge them to vote no on the third reading of SB262 tomorrow.

Please be respectful but firm in your opposition to the compact.