Flathead Compact: One “Settlement” too Many?

© 2024 Concerned Citizens of Western Montana

Note:  When we refer to the “Tribe” in our articles, such reference is intended to be the CSKT tribal government corporation, and not individual Indians or tribal members.  With the exception of their “membership in the tribal corporation” we consider tribal members to be separate and distinct from their government, as are we from our own corrupt governments. 

It’s time to come to terms with the fact that should the Flathead Compact somehow manage to stand, it will not bring finality to the “grievances” of this tribe. 

The overreach that this compact is, if successful, will instead become the impetus needed to usher in a new era of far more aggressive overreach by the federal government on behalf of tribes throughout the country.

Additionally, the CSKT government and its wolf pack of attorneys have also proven to be overly aggressive on their own behalf

To see their roadmap for the future, one need look no further than the…..

• Tribes’ 2014 lawsuit, filed to coerce legislative ratification of the water compact,  
• Steve Daines legislation ratifying the compact in Congress, and the
• 10,000 claims filed by the US / CSKT after the compact was ratified by the Montana legislature in 2015.

No matter how much water, how much land, or how much money this tribe receives in the form of legal “settlements,” whether they be negotiated or legally coerced, it will never be enough for the CSKT tribal government.

This is because it is their corporate “business model,” and a very successful one it has been. 

C$KT Inc: A Multi-Billion Dollar Corporation

In the ninety years since the CSKT tribal government was established via the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act, the CSKT tribal government has become what appears to be a multi-billion dollar corporation

This was not accomplished through the grit and determination of the Indian people, or even the CSKT tribal council government.  It did not come out of the creation of something of value by, on or behalf of the Indian people, it is simply the result of vast amounts of federal funding pumped into just one of 574 federally recognized tribes.   

It was accomplished via federal legislation under the auspices of  tribal “self determination”, resulting in billions of federal dollars flowing through the CSKT treasury for aerospace contracts, infrastructure projects, social welfare programs, grant funding, and other tribally contracted (638 contract) federal responsibilities. 

At our last count, the CSKT had at least 16 tribal corporations under its corporate umbrella, and each of them has been busy sucking up every grant, every “federal contract” that is made available to them.

Financial “Settlements” of “Never Ending Grievances”

In addition to federal government largess, another other leg of the tribe’s financial stool is the never ending lawsuits for financial “settlements” of their ever evolving grievances and environmental mitigation settlements.  

By all appearances, each settlement enriches the tribe further while at the same time encroaching upon the private property and constitutional protections of the people or the entities that have been targeted.  The deeper the pockets the better, and how much deeper can you get than into the pockets of the federal reserve backed U.S. Government, including Bonneville Power?

Congress made it absolutely clear that the intent of the Indian Claims Commission and the United States Court of Claims cases that dealt with Indian grievances was to bring FINALITY to Indian complaints once and for all.

In the 2024 view of this history, it seems that instead of bringing finality, these court cases, long ago settled with the tribe, established a springboard from which the CSKT continues to go back to the “settlement” trough for the same issues, over and over again. We keep re-litigating the past.

See:  CSKT Indian Claims Commission and Court of Claims Settlements

Why Are Indian Tribes Still Suing Over Ancient Treaties?

• • • Part 1 of 3
    • Part 2 of 3
    • Part 3 of 3

Docket 61:  The CSKT Off Reservation Aboriginal Title Claim

Docket 50233:  More Montana Gaslighting

What is Res Judicata and Why is it Important?

Source: Excerpted from BonaLaw

The term res judicata is Latin for “a matter decided.”  If a plaintiff successfully litigates a claim, resulting in a judgment in their favor, that plaintiff cannot assert the same claim against the same defendant in a later lawsuit. Similarly, if the litigation results in a final judgment for the defendant, the plaintiff cannot try again in a future lawsuit. That plaintiff’s options are limited to the available appellate procedures.

Elements of Res Judicata

1. 1. Relitigation – Under res judicata, a party cannot bring a claim in a lawsuit once that claim has been the subject of a final judgment in an earlier lawsuit. This usually applies to any new lawsuit filed in any court, not just the court that issued the earlier judgment.
   2. The Same Cause of Action – A party cannot bring the same claim, or cause of action, against the same defendant after a final judgment. We tend to use the terms “claim” and “cause of action” interchangeably, but they do not always have precisely the same meaning in a legal context.
   3. The Same Parties, or Closely Related Parties – When the parties to a lawsuit are individuals, it is usually easy to determine when a new lawsuit involves the same parties. Res judicata can also bar lawsuits by a person or entity “in privity with” a party to the original lawsuit, as the California Supreme Court put it. This may include anyone acting as an agent for the original plaintiff, or a subsidiary of a corporate plaintiff. The same goes for defendants, such as when an unsuccessful plaintiff tries to bring the same claims against a subsidiary of the defendant or another closely related entity.

For purposes of the CSKT discussion, we would like to point you to res judicata in the context of two western Montana lands and water legal settlements:

1. within the boundaries of the Flathead Reservation (the US Court of Claims), and
2. outside of the Flathead Reservation boundaries (Indian Claims Commission).

US Court of Claims Docket 50233: Within Reservation Boundaries

In 1971, the CSKT successfully settled a claim pertaining to lands within the Flathead Reservation boundaries for $6,066,668.78 plus interest for a total paid to the tribe of $22,361,549.07.   

In today’s dollars that settlement is the equivalent of $172,450,000.

That “final” settlement did not stop the tribe from negotiating, or the state of Montana agreeing to a compact that effectively gives the tribe ownership of all of the water flowing through, over and under the reservation.  Is anyone foolish enough to think that the US Court of Claims settled the tribes’ grievance for the land without the water?

This same settlement also did not stop the tribes from filing a lawsuit on the same issues in February of 2014 against the United States, Montana, the Flathead Project Districts, several individuals, and an unnamed number of John Does.  

Thanks to the efforts of Concerned Citizens of Western Montana and then state senator Verdell Jackson, Mountain States Legal Foundation agreed to take the case on for four of the individuals (two couples) that were named in the lawsuit;

In the only brief filed by Mountain States before the case was dismissed in May of 2015, their attorneys made the following argument in reference to the Court of Claims Docket 50233 pertaining to the allotment and opening of the reservation to settlement in fulfillment of  Article VI of the Hellgate Treaty):

RES JUDICATA BARS PLAINTIFFS FROM CLOUDING TITLE TO LANDS PATENTED TO LANDOWNERS’ PREDECESSORS.

Res judicata is the collective moniker for claim preclusion and issue preclusion (also known as collateral estoppel). Issue  preclusion bars “‘successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated or resolved in a valid court determination essential to a prior judgment,’ even if the issue recurs in the context of a different claim.” Issue preclusion bars an issue from being relitigated if four requirements are met:

• • • there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the previous action;
    • the issue was actually litigated in that action;
    • the issue was lost as a result of a final judgment in that action; and
    • To the extent Plaintiffs ask this Court to declare the priority dates of their water rights,

…. The final judgment in Confederated Salish awarded Plaintiffs $6,066,668.78 in just compensation for the taking of lands by the United States, including all surplus lands patented to settlers. 473 F.2d at 485. Payment of just compensation occurred when Congress appropriated funds in satisfaction of the final judgment in Confederated Salish to the credit of Plaintiffs. 25 U.S.C. § 1251. Thus, Plaintiffs have been compensated for any taking that occurred as a direct result of the final judgment in Confederated Salish.

The payment of just compensation extinguished any remaining title Plaintiffs had to the lands patented to settlers. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized, “‘The exclusive right of the United States to extinguish’ Indian title has never been doubted. And whether it be done by treaty, by the sword, by purchase, by the exercise of complete dominion adverse to the right of occupancy, or otherwise, its justness is not open to inquiry in the courts.” United States v. Santa Fe Pac. R. Co., 314 U.S. 339, 347 (1941) (quoting Johnson v. Mc’Intosh, 21 U.S. 543, 586 (1823)).

By bringing a takings claim, Plaintiffs acknowledged that the United States had the power to take their lands through eminent domain. Confederated Salish, 437 F.2d at 468. Therefore, if title was not extinguished when the lands were patented to settlers, there is no question that any cloud on settlers’ title was extinguished when Congress appropriated money to pay just compensation to Plaintiffs. By accepting just compensation, Plaintiffs lost any remaining title to Landowners’ lands

Indian Claims Commission Docket 61:  Outside of Reservation Boundaries

In 1966, the CSKT successfully settled a claim pertaining to their lands outside of the Flathead Reservation boundaries for $4,431,622.18.

In today’s dollars that settlement is the equivalent of $42,720,000.

The proposed settlement was taken to the tribal membership, the majority of respondents in support of the settlement.  On July 1, 1966 the CSKT Tribal Council unanimously voted to accept the proposed settlement by passing Tribal Resolution 1977, APPROVING AND ACCEPTING THE OFFER TO COMPROMISE AND SETTLE THE ABORIGINAL TITLE CLAIM OF THE CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES, DOCKET NO. 61 INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION.

The parties entered into a stipulation agreement for final judgment that included the following condition:

“The judgment shall finally dispose of all claims or demands which petitioner has asserted or could have asserted in this case against defendant, and petitioner shall be barred from asserting all such claims or demands in any future action.”

In addition to the fact that aboriginal title to the tribes ceded lands was extinguished when they accepted the settlement money, the CSKT is legally precluded from going after any off reservation claims.  Period.

A copy of that stipulation agreement can be found at this link.

Flathead Irrigation Project Water

It’s important for readers to also be aware that there is one claim in Docket 50233 of the US Court of Claims that was not resolved.  The court referred to it as Paragraph 12 of the tribes complaint pertaining the tribes claim of a takings of  water within the Flathead Irrigation Project:  

Beginning with the Act of April 30, 1908, 35 Stat. 70, defendant, without the consent and over the protests of plaintiff, initiated and has carried through the construction and operation of an extensive irrigation project on said reservation known as Flathead Irrigation Project. In so doing, defendant has appropriated and used and is using large quantities of valuable water belonging to the plaintiff tribe as a whole, for the use and benefit of the owners, mostly whites, of allotted lands lying on the lower portions of the reservation. No compensation has ever been paid to the tribe tor said water or the use thereat for irrigation of said individually owned lands pursuant to the purposes of defendant, and plaintiff is entitled to recover from defendant just compensation therefor in an amount to be determined by the court.

We believe this claim by the CSKT was questionable at best, because most of the irrigation project lands were original allotments that individual Indians sold of their own volition, and profited from.

If there was any “takings” of water that took place pertaining to the project it would have been a relatively small matter of payment, and this may be why the court agreed to dismiss it in 1964 at the tribe’s request.  It is also possible that the court understood that the tribe’s water rights had not yet been quantified.   

Unfortunately this grievance was dismissed without prejudice meaning the tribe is able to bring up this issue again.

Note that the tribe only asked to be paid for tribal water that supposedly was used by non-Indians, based upon no evidence or legal foundation.  Notwithstanding the fact that 90% of the lands served by the project are privately owned (non-Indian),  how then did the state take a leap from a request for compensation, to instead giving the tribe ownership of every drop of water in the Flathead Irrigation Project to the tribe in the Compact?   

Just because the tribe beats its chest and demands that they own all the water doesn’t make it so.

Is the Flathead Compact One Settlement too Many?

We argue absolutely yes.  

The settlement aspect was resolved decades ago and the compact should have been limited to the quantification of only the tribes very specific and limited federal reserved water rights.   

Instead the state chose to upend the whole process by agreeing to create and award unlawful new time immemorial water rights and call it a settlement. 

Either Montana’s Compact Commission failed to do any due diligence with respect to the tribe’s previous  settlements, or the powers that be simply chose to look the other way when they developed and crammed this overreaching compact upon the people of Montana.

In 2021, Congress approved the ridiculously named Montana Water Rights Protection Act, that encompassed the compact, ownership of the National Bison Range, state land swaps,  most if not all of the water in western Montana, and a minimum of $1.9 billion time value adjusted (with today’s inflation it would be $2.3 billion)

Through their staunch commitment to and support of the Flathead Compact, the  Compact Parties consisting of the United States, the state of Montana and the CSKT, and Montana’s congressional delegation  propose to rewrite the history of the Flathead Reservation, the allotments, and the homesteading and settlement of western Montana.

Notwithstanding the fact that the state promised that the compact would be a final resolution to the tribe’s claims to water, one needs to look no further than tribe’s 10,000 claims to see what a whopper the state told us. 

MCA 85-20-1901:  ARTICLE VII C.1.c. The United States, the Tribes, and the State shall execute and file joint motions pursuant to Rule 41(a), Mont.R.Civ.P., to dismiss without prejudice any and all claims of the Tribes, Tribal members, and Allottees and any and all claims made by the United States for the benefit of the Tribes, Tribal members, and Allottees that have been filed in the Montana Water Court as contemplated by Article VII.D.2. The case adjudicating those claims may only be resumed if either the State or the Tribes exercise the rights each holds under Article VII.A.2 and 4;

If the compact was a final resolution of the tribe’s claims, why did the state of Montana allow language in the compact dismissing all other US / CSKT claims without prejudice, meaning that they can be brought up again in the future?

See how this works?

Anyone that thinks the compact resolved anything is not being honest.

Not only is the compact one settlement too many, it is far from a final resolution of one tribal government’s never ending lust for jurisdiction, control and money.

Compact Cuddling Cory

© Concerned Citizens of Western Montana

In Montana, it seems that liberal political candidates have discovered a successful means to get elected by running as republicans, and attempting to paint themselves as conservative.   This is why the state is full of disgusting RINO’s that advance a liberal agenda, no matter how conservative the people of Montana are.

Over the years, we’ve often heard that the Montana Supreme Court is one of the worst courts in the country for its liberal bias.  We have little doubt that the liberal slant of the court is certain, and personally have found it difficult to research the leanings of Montana judicial candidates in preparation for voting.

Sometimes it calls out to you like the Kristen Juras billboards posted in CSKT territory during her failed run for the Montana Supreme Court in 2016.  During her campaign she remained silent on the CSKT Compact as any judicial candidate would or should, but now, as the state of Montana’s lieutenant governor, she is free to do whatever our esteemed governor has tasked her to do.  She has proven herself to the political elite, via her significant role in the implementation of the CSKT compact well ahead of any legal, constitutional or judicial review of its details.

