©2016 Montana Land and Water Alliance
As if the CSKT Compact could not get any worse, Senator Tester’s “tweaks” rewrite of the CSKT Compact actually is worse than the original document! While the basic odiferous onerous components of the old compact are still incorporated,
the new Compact makes it clear where the Tribes/United States are going: the complete takeover and decommissioning of the Flathead Irrigation Project.
Tester’s S. 3013 proposes the federal turnover of the project to the CSKT and $2.3 billion not to “fix” the project, but really to decommission it through “repair” of all the habitat damage done by the project to the reservation. You won’t find the words “decommission” in the Tester bill, but it can easily seen by the description of the projects undertaken with the “irrigation development fund”.
In the meantime, the 1908 Act requires that the project be turned over to the landowners within the project, including Tribal members. And those discussions are in court-mediated proceedings right now.
Need any more proof that the world is upside down right now?
MLWA Letters to Congress
The letters posted below were FAXED to Senator Tester and those on the copy list. The letter to each Senator/Congressman was emailed to each office.
Senator Tester
The Alliance’s immediate response was to write a letter of objection to Senator Tester and copy that letter to a few key congressmen. We advised him again of the fact that the Compact has not yet made it out of Montana, and that it would be tied up in legal proceedings for the foreseeable future. Excerpts from that letter can be found below:
Your approach to resolving these difficult and important state issues, and to work around on-going critical litigation, was to completely rewrite the CSKT Compact which does not address any of the problematic issues at hand in Montana. In doing so you have exacerbated the existing problems with the original CSKT Compact which already rewrites the history of agricultural development in western Montana, federal-state relations, federal-Tribal relations, and the Treaty of Hellgate. The rewrite added a required reinterpretation of the 1887 General Allotment Act.
And don’t forget all the violations of federal law that continue to go unanswered in the CSKT Compact and S. 3013, including
the 1902 Reclamation Act, 1904 Flathead Allotment Act (FAA), and 1908 Amendment to the FAA, 1920 Federal Power Act, 1934 Indian Reorganization Act, the Winters Doctrine, and numerous federal contracts with irrigation districts existing since 1926. All of these Congressional acts continue to apply to the lands and waters within the exterior boundaries of the Flathead Reservation.
Members of Congress
Because this is the last year of the Obama administration, anything could happen with Senator Tester’s bill, and it could be attached to some benign or “must-have” bill and Congress wouldn’t know any differently. The Alliance goal was therefore to let all of Congress know via another letter, with excerpts below.
We write to first inform you that S. 3013 is not the Compact that was produced in Montana and was rewritten completely by Senator Tester. Importantly, S. 3013 does not address or resolve any of the issues in Montana.
Senator Tester was informed of these matters in February of this year… In light of this information we are astonished that the Senator would attempt to rewrite and introduce the actual legislation that is still in a Montana state court and not ready for any kind of Congressional review.
We respectfully submit that Senator Tester’s bill, S. 3013, is irrelevant to the settlement of the water rights in Montana. The actual Montana-U.S.-CSKT Compact has not yet left Montana and should not be acted upon or even considered by Congress, committee, or as part of any appropriations or other bill.
The Battle is NOT Over
The introduction of Senator Tester’s bill is an important development to look out for, even though the Senator and other Congressionals admit it is “going nowhere”. We do not take anything for granted, however–who knows if this is the new bill they will try to submit to the 2017 legislature?
Stay alert.
Western Montana Water Rights 
Dr. Kate,
Thanks so much for the update. What is your best advice as to how we can help. I can’t believe that Tester can maintain any measure of credibility when he has the audacity to sponsor legislation when the very constituional issues are not settled in his home state. I understand the bill has already been heard in Tester’s committee. Do you happen to have fax numbers for those committee members? It does no good to write because of security snail is held up for about 3 weeks.
Our central committee voted to contact Daine and Zinke again. Zinke will vote the best to make brownie points for himself but maybe we could keep it from getting out of the Senate but I bet they have put it on the fast track and plan to slip it through Appropriations.
What is the status of the litigation on the constitutionality of not having a 2/3 vote?
Keep up the fight! Aubyn
Hi Aubyn, so nice to hear from you!
I agree on snail mail…we faxed the letters to Tester and the “cc’s”, and emailed the rest. Our last concluding paragraph in the Congressional letter said that neither the real CSKT Compact nor S. 3013 should be considered in any bill, as we are concerned too they will slip it in to something. I will get those fax numbers and put them in the post and here as well.
I just think its a bold move designed to distract and confuse, but certainly is part of the whole renewed FARM effort and local efforts here to collapse the Flathead Joint Board of Control.
No decision yet on the constitutionality of the legislature’s vote. It will be a year soon since the very first hearing. We hope for the best, but have plans for the worst.
One question that keeps popping up is the fact of the extreme difference of the handling of two very similar projects in totally opposite ways. The Flathead irrigation and the Clark Canyon project were both BOR irrigation projects that were formed to improve the irrigation of lands within said projects. That being said, it seems that there is little else that is the same. It would be interesting to hear how the BOR determined to dispose of these projects in two totally opposite manners. I can’t understand the justification in the handling of either project and the outcome in both cases seems to be contrary to the intent of either project when they were first formed. I do believe that the true facts of either project will lead to a different and more justifiable outcome. It is the duty of the State of Montana to protect the citizens of this State and the financial viability of said State. The direction we are headed is going to destroy the tax base of Montana and totally ruin the chance of state citizens to enjoy the results of years of hard work and effort. Our representatives owe their constituents the decency to represent us in a fair and just manner.