In this election cycle, we are dealing with an opening for the Chief Justice for the Montana Supreme Court and “Cory Swanson, a declared “conservative” is currently running for the position.

According to his campaign website, Swanson was hired as a Deputy Attorney General in the Montana Department of Justice for Attorney General Tim Fox in 2013. In that role, he was the lead in-house counsel and a lead trial counsel for the Montana v. Wyoming water case before a Special Master of the United States Supreme Court, which was the longest Montana DOJ trial in recent years.

For those of you active against the compact in the 2014 – 2015 timeframe, Swanson was one of Chas Vincent’s biggest water compact allies.  How many times were we told that Chas had heard read all of the jurisprudence related to the Compact issue?

We distinctly remember Swanson in the old Supreme Court Chamber at the state capitol in Helena, standing at his flip chart, touting the wonders of the compact in a legislator water compact propaganda session that was held prior to the compact votes.

This effort by Swanson, Tim Fox and others to cast the compact in a favorable light was purely for the purpose of giving legislators PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY for their water compact yes votes.

No need for legislators to read the compact or do any due diligence on the compact before voting for it because the state attorney general and his staff declared it to be legal and constitutional.

See:  Schowengert letter.

Just this morning we were reminded by a friend that in 2016, Swanson published his Conservative Case for the CSKT Water Compact in the Charkoosta News and other newspapers around the state.

One other point about Cory Swanson,  he is part of the cabal that got us the CSKT Compact.  He also once was a partner in Anderson, Baker and Swanson law firm out of Helena.  His partner Mark Baker, also went on to greater things such as working for Denny Rehberg’s Mercury LLC, and is an active US Congressional lobbyist for the CSKT

We ask you to please not vote to support Cory Swanson for the Montana Supreme Court opening.

His actions speak far louder than his words.  He is not conservative by any stretch of the imagination except his own, and as the Compact very likely will soon be going up before the Montana Supreme Court, we really don’t need a CSKT Water Compact influencer on the court.

Are the U.S. and CSKT Already Hedging Their Water Compact Bets?

© 2024 Concerned Citizens of Western Montana

Article VII C.1.d. of the Flathead Compact legislation MCA 85-20-1901  contemplates the question as to Montana’s jurisdiction over some or all of the claims in the compact: 

The Decree shall be filed by the Parties as a consent decree in Abell, or in Federal court as a new proceeding after the dismissal of Abell conditional on agreement by the Parties to seek the necessary State, Tribal, and Federal ratification of the Compact, if it is finally determined in a judgment binding on the State that the State courts lack jurisdiction over, or that the State court proceedings are inadequate to adjudicate some or all of the water rights asserted in Abell.

For more information on the Abell lawsuit, please reference Objecting to the Objectors.

NOTE:  This language pertains to the tribe’s compact created Tribal reserved water rights, both inside of and within reservation boundaries. It also pertains to most of the tribe’s 10,000 claims covering 2/3 of the state of Montana.

Does anyone want to bet that this jurisdictional issue is a future tribal lawsuit already in the waiting? 

If such a plan is indeed the case, it is highly likely that the CSKT would file such a lawsuit once the water court makes a decision on the compact and opens the rest of the basins in western Montana up for adjudication.  

We would be remiss if we failed to consider such a scenario because despite evidence to the contrary, the tribe insists that it owns all of the water, and because the compact pretty much agreed to that ownership, the tribal government believes it should have the final word on what happens to the water in western Montana. Not the state. 

There is little doubt in our mind that the tribe will fight any state adjudication of water in western Montana, particularly in Basins 76L and 76LJ.

See:  No one tells the CSKT what they can or can’t do

Thinking Ahead

So what will happen when the Water Court eventually gives the water compact a thumbs up or a thumbs down?  

Notwithstanding the fact that the compact will effectively be 100% implemented, and much of its damage already done, the Water Court decision will either be appealed to the corrupt Montana Supreme Court by the compact parties (U.S, Montana, CSKT), or the Water Compact objectors.  

From there, the Compact can be directly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court if it decides to take the case without going through other federal appeals courts.   

Another tact might be for the compact parties to not appeal a negative Water Court ruling on the compact and instead strong arm and wreak havoc upon the people of Montana by initiating a proceeding through the federal courts to adjudicate the 10,000 claims covering 2/3 of the state instead (the compact provides for this).

This was also confirmed when the state suggested this in its December 2022 brief to the Water Court:

Without the Compact, 10,109 claims will need to be adjudicated, impacting 51 of Montana’s adjudication basins, many of which already have preliminary or final decrees in place.1 (Mont. Dep’t of Nat. Resources, Update 2019 – CSKT Compact vs. Adjudication of CSKT Claims (2019); see also APS Decl., ¶ 8.)

The parties will suffer significant hardship if the stay is not extended. If the Water Court declines to continue the stay, there will be public notice of the entry of these claims in one or more preliminary decrees and the opportunity to file objections whenever a preliminary decree including any of these claims is issued by the Court. See Mont. Code Ann. §§ 85-2-232, -233; see also APS Decl., ¶ 7. Should the stay be lifted prior to the Compact’s final decree by the Water Court, the implications stretch far beyond the boundaries of Basins 76L and LJ, because the adjudication of the more than 10,000 claims filed in 51 adjudication basins on behalf of the tribes would also have to proceed. (APS Decl., ¶ 8.)  

If adjudicated by this Court, the Tribal claims would presumably be considered prima facia proof of their content and would therefore be decreed “as claimed” in a similar fashion to how this Court recently issued the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa claims, which were filed in trust by the United States Department of Justice. Id., ¶ 11. Such a large-scale, unexamined decree process across 51 of Montana’s 85 basins would present a serious risk to current senior water users who have invested heavily in defending their water claims, and many of which have been decreed previously by this Court. Ibid.

See: Have the Tribe’s 10,000 Claims Come Home to Roost?

Old Joe is full of Surprises. Not.

As if to throw another wrench into the process, and perhaps to protect the United States and CSKT’s interests in the headwaters of the Columbia River Basin and the vast amount of water flowing through western Montana, we see that the Biden administration has nominated a CSKT tribal attorney to become Montana’s first native American federal judge. 

What are the odds that Montana’s Governor and Congressional delegation will be happy to go along for that ride and confirm her?

Biden nominates Montana’s 1st Native American Federal Judge

Source:  NBC News and Native News Online

HELENA, Mont. — President Joe Biden nominated Danna Jackson to serve as a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Montana.

Jackson is currently the tribal attorney for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes.

If the Senate confirms her nomination, she would be the first American Indian to serve as a federal judge in Montana.

Montana U.S. Sens. Steve Daines and Jon Tester issued statements following the nomination.

Tester supported the decision saying Jackson has been consistently fair.

“Danna Jackson has a proven track record of applying the law with fairness and integrity throughout her legal career, and I have no doubt that she’ll bring these high standards to the federal judiciary and District of Montana. As a born-and-raised Montanan, her extensive experience at every level of Montana’s legal system makes her well qualified to serve our state and I’m looking forward to getting her nomination across the finish line with bipartisan support in the Senate,” Tester said.

Daines says he plans to look into her background to see if she’s the right fit.

“Federal judges in Montana are crushing our way of life because they legislate from the bench. Montanans want judges who will bring balance to our courts and uphold the Constitution. Unfortunately, President Biden failed to seriously consult with me prior to making this nomination. This is inexcusable and a missed opportunity. I look forward to reviewing Ms. Jackson’s background and record to evaluate if this nomination is the right fit for Montana.”

Poor Steve. How dare the “president” fail to seriously consult with the pompous a$$ that gave us the water compact in the first place. If he weren’t so dangerous, this guy really would be laughable.

So What are the Plans for Montana’s 1st Native American Federal Judge?

We have no idea, but we wanted to make sure you were aware of this news.

We ask readers to consider the full extent of its potential implications. 

We cannot think of anything good that could come of placing one more biased judge in the courts to serve the special interests of a tribe that is doing its best to restore ownership of the state of Montana back to the tribes.

Unless this corrupt system somehow collapses upon itself saving us the trouble, at some point the people will have no choice but to refuse to comply with the garbage that the political elites at the state and the federal levels continue to foist upon us ad nauseum.

Compact Parties: Struggling Under the Weight of their Overreach?

© 2024 Concerned Citizens of Western Montana

“To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.”  Sun Tsu

Sometimes it seems that we give the compacting much more credit than they deserve.

While they definitely know how to exploit the corruption that exists within the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government, and the tribe managed to stonewall and litigate its way to an unconstitutional and unlawful “negotiated water compact settlement”, we can’t help but wonder if their hubris, arrogance and overreach could now very well be their Achilles heel.

The Ciotti Decision

We’ve discussed before the adjudicative stays that were imposed by the water court via the Montana Supreme Court Ciotti decision.

The Ciotti decision was the outcome of a series of lawsuits initiated by the tribe in the 1970’s that were intended to stop state administration of water on the reservation.  The tribe has been very consistent and quite successful in their objective to slow down development of new water claims and limit changes of existing uses of water by private landowners within reservation boundaries.

In 1996 a Montana Supreme Court held that the state of Montana was precluded from adjudicating water rights on the Flathead Reservation because the CSKT reserved water rights had not been quantified.  This is known as the Ciotti decision.  The decision said in part:

….. an applicant for a permit to use water within the exterior boundaries of the Flathead Reservation must prove that his proposed use does not unreasonably interfere with the Tribes’ reserved water rights. We hold that given the nature of Indian reserved water rights such a showing cannot be made until the Tribes’ rights are quantified …..  we further hold that DNRC does not have authority to grant water use permits on the reservation until that quantification is complete……

For all intents and purposes, the Ciotti stay should have been lifted after the compact that supposedly “quantified” the tribe’s water rights was passed by the Montana legislature in April of 2015.

But not so fast. 

Basins 76L and 76LJ:  The Other Water Court Proceeding

Shortly after the compact was ratified, the Montana Water Court moved to remove the Ciotti stay, but the mutual defense provisions of the compact kicked in and the three amigo governments immediately aligned to petition the court to continue the stay in those basins.  

We believe there are a variety reasons for these extensions, but think that main reason is because the compact parties desired to have the Flathead Compact implemented before the water court made a decision on it. 

There is also little doubt that pre-Water Court implementation language in the Compact was meant to insure that the federalization of western Montana’s water was realized well before people had a chance to litigate it in the Water Court or any other courts of law.

It has never made sense that the legislature would ratify a compact with language in it provided for compact implementation well before the people affected by it could object to the compact in a court of law. 

This clearly is a violation of due process protections under the Constitution, but then again, most Montana legislators voted for the compact after admitting on the House floor that they had not even bothered to read it.

See:  Plausible Deniability

Since 2015, the stay has been extended several times, essentially unbeknownst to the general public.  The Water Court proceeding for those basins are under case numbers BASIN-0001-76L-1985 and BASIN-0002-76LJ-1985.  These stays effectively prevent the state from approving any new water uses within reservation boundaries that have been applied for since 1996, making one wonder if they will ever be approved now that the process is under the control of the tribe. 

The compact effectively awards the US / CSKT most if not all of the water on the reservation, so any such claims must now be approved by the tribally controlled water management board, if they will ever be approved at all.  We see no provisions in the compact that require the tribe to do so.

Are There Chinks in the Compact Parties’ Armor?

Each time the stay in basins 76L and 76LJ is extended, the parties must file motions and briefs with the Water Court specifying their reasoning for wanting the stay extended yet another time.

As the Water Court proceedings have moved forward toward Compact Closure, and additional briefs are filed pertaining to the extension of these stays, we have observed what almost seems like increasing desperation on the part of the compacting parties in their arguments.

Most of the briefs supporting extensions of the adjudicative stays focused on using  the threat of the tribe’s 10,000 claims as a way to get the water court to acquiesce to the extension.  This tact has worked magnificently.

See: Have the Tribe’s 10,000 Claims Come Home to Roost?

The U.S. Brief in Support of an Extension 03/29/2024

We recently thanked all of the Compact Davids (objectors) for fighting back against the egregious water compact.  As of the writing of this post there are approximately 600 objectors that remain standing. 

The sheer scope and magnitude of 600 objectors actively participating in such a proceeding is clearly getting to the compact parties. 

We’re not sure, but almost wonder if the word panic is applicable in the case of the United State’s brief.

In their brief to extend the stay, the poor United States doesn’t have the resources to deal with the Flathead Compact Decree objectors, let alone deal with a Compact created and the very complex adjudication of the water rights in Basins 76L and 76LJ resulting from their compact overreach.

We explained in section I above the extraordinary demands that the litigation track of the CSKT Decree has placed on the available technical and legal staff of the United States and Tribes. It has largely consumed attorney and technical staff time since inception. Besides the litigation phase, knowledgeable federal staff are engaged in other aspects of the overall settlement and management of a related federal program — (i) implementation of the Compact, e.g., the state-federal land exchange; (ii) ongoing operation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Irrigation Project on the Flathead Reservation, a large enterprise with attendant operations questions annually. They also have extensive other case work.

To add to that heavy burden the further responsibility of investigating the thousands of claims in preliminary decrees for basins 76L and 76LJ will prejudice the United States and the Tribes. If the preliminary decrees for these basins are issued, staff from the United States and the Tribes will need to review thousands of water rights claims filed in the early 1980s under state law, determine whether objections should be filed, and prepare those objections, all within 180 days. This will be a very resource-intensive examination and the simple fact is that neither the Tribes nor the United States have unlimited resources.

Even more interesting is the fact that the Feds are now trying to invoke the public welfare, as though they are concerned about the effect the compact will have upon water users in such a complicated adjudication process: 

The United States asks the Court to continue the stay of the state-law based claims in the preliminary decrees for basins 76L and 76LJ through January 31, 2025. Such an extension is consistent with the three criteria the Court uses to assess stay requests in this case.

First, the extension request is within the Court’s inherent power to control its docket.

Second, the extension request would allow the United States and Tribes to have adequate time and resources to complete the quantification of the Tribes’ crucial water rights in Case No. WC-2021-01 and carry out other necessary duties (like implementing the compact?).

Third, the stay would advance the public welfare by reducing the level of confusion among water users in the two basins, leading to fewer errant filings and a greater awareness of the importance for water users to scrutinize the state-law water rights claims presented by the two basin preliminary decrees.

Let’s be real.  Had the United States ever been concerned about the public welfare they would not have gone along with the overreach that is in the compact, and instead would have supported a bona fide Federal Reserved Water Rights Quantification for the tribe’s water rights.   Instead, we have what was intended to be a bullet proof compact monstrosity approved by the United States, CSKT and the state of Montana that objectors are valiantly trying to beat down.

See:  United States Motion for Extension of Stay in Basins 76L and 76LJ

The Tribes’ “Additional Brief” in Support of Extension 03/29/2024

More striking than the Feds brief is the tribe’s “additional brief” in support of the extension.

The poor, pitiful and mistreated CSKT tribal government.

The  4/ ½ page brief goes through a litany of all of the wrongs that the State has committed against the tribes beginning with the incorporation of the McCarran Amendment into Montana Water Use Act, and throughout the compact negotiation process. 

The tribal government clearly demonstrates that it believes itself to be sovereign at a level equal to or above the State of Montana.  We argue also that they also believe themselves to be sovereign above even the United States, because of course, “the tribe was here first.” 

NOTHING THAT EFFECTS THE TRIBE SHOULD EVER BE DONE WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION!

See:  No One Dares Tell the CSKT What they Can or Cannot Do!

Also according to the brief, the tribe must be allowed to continue their compact mandated provisions to implement the compact ahead of and during the Water Court proceedings.

… the Tribes are uniquely prejudiced in that they are also actively engaged in Compact implementation which cannot wait until after adjudication. In accordance with the Compact, the Compact Implementation Technical Team was formed and has been meeting since 2016. See, Art. IV.G.(2) and (3) of the Compact, codified at 85-20-1901, MCA. Likewise, the Flathead Reservation Water Management Board was also formed following the Effective Date (September 17, 2021) and has been meeting since February 2022. See, Id. at Art. II(34).

Additionally, registration of the Tribal Water Right is required to be completed within 5 years of the Effective Date, and the Tribes have set up an office to review and prepare registrations of both the Tribes’ use of the Tribal Water Right as well as to assist Tribal members and Allottees. See, Id. At Art. III.C.1(b), and Sec. 2-1-102(1) of the UAMO, codified at 85-20-1902, MCA. The same Tribal staff are engaged in all of these implementation activities.

See:  CSKT Additional Motion / Brief for Extension of Stay

Clearly All is not Well with the Compact Parties

Was the failure to submit motions to dismiss objectors a legal strategy by the compact parties, or is it the beginning of the unraveling of the three government water compact alliance?

We have heard that the tribe is very unhappy that they have to defend their compact, and that water users have been given the opportunity to object to it. 

While untrue, it is the CSKT’s opinion that the other tribes did not have to defend their compacts and neither should the CSKT.  After all, according to the tribe, the Hellgate treaty gave the CSKT all of the water flowing through, over and under the reservation, not withstanding that the treaty provided for allotments of land to individual Indians and the opening of the reservation to settlement.

We cannot even begin to know how angry the tribe must be that more than 600 objectors still remain in the proceedings.

HUGE Smile.

Let us pray that the CSKT government continues to show its true colors. What a glorious day it will be if “the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.”

The CSKT are well on their way toward accomplishing that for us.  It’s very likely just a matter of time before their disdain for the state of Montana and its citizens will fully expose their overreach in the compact, and their future plans.  

And lest we forget, the tribe and United States also have a plan B written into the compact should the “agreement” implode in the Water Court.

The 10,000 claims are sitting out there for a very important reason.  

Update on Motions to Dismiss Objectors

© 2024 Concerned Citizens of Western Montana

According to Case Management Order #3, Wednesday was the deadline for filing motions to dismiss objectors.

We’ve been watching the water court website and have only seen one motion to dismiss objectors, and that was for corporate or trust objectors that are not represented by attorneys in the proceeding.

As of the writing of this post, there is no visibility of any other Motions to Dismiss Objectors.

This could mean several things, but this is what comes to mind.

First, it is possible that motions may have been filed, but have not yet been electronically entered into the docket by the water court.

The second possibility is that the compact parties may try to somehow deal with Motions to Dismiss Objectors and Compact Fairness and Adequacy at the same time.   We’re not sure how that would work exactly, since the deadline for motions to dismiss objectors has now passed.

Another possibility is that the compacting parties may move to shorten the court schedule requesting that the court pull in the date on the Motions for Compact Fairness and adequacy.

We mention this possibility because ARTICLE VII B. 1. of the compact (MCA 85-20-1901) provides a three year window for the water court to approve the compact as follows:

If the Montana Water Court does not approve the proposed decree submitted with the motion within three years following the filing of the motion, the Compact shall be voidable by written agreement of the State and the Tribes. If the Montana Water Court approves the proposed decree within three years, but the decree is subsequently set aside by the Montana Water Court or on appeal, the Compact shall be voidable by written agreement of the State and the Tribes.

The motion filed by the water court to open the decree was dated March 15, 2022, making the three year deadline March 15, 2025.

With an anticipated hearing date of January 9, 2025, they’re cutting things pretty close to that date.

We also know however that Montana is all on board with the compact so it is highly unlikely that either the State or the CSKT would opt of of the compact, especially since Gianforte has worked so hard to get it implemented ahead of a possible water court approval, or even a dismissal.  See: June 21, 2023 Gianforte Letter.

We will do our best to keep you abreast of things as more information is made available to the public.

Reminder: Upcoming Water Court Deadlines

© 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.

This post is just a reminder that the schedule designated by the Water Court in Case Management Order # 3 shows the following upcoming events:

Motions to dismiss objections.

Motion deadline: April 3, 2024
Answer briefs: May 17, 2024
Reply briefs: May 31, 2024

Motions regarding Compact adequacy and fairness, and any other issues of law.

Motion deadline: July 10, 2024
Answer briefs: August 23, 2024
Reply briefs: September 6, 2024
Oral argument: September 19, 2024

Motions to Dismiss Objections

Keep in mind that the compacting or settling parties as they sometimes call themselves, have 17 other federal reserved water rights compacts under their belts. 

The three government amigos have been through the drill many times and have honed their skills at picking off objectors. 

We are certain that the compact parties thought the CSKT compact would be just as easy as all of the others, however the thousand plus objectors to the compact showed them otherwise. 

Adding to that, the amigos cannot be happy that so many objectors still remain in the fight against the compact.  As of the writing of this article, we estimate that 614 objectors remain in the proceedings based upon the latest service lists issued by the court:  452 pro se, and 162 represented by attorneys.

The goal of the three government amigos will focus on removing as many objectors as possible from the proceedings before the court gets to its deadline pertaining to motions on fairness and adequacy and other legal issues.

While the compact parties could change their tactics from previous compacts, it is more likely than not that they will pretty much stick with what has been successful for them in the past. 

This means they will most likely use procedural errors and  technicalities within the objections.  

For your reference, here are some highlights of the arguments made by the compacting parties pertaining to the dismissal of objectors in the Crow and the Fort Peck Compacts:

• None of the Objectors have shown that they have water rights or other cognizable legal interests that are harmed or adversely affected by the compact.
• Objector Does Not Have A Water Right and has otherwise failed to show what Cognizable Legal Interest he seeks to vindicate.
• Remaining Objectors have not shown how their ownership interests in water are affected by the compact.
• The threshold “good cause” standard in Mont. Code Ann. § 85-2-233 and the requirement that objectors specify how they have been affected and the evidence in support of that allegation is an integral part of the general adjudication process and essential to the efficient disposition of claims
• The drafters of Mont. Code Ann. § 85-3-233 sought to avoid clogging the adjudication process up with extensive pretrial motion and discovery practice by requiring all objectors to specify, up front, certain basic aspects of their objection. Objectors have failed to meet these basic requirements, and for that reason their objections should be dismissed.
• Objectors do not meet the material injury standard required for heightened scrutiny of the compact.
• The Objectors’ challenge to the material injury standard is incorrect as a matter of law
• The Objector’s Arguments for “Good Cause” are irrelevant and meritless
• The settling parties are entitled to summary judgment dismissing the objections.
• Standard of Review for Summary Judgment is appropriate ”if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Mont. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3)
• Objections Have No Legal Basis and Must Be Denied as a Matter of Law
• The Compact does not inherently deprive objector of water or water rights, and objectors fail to allege or show injury
• The Objectors in this case have failed to prove by more than mere speculation that any genuine issues of material fact remain for the Montana Water Court to decide.
• These Proceedings and the Pre-Ratification Proceedings provide due process
• Nothing in the compacting process violates the Montana Constitution’s protection of existing water rights

Unfortunately for the compacting parties, in previous compacts the focus was mostly on material injury, although the objectors did try to bring up some legal and constitutional issues such as due process.  But in the instance of the Flathead Compact, many of the active objections have also brought forth issues pertaining to fraud, collusion and overreach, as well as legal and constitutional issues and serious process concerns.  

This means there is a big unknown as to what the compacting parties’ arguments will be pertaining to those objections. 

What Happens after the Motion to Dismiss Objectors?

It depends.

Objectors that are not targeted in the motion to dismiss need not do anything.

The Uniform District Court Rules – Rule 2 pertains to Motions.  It says this about failure to file briefs and answer briefs: 

(c) Failure to File Briefs. Failure to file briefs may subject the motion to summary ruling. The moving party’s failure to file a brief shall be deemed an admission that the motion is without merit. Failure to file an answer brief by the opposing party within the time allowed shall be deemed an admission that the motion is well taken. Reply briefs by movant are optional, and failure to file will not subject a motion to summary ruling.

This means that any objector specifically targeted in the motion to dismiss will have approximately six weeks (May 17, 2024) to respond to the Compact Parties motion, and the response will depend upon the specific issues mentioned  that pertain to your objection.  

From the Blackfeet Compact Water Court Documents we see this:  

Objector Kenneth R. Pape did not respond to the Compacting Parties’ summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of his objection to the Compact. Mr. Pape’s failure to file an answer brief is “an admission that the motion is well taken.” Mont. U. Dist. Ct. R. 2(c). 

If you do not file an answer brief to the motion to dismiss, the court will likely assume you have no objection to the motion or cannot come up with a valid argument and the motion to dismiss will likely be granted. 

Stay tuned for more information on this blog after the motions to dismiss have been submitted to the Water Court by the Compacting Parties.   Once objectors know what arguments have been made against their objection, they can begin the process of preparing their response to the compact parties’ Motion to Dismiss.

No One Dares Tell the CSKT What They Can or Can’t Do

© 2024 Concerned Citizens of Western Montana

NOTE:  When we refer to the “Tribe” in any of our articles, such reference is intended to be the CSKT tribal government corporation, and not individual Indians or tribal members.  With the exception of their membership in the tribe we consider tribal members to be separate and distinct from their tribal government, as are we from our own very corrupt government entities. 

We realize that the traditional ways of  protecting  our  property and property rights have not worked. And so we turned to innovative means, of protecting, preserving and enhancing our homeland. This approach benefits all the residents of the reservation. It also provides, all types of civil remedies, and provides for governmental participation by non-tribal members.

The primary responsibility of any government is to regulate the conduct and the activities permitted within the government’s jurisdiction. On the Flathead Reservation, we’ve taken steps to protect the health, safety of persona on the reservation, and to encourage productive enterprise, while attempting to protect natural resources. We’ve also taken many steps to ensure that non-members have the opportunity to play an active role in the promulgation and implementation of government regulation, and ordinances.

Rhonda Swaney, CSKT Attorney September 24, 1996 Congressional Hearing on Tribal Sovereign Immunity

We have a tremendous amount of heartburn concerning Ms. Swaney’s statement mainly because such an approach implies that the tribe has jurisdiction over the entire Flathead Reservation, but being the magnanimous sovereigns they think they are, they are willing to include non-Indians in the tribe’s endeavors.  It is as though she is trying to make it appear to be common practice that the tribe allows non-Indians to participate in tribal decisions and that non-Indians willingly participate in and have a say in anything the tribe does.  

This couldn’t be further from the truth.  If it exists at all, the “shared participation” she speaks of exists mainly because of state and federal government overreach in the form of forced agency / citizen participation in tribally controlled boards which effectively enables quasi tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians.

Some examples include state / tribal memorandums of understanding as well as the Flathead Compact forced Unitary Management Ordinance and Board.  Just a couple of years in, we can already see that the current makeup of the Flathead Water Management board is tribally controlled.  How well do you think that will go for current and future uses of water by non-Indians if the water court approves the compact?

Repercussions for Those Who Speak Out Against the Tribe

On 07/08/2014 at the Montana Water Policy Interim Committee, then Mission Irrigation District Commissioner Tim Orr (also a CSKT tribal member) expressed his concerns about tribal retribution against people who oppose the Flathead Water Compact giving examples of actions taken against those who opposed it.  His testimony was very powerful:

Mr. Chairman and committee Members, My name is Tim Orr, ORR, I farm in St. Ignatius MT.  We raise Cattie, oats, barley, some wheat some weeds, My family has been farming and irrigating here since 1873, My wife and I bought our farm from my Dad in 1975, we’ve went through many irrigation season’s, non thankfully yet with the restrictions of the CSKT compact in place. I have no doubt it will severely limit our ability to raise crops and cattle within the Flathead Irrigation Project.

With these compact restrictions there wiII no doubt be disputes far into the future about the amount of water we’ll receive, it will give less than necessary amounts of water historically used to raise crops and cattle. There has not been one State official show up at a Flathead joint Board of Control meeting to talk water or policy. The Irrigators put the Joint Board back together three months ago. The Tribe and Governor seem to think they can communicate, but without the irrigators, nothing will be solved.

We have came here for a year with volumes of law, filed in our Lake, Missoula, Flathead, and Sanders county court houses, since 1904.. We have tried for over two years to get into the Flathead Project vault to get historic flow and diversion recording data that .has been recorded since 1904, even with freedom of information requests the project manager still refuses access. Just so you know, the Flathead Project has recorded flows and diversions every day, during the season since 1904- We promise you, we will keep digging and bringing law and historic documents, to these great halls of justice, with some hope we will receive some.

We are here today to talk about the UMO-( Unitary Management Ordnance)- No matter how you look at it it’s a political board. This takes my friends and neighbors out of the Montana court system. This is totally unacceptable. We have a God given Constitutional Right to State and Federal courts, with jury’s of our peers. Judges who can be voted on. With the Governor appointing and the Tribal council appointing this board, Ask yourself what type of individual will be chosen, it will be someone with their political views, and they most likely won’t know any thing about, farming, ranching or irrigating. There’s also a good chance to be prejudice against agriculture. Some how these days, fish, and worse than that, fish that can’t be harvested like Bull Trout have precedence over the real staples of life, grain, meat fruit, and vegetables.  Our Grand parents can tell you the importance of irrigating and food.

I want to share with you my concern with this political board, perhaps a prejudice board. I gave you a handout of my testimony, on the second page you will see some Council minutes, bring your attention to (3) highlighted and read that statement,

(3) “There are two bidders that are members of the Water Users Association. Prior council action required a member of the Water Users Association to publish an advertisement in the newspaper announcing that they are no longer a member of the association and go to the courthouse and obtain an affidavit verifying the disassociation before the individual could be awarded a bid. Council would like to follow those same procedures. TLD will find out if one of the individuals filed the affidavit.”          CSKT Tribal Council Minutes June 17, 2014.

On the previous paragraph (in the minutes) a lessee was delinquent and they are going to work with him, but, a lessee who associates with his neighbors and thinks for himself and works to defend his property rights is outcast and deprived of the land he’s made his living from the last 20 years, these individuals have paid leases on time, and took good care of the land, what more could a land owner ask?, The CSKT Council has made it clear here they are going to make policy with prejudice. This UMO board will not work for this reason alone. No other compact has a UMO. We won’t be the first. 

I will not as a Mission District Commissioner on the Flathead Joint Board of Control subjects my Irrigators to this type of prejudice. We, 28,000 proud Western Montanans’ have a Constitutional Right to a fair Water Court or any other State or Federal court.

I am the Tribal Member on paragraph 3, my lease has not been renewed, I came to you last year saying I irrigated 305 ac, I did not get 75 ac lease renewed last year so I only Irrigate 230 ac this year, look like it will be less next year. 

I ask you who are writing this new law that will affect my grand children who are the 6th generation to raise cattle in St. Ignatius Montana. What kind of future will this law you are so eager to pass bring them- Is it full of hundreds of years of pervious law and historical protections for delivery of the water that truly feeds the world? Can they 20 years from now feed this hungry worl4 like their Dad, Grandpa, Great and Great Great Grandpa’s has done

I’m Old and Grey enough to give you some advice, a wise man from Kalispell, stood in these Great halls of justice a year and a half ago and asked for 2 years, time to make this right, you are not even close, things like this UMO will not be accepted, put yourself in our shoes, this CSKT compact will be contested because it goes against 110 years of law and history. Irrigators and the tax payers in our community’s deserve a fair deal. What the problem with taking 1 or 2 or 5 years if necessary to make this agreeable, don’t try to force it down our throats. A11 we have heard is legal threats from the Tribe, and the compact commission, the ball is truly in their court, their demands are truly unacceptable.

May God give you wisdom, thank You for you Time and I hope you take it.

Note:  Tim was far more gracious to the tribe than they were to him.  He did not mention to the Water Policy Interim Committee that he also lost his job with the Flathead Irrigation Project because he opposes the compact.  We would also like to note this is just one of many other examples of tribal retribution.

Rhonda Swaney, CSKT attorney followed:

I reside on the reservation and so do most of the people who testified here today. And because it’s a reservation, it’s different than other lands in the state of Montana. It was reserved by my ancestors through a treaty, before the Montana Constitution was even written. Yes, we represent a small portion of the population, but we own 64% of the land. Water rights are property rights, and are associated with land. They’re not associated with the number of people residing in a geographical area. I ask you to remember that. I’ve heard a lot of complaints here today about the Unitary Management Ordinance, and I’d like to say that’s the way we do business on the reservation.

Chas Vincent later gave Rhonda an opportunity to clarify that her statement was in the context of the many “shared boards” that the tribe has with non-members, and not Tim’s testimony.  

The fact remains that in 2013 the tribal council had taken action to require tribal members associated with the Western Montana Water Users, to publish an advertisement in the newspaper announcing that they are no longer a member of the association and go to the courthouse and obtain an affidavit verifying the disassociation before the individual could be awarded a bid for tribal leases, for logging business, and possibly other tribal business related interests. Here are a couple of examples.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Western Montana Water Users Association, it was formed in opposition to the compact and they filed lawsuit against the irrigation districts to stop the commissioners from approving the overreaching and unconscionable Water Use Agreement.

No one should  be surprised by this, when you consider the fact that the CSKT government is communist, and communist governments allow no dissent.

As as we all now know, Tim Orr’s testimony was ignored, just like everyone else’s, and the compact was passed in the Montana legislature in 2015.

See: Censorship by Consensual Agreement?

Lake County Files Request for FERC to Consider Operational Changes for Hungry Horse and Kerr Dam

We don’t have much patience for folks that have worked themselves into a frenzy about Flathead Lake levels while at the same time ignoring the Flathead Water Compact.  The Flathead Compact, coupled with the tribe’s ownership of the dam is responsible for the Flathead Lake levels, and if the compact is ratified, it will allow the tribes to manipulate water shortages in Flathead Lake and the Flathead Irrigation Project forever into the future. 

What a powerful thing to be able to manipulate the water supply via Kerr Dam and the Flathead Irrigation Project and to also have the ability to make call on your political enemies because of your unlawful and fraudulent “time immemorial” water rights awarded in the compact.

Manipulations of water supplies will continue to go unbridled as long as there is a drop of water for the tribe to profit from or a political enemy left to destroy.  This is simply because there are no provisions in the compact or anywhere else for oversight of the tribe, except perhaps its advocates in the Department of Interior and Steve Daines. 

Tribal advocates such as Daines, Zinke and the DOI are not overseeing the tribe by any stretch of the imagination.  Instead, they are working very hard to expand the CSKT tribal empire even further by passing legislation to make it easier to put in additional dams and possibly adding crypto currency data center that will cause even more harm to the people of western Montana. 

At this point in time it is reasonable to expect FERC to oversee the operations that effect Flathead Lake levels, and with that in mind, on March 4, 2024, Lake County filed a request with (FERC) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requesting them to consider Hungry Horse and Kerr Dam operational changes based upon public safety concerns related to Flathead Lake levels during wildfire season.

On March 20. 2024 the Tribe / Energy Keepers, Inc. rather aggressively responded.

Quite simply, the County’s Petition is nothing more than an effort to ensure a constant summer lake level to benefit a small group of lakefront dock owners—forcing the Licensees to curtail revenue from, and stream flows benefiting Tribal fisheries and other natural resources below, the Project. Importantly, all revenue generated from the Project is used by the CSKT to provide essential governmental services to its members and the residents of the Flathead Indian Reservation, including wildfire prevention and response, a significant portion of which are administered in Lake County.

Kerr Dam is the crown jewel of the tribe’s infrastructure annexation “acquisitions” and true to form, not the public, or even a government entity like Lake County are allowed to express concerns or to ask for solutions to a problem that in fact the tribe had manipulated through excess water releases in early May of last year.   

We’d also like to know what essential government services the tribe is providing for non-Indians on the reservation aside from their government contracted wildfire program?  

Helping relieve us of our land and water?

See Also: 

• Flathead Lake Levels:  A Sleight of Dam? 
• The Bigger Picture:  Please Don’t Lose Sight of it
• Food for Thought:  The CSKT Flathead Lake Water Right

We Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet

See how this goes?  The tribe sees itself as having jurisdiction over us all. 

The tribal system simply is not workable in a representative republic. 

Each and every tribal member is a citizen of the state of Montana and the United States and it’s long past time to have a serious discussion about the harm Federal Indian Policy causes to all citizens of the United States irrespective of one’s membership in a federally chartered corporate tribal government.  

See: The Human Cost of Federal Indian Policy

If you think the tribe is bad now, just wait until the compact is approved by the water court and is fully in effect and is being fully enforced. 

There will be little if anything stopping the tribe from moving on to their next big encroachment on the property, rights and protections of unsuspecting people.

The tribe is not a sovereign nation.  Period.  It is a ward of the federal government and we are all paying dearly for it.  

The CSKT tribal government has overreached with this compact, and they need to be held accountable for it. 

For starters, the Flathead Water Compact needs to go.  

See:  What Tribal Sovereignty?  The Lloyd Meeds Dissent

Dirty Denny to the Rescue?

© 2024 Concerned Citizens of Western Montana

When we started this blog in 2012, we made a commitment to provide people with information about the issues that relate to the Flathead Compact, it’s genesis and the forces that have advanced and continue to advance it toward the finish line. 

While it may seem that politics have nothing to do with the compact, it was dirty politicians that have allowed the compact to advance to where it sits today, right on the precipice of its state of Montana finish line.

Montana politics are no different than anywhere else, but once you see the undercurrents within the state, understand who the bad actors are,  and are able to ascertain how the game is played, it is impossible to UN-SEE it.

We were very disappointed that Representative Rosendale’s move to run for the Senate resulted in opening his House seat to a RINO free for all. 

Despite this loss to the people of Montana, we believe Rosendale has done a great service to the people of Montana by exposing Steve Daines for the snake that he is. 

As helpful as that exposure is, it needs to result in the end of Steve’s political career, and only informed Montanans can make that happen. 

There is also a significant need to further expose Montana’s “esteemed” governor Greg and to come up with a plan that focuses on replacing the RINOs that are installed throughout state government and to ensure none get through the state primary.

There is little doubt that Mitch McConnell Junior Daines also has his politically filthy fingers and dirty superpac money earmarked for a Denny Rehberg attempt at a comeback.  

On February 21, 2024 Denny Rehberg announced he was running for the eastern Montana House seat.

Yesterday a friend forwarded this fundraising email received from none other than Dirty Denny Rehberg:

Washington isn’t working, and I want to go back and FIX THIS MESS with tested and trusted leadership! 

 

That’s why I’m running to represent Montana’s Second District. With less than 20 days left to make a big splash in the first quarter, I need your immediate help.

 

Here’s what we need to meet our goals and show everyone we’re serious about keeping Montana RED in 2024:

 

• • • 5 Max out donors $3,300
    • 10 Gold Level Donors $1,000+
    • 500 Grassroots Donors $5 to $100

We both know what’s at stake in this election!

 

Like you, I have watched Joe Biden unravel the solid foundation President Trump built for America’s future. In just one term, he’s taken America from the strongest position in our history, to the weakest ever.

Look, I left Congress and went back to the private sector, just like public servants used to do before they made it into a full-time career. But here’s the thing… I cannot sit back and watch the dysfunction anymore.

We need real solutions to the challenges we face, and that only comes with LEADERSHIP.

If you help send me to Congress, I promise to tackle the big issues before it’s too late and to leave a recognizable country to our kids and grandkids.

I want you to know, I am dedicated to fighting for our Montana values and way of life.

 

Thank you for rushing your support. I won’t let you down.  

 

God Bless,

 

Denny Rehberg
Republican for Congress

 

Denny checks off all the boxes, doesn’t he?  Washington’s broken, Biden’s an idiot, Trump needs his support, Montana values, and problems that he is fully capable of fixing. 

He makes it sound as though he retired from “public service” despite his Flathead Lake boat crash scandal and his loss to Jon Tester in 2012.   

Denny’s plea for money exposes him for the condescending a$$ he is, and speaks to just how stupid he thinks the people of Montana are.  

Is Denny Still Working for the CSKT Mercury?

If you’ve read this blog for any length of time, you will know that Denny was dirty when he was in office and once he lost his Senate race against Jon Tester in 2012, he joined up with Mercury LLC, a lobbying firm that was hired by the CSKT to advance the compact in the Montana legislature and in Congress. At one time, he was listed as Co-Chair of the firm.

With that in mind, we looked Denny up to see whether he’d already distanced himself from Mercury and his connection to the CSKT, and lo and behold, he is no longer listed as part of the Mercury “team.”

Click on the photo for a larger image.

I will not do a deep dive into this but will instead provide a few bullet points so that readers can refresh themselves on just how dirty Denny is.  In September of 2022, we reported on Denny’s extracurricular activities while he served as Montana’s lone representative in the DC House of Representatives.

Denny’s Dirt

Chapter Six of Secret Empires by Peter Scweitzer, titled The Princelings of K Street, begins with the story of Representative Denny Rehberg and his son A.J.,

The Rehberg timeline paints a pretty clear picture of how the Millennium Challenge Corporation is used by politicians to personally benefit through the “resource extraction and infrastructure opportunities” that are created by the MCC, and funded by Congress.

• In 2004, the Millennium Challenge Corporation is authorized by Congress at the request of George W. Bush.
• Sometime during the 109^th Congress (2005-2006), Rehberg established the U.S.-Mongolia Friendship Caucus.
• In 2006 House Resolution 828 was passed, – “Commending the people of Mongolia, on the 800th anniversary of Mongolian statehood, for building strong, democratic institutions, and expressing the support of the House of Representatives for efforts by the United States to continue to strengthen its partnership with that country.” Denny was a co-sponsor of the resolution.
• In 2007 A.J. Rehberg, became a lobbyist for Gage, LLC, a Washington DC lobbyist firm, founded and led by a former chief of staff of Conrad Burns. According to the Mongolian embassy in Washington, A. J. Rehberg was “the primary point of contact for the firm’s work with the embassy.” 
• As a member of the Committee on Appropriations, Congressman Rehberg was ideally positioned to help the Mongolians. 
• In 2007 the Mongolian government signed a compact for $285 million in U.S. taxpayer money for infrastructure projects in the country. That included plans to improve a railroad that was partly owned by the Mongolian government. The purpose of the railroad would be to transport minerals—including uranium.
• In 2010, A.J. became vice president of a uranium company called Mongolia Forward. Based out of Washington, D.C., the company was involved in a joint venture agreement with the Mongolian government’s state owned uranium company that authorized Mongolia Forward to “explore, mine and process uranium in Mongolia.” The goal was to import the precious metal into the United States. A. J. Rehberg had no background in the nuclear industry. His job at Mongolia Forward was to serve as vice president for “public and government affairs.” Gage actually lobbied Congressman Rehberg’s Committee on Appropriations on behalf of A.J.’s company, according to federal records on issues related to “exploration, mining and international trade.”
• Over time, A.J. also became involved in several other Mongolian business ventures, including a fiber optic network company and the first Pepsi bottling plant in the country.
• Beginning in 2009, Daddy Rehberg also sat on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, which meant that he had oversight of the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
• By 2011, the Mongolian Government hired Gage as their Washington D.C. Lobbyist
• In 2012, Congressman Rehberg decided to run for the U.S. Senate in Montana. He lost. Shortly after he gave up his congressional seat, he joined the lobbying firm Mercury, and was ultimately hired by the CSKT to lobby on behalf of the CSKT Compact.
• May 2014 the CSKT hired Rehberg lobbying firm Mercury LLC to “sell the compact” to the Montana legislature and to Congress.  The tribe has reupped the contract annually ever since.  The latest contract renewal was August of 2023.  See: FARM, Grassroots, Astroturf or Something Else?

Denny used the exact same corrupt, despicable and unethical roadmap that Joe Biden used with his son Hunter.   

The Millenium Challenge corporation has allowed politicians on “both sides of the aisle,” and their friends and family to partake in the congressional money laundering scam created by George W. Bush’s foreign aid program that was instituted after 9/11.

The quicker that people  get over the notion that a republican is better than a democrat, the healthier our state and country will become.

In 2015, the Flathead Water Compact was ratified in the Montana legislature despite the fact that the state had a republican majority in the House and Senate.  It took a handful of “republican” bad actors to work in concert with the democrat governor and democrat legislators to accomplish the job.

The simple truth is that the most powerful people in politics today are the RINO snakes that slither back and forth “across the aisle” to advance a UNIPARTY agenda that has eroded our freedoms and is destroying our country from the inside out.  Montana has many such political snakes working their magic on our lives.

The US Forest Service website tells us this about SNAKES:  

Snakes are predators and eat a wide variety of animals, including rodents, insects, birds’ eggs and young birds. Snakes are cold-blooded and must move to a suitable surrounding environment to regulate their body temperature. They can’t survive extreme summer heat for more than 10-20 minutes and are rarely found in the open. 

(No wonder why Daines’ doesn’t like to make public appearances).

Unfortunately for Denny, he has proven that he is just as dirty as the rest of them, perhaps in some instances, even dirtier. 

If Montanans fall for Denny’s arguments that he can “save Montana” from a democrat disaster, then they have no one to blame but themselves when nothing changes in Washington, or in the state of Montana.  

See: 

• Mongolia Hires Advocacy Representation in Washington DC
• 2011 Rehberg’s Son works for lobbyists

Tribal Inheritance Part 4: The Human Cost of Federal Indian Policy

© 2024 Concerned Citizens of Western Montana

Note:  This is part 4, the last  of a series on the Tribal Inheritance.

Thus far we’ve only discussed the monetary aspects of the tribal inheritance, but by far the most damaging outcome of federal Indian policy is the effect it has had on people, both Indian and non-Indian. 

Federal Indian Policy has proven itself to be harmful in ways that we can not even begin to comprehend.

For starters, let’s look at the 25% blood quantum criteria used by the CSKT to determine who can and cannot be a “member.”  At least since the 1950’s, a very large majority of the CSKT members are more non-Indian by blood than they are Indian. 

In 1973, Ronan resident and attorney Lloyd Ingraham noted that the above (1970) “statistics suggest that if someone must compensate for the now alleged transgressions of ancestors, then all of the reservation population except the scant three percent who are of full blood are to some extent liable.”

In the 54 years since the 1970 census, the blood quantum numbers could only have been watered down even further.

It makes one wonder why there is any longer a need to continue to pretend that differences exist at all except to the extent of finding a way to clean up the mess that failed Federal Indian Policy has made of people’s lives, dreams and potential. 

Such policy has served to enslave, demoralize and nearly destroy the very proud Indian people.   

If the Flathead water compact is any indication, Indian policy is also well on its way to destroying non-Indians through control over the water they need.

Aside from the fact that this Indian / Non-Indian distinction keeps people divided, it also gives the government an avenue to exploit via money laundering, and hiding its destructive means and ends behind a shield of “tribal sovereignty.” 

If the current blood quantum figures were available for public scrutiny today, it would further demonstrate that destructive Federal Indian Policy is built upon a failing blood quantum house of cards.  It is just a matter of time before the system will collapse upon itself.

With that in mind, here are just a few of the human costs of Federal Indian Policy.

Member or Descendant?

Article II of the CSKT constitution and by-laws establishes the criteria for tribal membership:

Section 2. Present Membership. Membership in the Tribes on and after the date of the adoption of this amendment shall consist of all living persons whose names appear on the per capita roll of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Montana, as prepared for the per capita distribution as shown on the per capita roll paid in February 1959 together with all children of such members, born too late to be included on such per capita roll and prior to the effective date of this section who possess one–fourth (1/4) or more Salish or Kootenai Blood or both and are born to a member of the Confederated Tribes of the Flathead Indian Reservation. Subject to review by the Secretary of the Interior, the Tribal Council shall make any necessary corrections in this 1959 membership roll so that no one eligible for membership under prior constitutional provisions shall be excluded therefrom.

This policy creates a multi-tiered system of citizenship within the tribe.

Because of the tribe’s constitutional requirements for membership, many children of tribal members don’t have the blood quantum necessary for enrollment in the tribe.  Such people are called descendants of tribal members, and as a matter of policy descendants are not subject to the benefits given to tribal members.

Descendants can be evicted from their home if it is located on federal trust land and their tribal member parent or spouse passes away. Descendants don’t qualify for tribal hiring preference, nor do they receive corporate dividends or other per capita payments.  We are unsure if they receive any of the benefits of the health and social welfare programs that the federal government funds for the tribes.

The policies of the tribe have created a crisis of mixed families, where one tribal parent might be a member, the other parent a descendant and they can have tribal member children, or a mix of some tribal and also descendant children.

Tribal members must ask the tribal council for permission to allow their descendant child to assist in gathering of wood for personal use, or hunting on tribal lands. Such requests are often denied.

Tribal Council Minutes 10/07/2011: Wyman McDonald talked about improving the constitution. He has talked to councilmen about it and nothing has happened. They need to address the split family enrollment situation. It needs to be done in a fair and expedited manner. He is not talking descendant enrollment; he is talking split family. It is a very degrading issue having half the family enrolled and the other half being denied enrollment.

Mr. McDonald was right.  We cannot imagine how degrading it must be to live your life designated as a descendant second class citizen if you will, even within your own family, and in the tribal caste system that federal Indian policy has created.

The last point we would like to make about members and descendant classifications is that all of the federal money awarded to the tribe is supposedly used to create “jobs” for the benefit of the Indian people.  So many jobs in fact that there are not enough members with the qualifications and skillsets necessary to fill them. 

Despite such shortages, the CSKT tribal preference hiring policy means that  employers for tribal business enterprises must ask the tribal council for permission to hire a descendant, a member of another tribe, or heaven forbid, a non-Indian.

The Tribe is a “Sovereign” that’s not really Sovereign

The CSKT is a tribal government that says it is sovereign and self-determined but understands it isn’t:

Tribal Council Minutes 10/07/2011: Stephen Smallsalmon wants to know why the rules were changed in 1961 for enrollment.

Chairman Moran responded that it was amended in 1960. The amendment was changed to establish one-quarter degree blood for enrollment eligibility. It is up to the council to change it.

James Steele Jr. explained that it was a secretarial election to amend the constitution on membership. The membership voted on this. The amendment stated that an individual must possess at least one-quarter blood degree and be born to a member of the CSKT.

The document was written by the Department of Interior back in the 1930s and we were the first tribe to adopt the IRA constitution. He encourages the membership to read it.

Practically everything in the constitution requires review and approval of the Secretary of the Interior.

We cannot receive revenue from the fuels and cigarette tax from the state of Montana because we don’t tax our membership so our own state of Montana uses our constitution against us to not share that revenue with us.

We should consider reviewing the document to see if it needs to be amended. It was not written by us but the membership voted on it and passed it.

James encouraged the membership to read and know the treaty. He supports the effort to review the constitution and consider redistricting.

Mike Kenmille wonders how sovereign are we when every other paragraph says review and approval of the Secretary of Interior. We are not. It is disheartening. We could do a lot more if that paragraph was taken out of the constitution.

IS THIS WHAT THE UNITED STATES INTENDED WHEN IT CONFERRED THE ABILITY TO SELF-GOVERN UPON THE INDIANS WITH THE 1934 INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT (IRA)?  APPARENTLY THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS YES.

While the tribal government may privately admit they are not sovereign and can do little if anything without approval of the Secretary of Interior, they still are able to wield significant if not complete influence over the lives of its members, particularly those who choose to live within the boundaries of the reservation.  

We also argue that the tribal government has used its federal corporate status to wield significant and overreaching negative influence and control over the lives of non-Indians within and outside of the presidentially opened Flathead Indian Reservation.  The Flathead Water Compact and the effect it will have on all water users throughout western Montana is a striking example of this.

Tribal “Self-Determination” is Not Self-Determination. It is Money Laundering.

The CSKT tribal government has oversight of what has now become vast amounts of money that the United States awards each year for self-government and self-determination “contracts” and welfare programs.  However federal strings tied to such money more often than not require Secretary of Interior approval of tribal business dealings and transactions.

This funding has proven to be of little help to the circumstances of the tribal membership, and instead, neither the tribal government or its membership are self-determined.

See: The Cancer of Government Deemed Self-Determination

Today the tribal membership is worse off financially than they were in 1954, and despite hundreds of millions of federal dollars that flow through the tribe’s treasury each year, true self-determination is out of the reach of the tribal council and most of its members and descendants. 

Here is just one very complicated example:

Tribal Council Minutes 10/11/2011: (Tribal Member); and Allen Sloan, Salish Kootenai Housing Authority; followed up on (Tribal Member’s) issues with Housing. (Tribal Member)  said he still has the same problem and has been trying to work it out with Housing without having to go to court. He was told that Ranald McDonald is supposed to be assisting in this matter. He was being evicted from a homesite in Schley and received a homesite next to his mother. He was told by Tribal Lands that his trailer was unsuitable and they deemed it unlivable. (Tribal Member) approached council and they suggested he go to Housing for assistance. Housing told him they purchased several trailers from the Trailer Court and if he wanted one the Flathead Finance Program would assist him. The trailers were trashed that he looked at. Housing offered to sell it to him for $9,740. It needed a considerable amount of work. Housing said it was appraised for that amount and that is what they were selling it for. (Tribal Member) is here to settle this without going to court. The trailer needed a lot of work and he was told Housing could not do all the work. In the meantime he looked at a different trailer and found one. He had it moved down to his lease lot. When he signed the papers he thought he was signing for the trailer, but he was told he signed his lease lot up for the trailer. (Redacted) told him it is not about the trailer; it is about the lease lot. He put in for weatherization and was told his papers could not be found; then was told to fill them out again. After that he was told they couldn’t be found again. He was refused weatherization services and his pipes froze. Jim Malatare thawed them out and assisted him. He had massive damage to his kitchen, hallway and bathroom due to the pipes freezing. He told Housing about this and was told they could not do anything about it since their program did not cover the floors. They gave him a list of things that would be done to the trailer. They did not fix the mold from the water damage. He requested someone from outside of Housing to do the final inspection when the improvements were done by Housing. Housing said they put in insulation in the attic of the mobile home. When the inspector picked up the file Willie whited out things that appeared in (Tribal Member)’s file. (Tribal Member) had Jim Taylor assist him when he worked in the Tribal Defenders Office. Jim sent a letter to Housing stating that the work was not completed to (Tribal Member)’s trailer. Now (Tribal Member) is faced with the possibility of losing his land. Ann Sherwood, Tribal Defenders Office, visited with (Tribal Member). She was hoping to negotiate an amount on the payback due to the damage. She met with Ranald and (Tribal Member). Ranald was going to follow up with Housing and see what (Tribal Member) could afford to pay on the mortgage so he would not lose his land. Housing filed suit against (Tribal Member) on the unpaid mortgage. Bud Moran advised that Housing needs council authority to take a lease lot. The suit against (Tribal Member) should not have included the lease lot. Ann got an agreement to stay the proceedings for 20 days to see if an agreement can be reached. Jim Malatare commented that (Tribal Member) takes really good care of his home and he hopes something can be worked out to assist (Tribal Member). Mike Kenmille said when council last spoke to (Tribal Member) he requested clarification since there was no threat to his current home or homesite.

Examples like this can be found throughout the tribe’s minutes.  Policies such as these keep people in debt to their government and demonstrates yet one more human cost of the federal Indian Policy. 

This example appears to be part of a common theme, and is a direct result of the IRA and the tribal government that exists today.

Is the Tribal Inheritance a Façade?

Click on the photo above for a PDF of this chart.

We say that to a large extent it probably is. Perhaps one could reasonably say that rather than an equal interest in the tribal assets, the tribal members have instead inherited all of the problems that communism brings, such as:

• Government owned property and businesses
• There is little motive or incentive for workers
• There is no freedom of speech
• An abusive government
• Opposition is not allowed 
• Instead of providing wealth, communism often causes poverty.
• Even if you so desire, you cannot save or own wealth in a communist system. It is not allowed.

In the grand scheme of things the tribal membership may be well past any possibility of termination of the treaty with the hope of a liquidation and distribution of the tribe’s assets.   

That can only happen if the tribes’ members proactively choose to assert, and are able to access its right to such assets during their lifetime.

Even then it is highly likely that the display of wealth put on by the tribal government with fancy buildings and such may not be all that it appears. It’s possible that much of the tribes’ “wealth” has been squandered via its shell corporations, as well as cadres of attorneys and lobbyists used to garner even more control over non-suspecting people.  If there is a tribal reserve fund as provided in the corporate charter, it remains hidden from view.  There is no way of knowing for certain what tribal assets are worth, or whether they have been hidden away.

In 1954, the tribal members fully expected to receive an equal share from the liquidation of the tribes assets.  That is what the tribal inheritance meant to them. 

Most importantly, they wanted to be freed from the chains of Federal Indian Policy and to accept the privileges and responsibilities of American citizenship.

In 2024, the tribal members are told that the inheritance should be preserved and protected so that it can be passed down to future generations.  Such a tact is little more than a psychological manipulation of the tribal membership to keep them from asserting their rights.

Unless a tribal member owns private fee land, they have little if anything to pass down to their children or family members.  

We argue that the human cost of Federal Indian Policy has been far greater than people realize, or would like to admit.  Such policy serves only for the benefit of the federal and tribal government to the detriment of the people they supposedly represent.

In REALITY, the tribe’s questionable acceptance into the Indian Reorganization Act Club (per tribal members at the time, the vote was fraudulent) ensured that the CSKT tribal inheritance will remain with the federal and tribal government for generations to come while the membership becomes poorer and less capable, or desirous of self-determination.  

Photo Source:  Hoover Institution Article by Terry Anderson March 2021

See Also:

• The Tribal Inheritance Part One
• The Tribal Inheritance Part Two Vested Rights in the Tribal Estate
• The Trial Inheritance Part Three: Corporate Dividends

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: 

Follow Western Montana Water Rights.

It should give you a choice to sign into wordpress or to allow you to enter your email address to follow the 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.

The Tribal Inheritance Part 3: Corporate Dividends

© 2023 Concerned Citizens of Western Montana

This is part 3 of a series on the Tribal Inheritance.

Per Capita Payments to Tribal Members are “Corporate Dividends”

Section 8 of the CS&K tribe’s Corporate Charter is titled Corporate Dividends.  It provides that :

The tribe MAY issue to each of its members a non-transferable certificate of membership evidencing the equal share of each member in the assets of the tribe and MAY distribute per capita, among the recognized members of the tribe, all profits of corporate enterprises over and above sums necessary to defray corporate obligations to members of the tribe or to other persons and over and above all sums which may be devoted to the establishment of a reserve fund, the construction of public works, the costs of public enterprises, the expenses of tribal government, the needs of charity, or other corporate purpose. Any such distribution of profits in any 1 year amounting to a per capita cash payment of $100 or more, or amounting to a distribution of more than one-half of the accrued surplus, shall not be made without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior.

Per Capita Distributions

Corporate Dividends pertain to all per capita payments that are paid out to the membership, the annual per capita distributions as well as special distributions such as the $10,000 Cobell Settlement money that the members received in 2012.

The Tribal Council Minutes show that currently the annual per capita payments paid to tribal members are $1,200 per year as follows:

The Tribal Council minutes show that $400 payments are made to tribal members three times annually in December, April and August.

Minors:  The policy also provides that ½ of each per capita distribution for each minor enrolled child is issued to their parent or legal guardian and the remaining ½ is places in a BIA trust account to accumulate and earn interest until minor reaches legal age.

Reimbursements for debt owed to the Tribe: The Director of Financial Management is authorized to apply per capita funds against debts of a tribal member including judgments held by Tribal Court, assignments through Tribal Credit, and voluntary child support and to those accounts under the control of the Superintendent.    

The Per Capita is….

……SHRINKING

In 1954, the per capita payment to tribal members was $200, and in 2024, it is $1,200.  While that may seem like a nice increase, what if we told you that the dollar in 1954 was worth far more than a 2024 dollar and when you convert that $200 to today’s money, if nothing else changed, the per capita should now be $2,300?  That means that the $1,200 tribal members receive today have nearly 48% less purchasing power than the tribal members had in 1954.  On the other side of that coin, the $1,200 tribal members receive today equal $105 1954 dollars.  In other words in 2024 tribal members are receiving roughly half of the monetary value as tribal members received 70 years ago.

Here’s the Comparison:

Federal Spending on the Tribes is ……..

….GROWING

The 1954 Congressional Testimony for the termination of federal supervision over the Flathead Tribes showed that the federal budget for the tribe in 1954 was $150,000.  In today’s dollars that would be a little more than $1.7 million dollars.

For the last 10 years or so, federal spending on the CSKT each year equals $170.8 million if you exclude the tribes’ “Aerospace Contracts,” and is a WHOPPING $436.2 million dollars if you include the “Aerospace contract” money.  

Comparing that to the 1954 spending converted to 2024 dollars, the Feds are spending anywhere from 99 to 243 times more money on the tribes each year than it did in 1954!

No matter how you look at this kind of money, it cannot be called “self-determination.”

Tribal Corporate Enterprises

As a reminder, Section 8 of the CSKT Corporate says that the tribal government:

MAY distribute per capita, among the recognized members of the tribe, all profits of CORPORATE ENTERPRISES over and above sums necessary to defray corporate obligations to members of the tribe or to other persons and over and above all sums which may be devoted to the establishment of a reserve fund, the construction of public works, the costs of public enterprises, the expenses of tribal government, the needs of charity, or other corporate purpose.

The use of the word “May” means that the tribe can distribute the profits of its corporate enterprises, but it is not required to do so.

Since 1954, the number of corporate enterprises of the tribe has significantly grown as follows:

Is it possible that the per capita shrinkage over the past 70 years means that these tribal enterprises are all losing money?  One would think that with the ownership of Kerr Dam and two Casinos, that the tribe would be making money hand over fist and at least some of it would be shared with the membership of the tribe. If these corporations are as profitable as the tribal government wants its membership and the world to believe, then WHERE IN THE WORLD ARE THE PROFITS GOING?

Congressional Lobbying?  Attorneys? Embezzlement? Anywhere but to the tribal members?

Is it at all possible these corporations are little more than shell corporations established for the purpose of federal money laundering?  

Is there a multi-billion dollar tribal reserve fund sitting around somewhere and if so are its details shared with the tribal members?  After all, the tribe has an equal share in the tribal inheritance.

We fully expect that just like the tribe’s manipulation of net power revenues for Mission Valley Power to make sure the project could not be rehabbed for irrigators, the tribe also manipulates the profits of the tribal corporate enterprises so there are very little if any to have to share with the tribal members.

It is highly likely the tribal inheritance is being stolen right out from under them.

The tribal membership in 1954 had it right.  Federal supervision of the tribe should have been terminated and the assets of the tribe liquidated for distribution to the membership.

Had that happened in 1954, these people would already have the benefit of their inheritance and the ability to pass that inheritance down to their children and their families for far better lives than they have right now. Each person could have used that money for the purpose of charting their own self determination.  

Adding to this mix is the lack of transparency with respect to any public scrutiny of the tribe’s financial information   One thing we know for certain is that the tribe has multi millions and possibly billions of dollars flowing through its books.  Only the federal government knows for sure the value of the tribal assets and lands that are held in trust for the CSKT tribal membership. 

Perhaps the time has come to demand a full and independent accounting of the value of these assets and  funds so that tribal members can make an informed choice about freeing themselves, and everyone else, from the tyrannical chains that currently bind us all.

If you are interested, here is a copy of one chart listing the information isolated in this article. Click on the photo below for a pdf copy.

See Also:

• The Tribal Inheritance Part One
• The Tribal Inheritance Part Two Vested Rights in the Tribal Estate
• The Tribal Inheritance Part 4:  The Human Cost of Federal Indian Policy
•  

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: 

Follow Western Montana Water Rights.

It should give you a choice to sign into wordpress or to allow you to enter your email address to follow the 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.

The Tribal Inheritance Part 2: Vested Rights in the Tribal Estate

© 2024 Concerned Citizens of Western Montana

Note:  This article is part two of a series of articles on the Tribal Inheritance. This is a complicated subject, and we expect that there may be one or two additional articles to come.

Section 8 of CSKT Corporate Charter: Corporate Dividends

The tribe MAY issue to each of its members a non-transferable certificate of membership evidencing the equal share of each member in the assets of the tribe ……

Do Vested Rights in the Tribal Estate Really Exist?

While we’re not sure just how often this happens, we’ve heard the stories about tribal family member “descendants” whose blood quantum is less that the 25% required for membership in the tribe, that have been evicted from their home after the death of their “tribal member relative.”   

While this may be a difficult pill for most of us to swallow, this kind of situation is the logical conclusion of the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) and the tribal (communist) government entities it established for the purpose of self-government controlling and consolidating tribal assets, up to and including tribal member’s homes that are located on trust lands.  

How could this happen in America and why would Congress turn a blind eye to it?

• Because through Congressional action and inaction, the Federal Government not only has enabled such treatment of individual Indians, it has perpetuated it.  Steve Daines are you paying attention?
• And worse, when the tribal membership finally did assert their right to terminate and liquidate the tribe’s assets in 1954, Congress ignored them and failed to act upon the termination that the majority of CSKT members desired. 
• And last but not least, this problem also exists because in many ways, We the People have also turned our backs on what has been happening to our tribal neighbors.  What we also seem to forget is the same communist enclave that deprives tribal members of their rights has become a cancer that is also destroying and eroding the rights and freedoms of non-Indians.  CSKT Compact anyone?

It speaks volumes that despite their circumstances and conditions, the tribal membership raised enough money to send three people to Washington DC in February of 1954.  

The Congressional Hearing on the Termination of Federal Supervision over the Flathead Tribe brought all of these issues into clear focus, because the majority of adult tribal members of the CS&K Tribes chose to assert their right to terminate federal supervision and to liquidate and distribute the tribal assets to the tribes’ members.

The majority also desired that the tribe’s assets be distributed to the bona fide members of the tribe, not the tribal roll that had artificially been manipulated by the tribal government.  They also wanted every tribal member, including non-reservation members to have a say and to share in the disposition of the tribe’s assets. 

This clearly was not what the tribal council wanted.

The Tribe Testifies Against Termination

The transcript of the Flathead Tribe termination hearings is quite lengthy.  We’ve posted a link to the entire transcript of the hearing at the bottom of this article.  Here is an excerpt of the tribe’s position as summarized by George Tunison, attorney for the CSKT.  Mr. Tunison was there to represent the interests of the tribal government, not individual tribal members. 

On February 26, 1954 Mr. Tunison, conveyed to the committee that:

….on behalf of this tribe, and the unanimous resolutions of its business council that is the position of this tribe today, that they are entitled to keep that territory which belonged to them long before there was a United States, and which they ceded with a reservation of this particular Indian reservation to themselves, and they are entitled to keep that as an Indian reservation as long as they want to keep it as an Indian reservation.

The argument I have heard here advanced and I say this part argumentatively – that the United States has the right to terminate this treaty with those Indians without consultation with them, without offering them any compensation for the loss of hunting and fishing rights which are guaranteed to them in that treaty, for the loss of their other incidental rights involved in that treaty, because simply you have the power and simply because this committee and this Congress has the power to do that-that, to my mind, is a whole new concept of the dealings of the United States with either a sovereign nation or an Indian tribe.

What this tribe wants is the right to have their right to own and occupy that reservation in perpetuity. Now, I will grant that if this Congress or any other nation wishes to abrogate and violate a treaty it has the perfect right to do that.. But common fair dealing requires: that when you do that you at least call in the other party and say, “We as a Government have decided that it would be better for you and better for us to terminate this treaty and we want to terminate the treaty with you gentlemen.” …..

February 26, 1954: Rep. Berry from South Dakota Advocates for CSKT Tribal Members

The tribal members that went to Washington DC to testify in support of the termination of federal supervision of the tribe brought with them the support of a majority of adult tribal members of the CS&K Tribes. But despite the wishes of the majority of its adult membership, the tribal council, their attorney, and many of the tribal elders pitted themselves against the individual tribal members in these hearings. 

E.Y. Berry, Representative from South Dakota, Chairman of the House Sub-committee on Indian Affairs questioned Mr. Tunison on the constitutionality of the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act (also known as the Wheeler-Howard Act).  He began by asking whether the act had taken away the right of individual Indians to determine what should happen to the assets of the tribe.

EXCERPT FROM TESTIMONY

Representative BERRY. Well, Mr. Tunison, I just have a question or two. How would you suggest that the people (individual tribal members) ever get their rights to the property?

 Mr. TUNISON. The people, Your Honor, have all of the rights to the property they need now, the ones that own property (Allottees) there, like these men who are going to appear before you. They occupy the land and they farm it, but they do not pay taxes on it.

Representative BERRY. Would you think that if a majority of the Indians favored this legislation or similar legislation, whatever they wanted, that should terminate this treaty that you are talking about?

Mr. TUNISON. I think if a majority of those Indians living on that reservation and using that reservation want to terminate this treaty, they have a right to do it; yes.

Representative BERRY. You think it should be limited to those who live on the reservation?

Mr. TUNISON. That is right.

Representative BERRY. Do you think that those who have left the reservation do have property rights in that property?

Mr. TUNISON. Yes, sir; and I agree that in the event of a dissolution or termination of that reservation, they should receive their proportionate share.

Representative BERRY. But they should not have anything to say about what should be done with it?

Mr. TUNISON. No, sir; for the reason that the Wheeler-Howard Act (Indian Reorganization Act) under which that tribe is organized, and to which it has faithfully adhered, provides that only Indians living on the reservation, the charter of incorporation issued under that act, provides that only the Indians living on the reservation shall have a right to vote on the disposition of tribal property. Those who have seen fit to stay there Your Honor, and make that their home, are the people who are interested in the heritage received from their Great Chief Victor, whose son, incidentally, sits here in this room, and will testify later. That has been their home and it is the home of their ancestors, and the home where their ancestors are buried, and those that want to stay there and live there, some 2,000 of them, are the people who should decide what should be done with it.

NOTE:  We found no specific provisions in the IRA as to the disposition of tribal property should federal supervision be terminated, but the tribe’s Corporate Charter clearly states that only Congress has the authority to revoke or terminate the corporate charter.  The CSKT charter linked above provides for amendments via a vote of on-reservation members, but only with the submission of a tribal council resolution to the Secretary of Interior, making any such effort extremely difficult and highly unlikely.

Representative BERRY. How long do you think it should be before they should be given an opportunity to have their property?

Mr. TUNISON. Well, I do not agree, or I cannot grasp the concept of Your Honor’s question, “agree to have their property.” They already have their property.

Representative BERRY. Subject to the supervision of the Federal Government, is that right?

Mr. TUNISON. That is right.  He goes on to read some of the provisions of the Hellgate Treaty …… There is reserved for the use and occupation of said tribes all of which tracts shall be set apart, surveyed, and marked out for the exclusive use and benefit of said Confederated Tribes as an Indian reservation. I submit on that point–

Representative BERRY. It does not say under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government or anything like that, though, does it? If they should form an association or a corporation to handle their own affairs would it not be covered by this treaty, and it is for their own exclusive use and benefit?

Mr. TUNISON. The tribes themselves, you mean? If the tribes are willing to give up that exclusive use and benefit provision, you mean?

Representative BERRY. But this does not take the exclusive use and benefit from the tribal property; does it? By that I mean this bill.

Mr. TUNISON. No, it provides for a patent in fee to this tribe and then they are in the same position as your chairman has indicated repeatedly in this hearing, as· any other citizen of the United States. Now, the position of this tribe is that they are in a better position and they had something which the United States wanted, and they ceded that to the United States for a valuable consideration, and they are entitled to the benefit of that bargain. That is the position of this tribe…..

Representative BERRY. There is just one more thing that I would like to ask you and that is this: You say that under the Wheeler Howard Act, the non-reservation Indians have no right in the operation of that reservation?

 Mr. TUNISON. That is right. For your honor’s information, I will be glad to read that to you. 

Representative BERRY. I will take your word for it.  Do you not think that all Indians under this treaty and their children and grandchildren of all of the Indians covered in this treaty have a vested right in that reservation, in the property of that reservation, the assets of that reservation?

 Mr. TUNISON: Yes, sir.

Representative BERRY:  Then, when the Wheeler-Howard Act took their rights away from them, is that not taking from them a constitutional right?

Mr. TUNISON. No. Any Indian who is an enrolled member of this tribe that wants to live on that reservation has a perfect right to go there and live on it……

Mr. TUNISON:  I am saying to you that the descendants of the people who made this treaty have a right to stay there and use that reservation, and if anybody wants to get up and go to Seattle, or Washington, they have a perfect right to do so. But the people who live there and use and occupy that reservation and produce its products with their own hands are the ones who ought to have the management of it.

Representative BERRY. But you are taking property away from individuals without any compensation, and not just compensation, but any compensation; are you not?

Mr. TUNISON. No; we simply formed this corporation under the Wheeler-Howard Act, and we are adhering strictly to it. Now, if you want to repeal it–

Representation BERRY. It may not be constitutional though; may it?

Mr. TUNISON. No one has seen fit to attack it as yet.

Representative HARRISON. Does the Wheeler-Howard Act provide that only those residents who live on the reservation may vote on the disposition and use of the tribal property? Is that in the Flathead constitution?

Mr. TUNISON. Yes. Let me read what it says. I will be glad to do that.

Representative HARRISON. That is under the Wheeler-Howard Act?

Mr. TUNISON. Yes, sir.

Representative HARRISON. Now, are the rights of the enrolled members vested property rights?

Mr. TUNISON. That is a pretty broad statement, but will you elaborate a little on what you mean by vested property rights?

Representative HARRISON. You know what I mean, Mr. Tunison, as an attorney, are the tribal rights of all enrolled members vested property rights. Do the property rights vest in the individuals? And, are they rights of which you cannot divest them?

Mr. TUNISON. Yes. I would say that is a general question and I would answer that, yes.

Representative HARRISON. Then are they such rights of property as are protected by the due process clause to the fifth amendment of the Constitution?

Mr. TUNISON. I will grant that they are.

Representative HARRISON. What becomes of constitutionality of the Wheeler-Howard Act, then?

Mr. TUNISON. Now, listen, your honor, if you want to debate the constitutionality of that act–

Representative HARRISON. I am asking a question and the w:itness can say he does not or does want to answer it, but I am not going to get into an argument with him. I am asking a question and I am entitled to an answer.

Senator WATKINS. Can you answer it, Mr. Tunison?

Mr: TUNISON. I do not presume to pass in a judicial capacity on the constitutionality of an act of this Congress. You know as much about  it as I do.

Representative HARRISON. Your position is that you just prefer not to answer that question; is that right?

Mr. TUNISON. I prefer not to pass on the constitutionality of it.

Representative HARRISON. I am not asking you on that. I merely asked you a question of what, in your opinion, becomes of the constitutionality of the Wheeler-Howard Act.

Mr. TUNISON. In my opinion, then, I will say that the Flatheads had a perfect right to adopt this charter, which was submitted to the Secretary of the Interior, and was approved by him.

Representative HARRISON. Nobody has questioned that, Mr. Tunison, and I am merely saying if these are vested property rights and come under the fifth amendment would the Wheeler-Howard Act then, in your opinion, be constitutional if it deprives those who lived off the reservation and owning vested rights from a vote on the use and disposition of their property.

Mr. TUNISON. There are two “ifs” in there, and I prefer to go back to the fundamental doctrine that the tribe has the right to develop its own membership and this tribe could, if it saw fit, revise its rolls, and say only those living on this reservation are entitled to be enrolled here. Now, the tribe has not done that, and it has continued to carry these people, although they reside in various cities, on its rolls. But, it is entirely within the management and purview of these Indians to restrict the management of that reservation to those who prefer to stay there and live.

Representative HARRISON. Such action on the part of any council or any of those on the reservation voting would certainly violate our due process laws, would they not, of the fifth amendment?

Mr. TUNISON. No, sir; it would not.

Representative HARRISON. Your position is that they can vote to take away and divest these people who reside off the reservation and divest themselves of their property rights and their interests in tribal assets.

Mr. TUNISON. I do not think that question is involved, but I will say this, that this treaty set aside this reservation as a home for these people belonging to this tribe. Now, if one of them sees fit to be in Seattle or to go to Washington, there is a grave question there whether he still retains that right or not. But the tribe has never raised that question. The tribe has continued to carry them on the rolls. That is a moot question there.

Representative Harrison. It might be a moot question, Mr. Tunison, to some individuals, but I would say it would be far from a moot question to the individuals concerned with it.

Mr. TUNISON. Nobody has raised it on them. It is a moot question until someone raises it.

February 27, 1954: No Such Thing as a Vested Right in the Tribal Estate by Members

On February 27, 1954, Rep. Wesley D’Ewart from Montana relayed this information to the chairman of the committee overseeing the hearings:

Mr. Chairman, yesterday the question of vested rights in the tribal estate came before the committee.

During the recess, I have gone into that matter with the attorneys for the committee and am advised that there was no such thing as a vested right in the tribal estate by members of the tribe; that it is not a property right, cannot be sold, cannot be traded, AND ENDS AT THE DEATH OF THE INDIAN.

THERE IS AN INHERENT RIGHT IN THE TRIBAL ESTATE THAT IS GAINED WHEN THE INDIAN’S NAME GOES ON THE ROLL AND ENDS WHEN HIS NAME IS TAKEN OFF THE ROLL ON DEATH.  HE CANNOT SELL IT, IT IS NOT IN THE TRUE SENSE A PROPERTY RIGHT.  

NOTE:  HE OR SHE ALSO CANNOT PASS IT DOWN TO DESCENDANT FAMILY MEMBERS, OR THEIR NON-MEMBER SPOUSE OR CHILDREN.  

Mr. Tunison, attorney for the tribe responded:  I would like to say, inasmuch as I was questioned on that, that I agree, as counsel for the tribe, 100 percent with the Congressman. 

The Truth is Exposed

It’s difficult to understand why Congress did not terminate federal supervision of the CSKT specifically because the majority of its tribal membership desired it. 

The consent of a majority of the voting tribal membership in and of itself should have been enough for Congress to have finished what it started.

The dialog above between Mr. Tunison and Representative Berry raises questions about the constitutionality of the Indian Reorganization Act, and exposes the truth about the property rights of individual Indians as they pertain to the TRIBAL ESTATE.  

The IRA effectively transferred the property rights of individual tribal members, giving them instead to a newly created tribal government corporation for its own benefit and enrichment under the guise of “self-government.”  

SECTION 8 of the CSKT Corporate Charter says: The tribal government  MAY issue to each of its members a non-transferable certificate of membership evidencing the equal share of each member in the assets of the tribe ……

It is a right that is not transferrable and it dies with the tribal member.

We believe that this provision means that the tribal members absolutely have an equal share in the assets of the tribe, and they should assert their rights, while they are living, just as their predecessors did 70 years ago.  Otherwise the right dies with them, leaving their heirs with nothing.

It all begins and ends with true self-determination.  Unfortunately the tribal government elephant in the room keeps its tribal members from achieving true self determination. 

See:  The Cancer of Government Deemed Self Determination.

Realistically the CSKT tribal government ensures that self determination remains out of the reach of its membership.  Such a concept is meant to be a mirage, a false choice or promise that keeps the tribal membership under control.  It can’t happen unless the tribal government corporation says it can, or Congress revokes or terminates its corporate charter.

What we do know is that the same federally chartered corporate government that keeps its tribal membership under control via the auspices of communism, would very much like to do the same to non-Indian property owners that choose to live within reservation boundaries. 

As far as the tribal government is concerned non-Indians also have a choice.  They can accept the compact and its repercussions, or remove themselves from the reservation, like the 2,000 tribal members that were living outside of the reservation in 1954. 

Unfortunately for the federal, state and tribal governments, we’re not buying what they are selling. 

While tribal members may have the right to a share of the tribal assets, the tribal government and its members have no right to a share of anyone else’s.

See Also:

• The Tribal Inheritance Part 1
• The Tribal Inheritance Part 3: Corporate Dividends
• The Tribal Inheritance Part 4:  The Human Cost of Federal Indian Policy

Documents

• A PDF of the exchange between Representative Berry and Mr. Tunison can be found at this link.
• A PDF of the comments related to Vested Rights in the Tribal Estate is linked here.
• S. 2750 A BILL to provide for the termination of Federal supervision over the property of the CSKT and Individual Members
• The entire transcript of the hearings pertaining to the Flathead Reservation can be found here.
• MSU Planning for the Passing of Reservation Land to Future Generations:  Who is Eligible to Inherit your Trust Lands and Retain Trust Status?

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: 

Follow Western Montana Water Rights.

It should give you a choice to sign into wordpress or to allow you to enter your email address to follow the 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.

The Tribal Inheritance Part 1

© 2024 Concerned Citizens of Western Montana

NOTE:  When we refer to the “Tribe” in any of our articles, such reference is intended to be the CSKT tribal government corporation, and not individual Indians or tribal members.  With the exception of their membership in the tribe we consider tribal members to be separate and distinct from their tribal government, as are we from our own very corrupt government entities. 

We’ve all heard the exaggerated stories about the horror of the U.S. Congress attempting to “terminate” several tribes in the 1950’s.

But what if we told you that what Congress wanted to “terminate” was simply its “federal supervision” over the tribes for the purpose of giving individual tribal members the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as all other American citizens?

There was no nefarious, racist or culture depriving  purpose for wanting to terminate federal supervision over the Indians.  Indeed, in a country built upon the premise that all people are created equal, this was the plan well before the Hellgate and others treaties were signed with the Indians.

In fact, even after the Indian Citizenship Act was ratified in 1924, Congress knew that individual tribal members did not have the same constitutional rights and protections as other citizens.

• In 1931 Congress held hearings on Emancipated Citizenship for Indians
• In 1934 Congress made things even worse for the tribal members when it passed the Indian Reorganization Act, creating federally chartered tribal government corporations and supplanting the government’s trust responsibility away from individual Indians and onto the tribal government instead.
• In 1939 Congress held hearings on the Final Discharge of Certain Indians
• In 1947 they held hearings on the Emancipation of Indians
• In 1954 Congress held hearings for the Termination of Federal Supervision over Certain Tribes of Indians (including Flathead).
• In 1961 Congress held hearings on the Constitutional Rights of American Indians (because of the Indians choose to be “members” of the tribe and live within reservation boundaries, the courts have ruled that they are not protected by the constitution when it comes to their tribal government)

The Congressional Resolution below clearly states the purpose of the effort to terminate federal supervision over several tribes,  and tells us that this was an honorable attempt by Congress to help individual tribal members.

Senate Report 794 pertaining to this resolution states that its goal was to “Free certain tribes of Indians from Federal Supervision.”

Again we ask, what is so horrible about “making the Indians within the territorial limits of the United States subject to the same laws and entitled to the same privileges and responsibilities as are applicable to other citizens of the United States, to end their status as wards of the United States, and to grant them all of the rights and prerogatives pertaining to American citizenship; and assuming their full responsibilities as American citizens?”  

What if we also told you that in 1953 / 1954 the majority of adult members of the CS&K Tribes were in support of the termination of federal supervision? 

In 1953 and 1954, the tribal membership collected enough money to send three tribal members to Washington DC to testify in support of the termination of federal supervision over the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. A fourth tribal member, living in DC because her husband was on active duty, also joined them:

• • Lorena Burgess, Perma, MT
  • Anastasia Morigeau Wievoda, Ronan, MT
  • Vera Voorhies, Polson MT.
  • Lulu G. Charrier, Washington DC

These women and the majority of tribal members that sent them to testify clearly saw the writing on the wall.

In 1953, they were close enough in time to have experienced, and to know that the 1904 Flathead Allotment act was the fulfillment of Article VI of the tribe’s treaty, via private property ownership of allotments with the intention of providing an individual homeland to every tribal member. See also Article VI of the Treaty with the Omaha referenced in Article VI of the Hellgate Treaty.

The tribal membership could also see movement by the tribal government to “reclaim” those allotments.  (Indeed that is exactly what the land reconsolidation money awarded to the tribe’s in recent years by the United States is intended for).

By the 1950’s the tribal government was also hiding the profits from tribal enterprises from its membership for the purpose of artificially restricting the amount of tribal member per capita payments.

Despite the fact that the tribal government has become a multi-billion dollar corporation with a multitude of taxpayer funded tribal “sub-corporations”, the per capita payments to the tribal membership are a pittance in the grand scheme of federal money laundering largesse that the C$KT Inc. actively participates in.

These women also lived through, and spoke in their testimony about the corruption that brought forth the fraudulent “historic” CSKT vote that cemented the individual tribal members to the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act, forcing upon them a Communist form of government under the guise of “self government.”

Remember, that the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act upended any federal government notion of a trust responsibility for individual Indians and instead replaced it with a trust and financial responsibility only to the federally chartered tribal government corporations that this legislation created.  In the same sleight of hand, this act also made individual Indians wards of these new tribal and arguably communist government corporations authorized by the act, once again under the guise of “self-governance”.  See: Revisiting the Indian Reorganization Act

These women, and the rest of the tribal membership were well aware that the corruption of the tribal council would not be stopped unless federal supervision over the tribes, and their tribal form of government was terminated.

We believe that their testimony will give you a fairly good idea as to what the term “tribal inheritance” meant to the Indian people, rather than the modern day “IRA tribal corporate government definition of a tribal inheritance” that is reacquiring a tribe’s ceded lands via corrupt federal and state governments and passing it on for the benefit of future generations the CSKT tribal corporate government.

We think it is important to provide their Congressional testimony without any additional commentary.

The full 12 page transcript of their testimony can be found at this link. It is well worth the read:

CSKT Tribal Member Testimony in Support of S. 2750 and its companion bill in the House, H1. R. 7319 

See Also:

• An Amazing Flathead Indian Woman
• The Tribal Inheritance Part 2: Vested Rights in the Tribal Estate
• The Tribal Inheritance Part 3: Corporate Dividends
• The Tribal Inheritance Part 4:  The Human Cost of Federal Indian Policy

• Tribal Inheritance Part 4:  The Human Cost of Federal Indian Policy

Next Up in the Water Court

© 2024 Concerned Citizens of Western Montana

The Water Court is currently working its way through the Motions to Amend Objections (MTAO) as well as the Compact Parties’ responses to some of those motions, and Objector responses to the Compact Parties objections to their motions.

As of the writing of this post, the Court has issued 25 orders pertaining to MTAO’s with several new orders posted on the Court Docket each day.  While many motions processed thus far have been approved by the Court, some have been denied.

After all these years, one thing we know for certain.  One should never underestimate the CSKT’s desire and ability to create chaos and difficulty for those they consider to be their adversaries.   It is something we should all be prepared for and in some respects may already be starting to see in this proceeding.

Based upon some of the comments in the orders pertaining to the tribe’s Response to the MTAO’s, it makes one wonder why the tribe objected to them, except perhaps for the purpose of showing that it is in control (it loves to beat its chest), and also to create chaos and more work for objectors in the form of responses, and snowballing to even more work for the Water Court.   

There is also no doubt that the Compact Parties would be more than happy to run up legal fees for those objectors who have retained attorneys.  After all, the amigo governments’ pockets are deep, and that’s what lawfare is all about.

If nothing else, this whole experience should serve as a WAKE UP CALL for objectors to pay close attention to the rules that the water court has pointed us to, and to be diligent and more careful in our efforts to beat back the water compact monstrosity.

• Montana Rules of Civil Procedure (Outline with hyperlinks to MCA)
• Montana Rules of Evidence (Outline with hyperlinks to MCA) 
• Montana Water Rights Adjudication Rules (with hyperlinked table of contents)
• Uniform District Court Rules  (Outline with hyperlinks to MCA)

The good news is that it is still early enough in the proceeding that folks can learn from any mistakes they may have made thus far,  and to try to not fumble further as they move forward. 

While pro se objectors cannot possibly be expected to provide perfect documents and information as is submitted by attorneys, non-attorney objectors still are responsible to try their best to get it right.  To save a lot of unnecessary angst and confusion, they should work to avoid creating extra work for themselves and the court if possible.

Whether their MTAO has been approved or not,, Objectors should start looking ahead to what’s next on the Water Court schedule for the Flathead Compact Decree proceeding. Water Court Case Management Order Number 3 establishes this upcoming schedule for motions:

Motions to Dismiss Objections:

Motion deadline: April 3, 2024
Answer briefs: May 17, 2024
Reply briefs: May 31, 2024

Motions regarding Compact adequacy and fairness, and any other issues of law.

Motion deadline: July 10, 2024
Answer briefs: August 23, 2024
Reply briefs: September 6, 2024
Oral argument: September 19, 2024

If objectors aren’t already doing so, they should be seriously considering their legal strategy going forward, and preparing themselves for these motions NOW. 

For that purpose, we have copies of Compact Parties’ motions from other compact proceedings to share with you. 

These documents might be helpful to you as you develop your strategy and arguments to defeat those of the compacting parties. 

Remember the Compact parties are experts at this.  They’ve successfully fought back the objections in 18 other compact settlements.  It is likely their arguments in the Flathead Compact proceedings won’t be much different than they were in these other compacts.

Here are links to the Motions to Dismiss Objectors and for Compact Fairness and Adequacy that were submitted to the Court in the Fort Peck and the Crow Compact proceedings:

Fort Peck Compact:  

• Montana AG Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss and Approve Compact
• Fort Peck Tribes Joinder to States Motion to Dismiss and Approve Compact
• US Memorandum in Support of State’s Motion to Dismiss and Approve Compact

Crow Compact:

• Crow Tribe Motion for Dismissal of Allottee Objectors
• Montana Motion and Memorandum for Compacting Parties Motion to Approve Compact and Dismiss Objectors
• US Reply in Support of Motion of Montana and Crow Tribe for Approval of Compact and Summary Judgment to Dismiss Objectors

The Adversarial Nature of this Compact

The tribe’s mission statement says this:

Taking the tribes stated mission to “regain ownership and control over all lands within our reservation boundaries” one step further, the Water Compact not only moves the US / CSKT closer to their goal, it also expands their objective toward a future restoration of the entirety of the tribe’s Hellgate Treaty “ceded lands” via ownership and control over the water.

A reasonable person would think that in many respects, such an objective and agenda would pit the CSKT Tribal government and the state of Montana against one another.  

Yet in this very upside down world, the United States, Montana and CSKT stand solidly together as allies in support of a water compact that unlawfully relinquishes western Montana’s water, and also the State’s Constitutionally mandated jurisdiction over the water within Flathead reservation boundaries. 

The irony (or is it something else altogether?) of this is not lost on us.

The compact mandates that the three amigo governments are bound to defend the compact against all challenges, making them adversaries of the people whose rights these governments were created to protect and defend.

What is most striking is that in its support of the Compact, Montana has agreed to act against its own interests, and those of its citizens.  

If Montana is willing to relinquish and cede its jurisdiction over the water needs of 40,000 state based water users in western Montana, and to litigate this issue against the citizens it has harmed, what else might it be willing to do?

Time for all of us to get to work.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt; if you know Heaven and know Earth, you may make your victory complete.
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Twenty Five Years: The Delegitimization of Montana’s Adjudication Process

© 2024 Concerned Citizens of Western Montana

In a Montana PBS story about Montana’s Water Rights Adjudication process that aired on January 11, 2024, Chief Water Court Judge Russell McElyea said

“Montana’s adjudication is the biggest in the United States. It may be the single biggest piece of combined litigation in this country. I don’t know.  There is no western state that has a more ambitious program for determination of its water rights than Montana.”

This story, beginning about 14 ½ minutes into the video linked above, also offers some discussion of the DNRC grappling with its flaws failures concerning the “accuracy and security of water” rights records. 

From our perspective, it is too bad the article doesn’t delve into the DNRC’s unabashed bias with respect to the Flathead Water Compact, the agency’s federalization via its “leadership,” or the fact that the compact carves out a jurisdictional no-mans land where Montana’s Water Use Act no longer applies over a portion of the state affecting at least 40,000 non-Indian state based water users owning private property within the boundaries of a reservation that was opened to settlement a century ago.

The Flathead Compact speaks for itself.  Unfortunately it is so complicated that most people, including legislators, have chosen not to delve into the details of the compact that they ratified nearly a decade ago.  

We’ve discussed at length its many problems, including the failure to provide even a simple quantification of the water rights awarded to the United States / CSKT in the compact.  Without  quantification it is not possible for the public to understand how the compact affects their personal water rights, yet the water court proceeding requires that they do just that.

But rather than focusing on the compacts failures, this article instead looks at how our state allowed such an unconscionable “settlement” to be brought forth to the legislature and the people of Montana.

Having followed the state’s “water rights” process for more than a decade, particularly its “unique” compacting solution to federal reserved water rights, we are convinced that Montana has allowed, and perhaps even participated in the delegitimization of its own state wide adjudication process.

Anyone being intellectually honest can’t help but see that it’s simply not possible for a process that is supposed to be fair, unbiased and comply with existing law could give birth to a “negotiated settlement” that fabricates new water rights that serve to UNDERMINE AND NEGATE STATE BASED WATER RIGHTS appurtenant to privately owned land in western Montana. 

The compact’s ex post facto contrivance of a new kind of water and property right is the reason why the state often told us we never had senior water rights in the first place.  We only thought we did. 

The water and control over it always belonged to the tribe.  The Compact says so.    

If we are to believe what the compact parties are trying to sell us, then we must let go of the old fashioned and hundreds of years old notion that we still have water rights that are appurtenant to our land. 

We are now expected to shift gears and buy into the compacting parties’ convoluted legal fiction that was used to artificially create property rights that do not exist in the law, and that via it’s “settlements” with the Indian Claims Commission and US Court of Claims, the tribe is legally precluded from going after. 

Instead, water compact magic legal fiction creates a scenario where the tribe has always owned all the water, meaning existing water users and settlers that came before us have illegally used the tribe’s water for more than a century. 

But not to worry.   In the compact,  the CSKT have magnanimously agreed to let us continue to use some of their water, but under the strict scrutiny of a tribally controlled water management board. 

If we accept the Flathead Compact, we are also accepting its ex post facto revision of history and the creation of new time immemorial rights to more water than exists in western Montana.  Acceptance of these premises effectively negates the very old and very valuable water rights of many people living in western Montana, and relegates people to the status of mere users of the tribe’s water, under their terms and conditions.

After extensive research related to the Flathead Water Compact, up to and including its unlawful and unconstitutional content and the fraudulent means used to achieve its ratification in the Montana legislature, we keep coming full circle to one question over and over again:

In light of all the overreach in the Flathead Water Compact after 30 years of “negotiation” and the 2015 filing of the United States 10,000 claims affecting 54 of Montana’s 85 hydrological basins, is it possible to receive a fair water rights adjudication in Montana? 

We assert that the compacting parties including the state of Montana, have made a shambles of Montana’s statewide adjudication water proceedings, compromising its ability to fairly adjudicate state-based water rights in an area covering approximately 2/3 of the state.

We also maintain that in Montana’s desire to give deference to and to accommodate the demands of the United States and CSKT, the compact commission, state officials, and yes, even the courts have allowed the state adjudication process to be delegitimized to the point that it may not be possible for the state to recover.

The Best Laid Plans……

A water right adjudication is supposed to be a legal process to resolve conflict and competition on a  water source. Adjudication legally determines whether each water right on a source is legal, how much water can be used, and its priority during shortages. 

After the ratification of Montana’s 1972 constitution, the state earnestly began to develop, authorize and execute a process for adjudicating both state and federal reserved water rights throughout the entire state. Understanding that nearly 100 years of poor recordkeeping dating back to the Montana Territory and questionable claims under a deficiency of water rights record keeping, Montana knew that a difficult road was in front of them.

Between 1973 and 1979 the Montana legislature created a McCarran Amendment compliant adjudication process for both state based and federal reserved water rights.

In 1979, the legislature created the water court to adjudicate all of the pre-1973 water rights that were affirmed by the Montana Constitution for the purpose of shoring up and addressing the validity of each of those claims.   The legislature also authorized the Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission for the purpose of quantifying and settling with finality, the unknown volumes of federal reserved water rights throughout the state. 

Via the adjudication process, Montana’s goals were also to protect its water resources from down-stream out of state interests as much as possible, and to determine what if any water was available for new uses. 

From the Beginning……

Looking at a timeline of Montana’s water rights adjudication process it is obvious that from the very beginning of the state’s effort to sort out and to inventory its valuable water resources and uses,  the United States and the CSKT were intent on preventing the state from properly adjudicating federal reserved water rights.  Now looking at the compact result, we can also say with confidence that their goal was also to ensure that state based water rights could also not be properly adjudicated.

Over the years Montana’s process was attacked by the United States / CSKT from a number of fronts.

Here are just a few of many, many examples:

• Between 1973-1979, the United States filed several pre-emptive lawsuits against the state for the purpose of adjudicating its federal reserved water rights in what was considered to be “friendlier” federal courts.
• In 1981 the CSKT filed a lawsuit against the state of Montana to enjoin the state from adjudicating their federal reserved water rights.
• In 1984-1985, the United States / CSKT filed blanket objections to every water right in every basin in western Montana. These objections remain within the preliminary decrees for each of these basins to this day.
• In the 1990’s, the CSKT filed a series of lawsuits (Ciotti) against the DNRC to prevent them from issuing water use permits within the boundaries of the Flathead Reservation. In 1996 the Montana Supreme Court ruled that the DNRC could not issue water use permits until the tribes federal reserved water rights were quantified.  
• In 2001, the CSKT began efforts to move “negotiations” for the compact forward by submitting a framework for negotiations that is essentially a mirror image of the water compact that the water court is reviewing today. Non-negotiable terms included 1) US / CSKT ownership of all the water within reservation boundaries, 2) a reservation wide unitary administration entity controlled by the tribe, for the purpose of protecting the tribe’s “unique” water rights and 3) Off reservation and time immemorial water rights.
• 2006-2009 John Tubbs was the DNRC Water Resources Division Manager.
• 2009-2013 John Tubbs was the deputy assistant secretary for water and science at the U.S. Department of the Interior
• 2013-2021 John Tubbs was the director of the DNRC. 
• After the compact failed in the 2013 legislature, the CSKT filed a law suit against the United States, Montana and others in 2014, seeking a declaration by the court that 1) the CSKT own all of the water within reservation boundaries, 2) the Flathead Irrigation Project is a tribal project and 3) that when the reservation was opened to settlement, none of the reservation lands ever went into the public domain. While a defendant in the lawsuit, the United Statas made it known that they were contemplating joining the tribes and becoming a plaintiff instead.  It is notable that the state continued negotiations, and approved the compact in the legislature while this lawsuit was active and hanging over their heads as a coercive threat. 
• In 2014 the CSKT hired Mercury LLC to create a grassroots organization to give the appearance of grassroots support for the compact.
• In 2014 the CSKT funded an effort by a seated compact commission member and a few other legislators to change house rules to garner ratification of the compact in the 2015 legislature.
• In 2015 the United States / CSKT filed more than 10,000 claims affecting 51 of the 85 water basins covering about 2/3 of the state of Montana. These claims have never been entered into any public database. Since the filing of those claims, Montana has moved numerous adjudications forward with water users completely unaware of the existence of these claims.
• From 2015-2024, the Montana Water Court has allowed an adjudicative stay on basins 76L and 76LJ preventing the approval of 30 years of new water use permits within reservation boundaries, and allowing compact implementation to take place before any adjudication of state based water rights in those basins. 
• From 2015-2024, and notwithstanding the fact that the US / CSKT 10,000 claims affect 51 water basins, the Montana Water Court questionably placed a stay on any review of these claims by placing them under the umbrella of the adjudicative stay in Basins 76L and 76LJ.  This stay prevents the the water users in many of the affected basins from having knowledge of these claims as they go through their water rights adjudication proceedings.
• In March 2022 Compacting Parties ask the water court to open the Flathead Compact decree as a special proceeding: “Under federal law, the Tribes have water rights both on their Reservation and to support off-reservation treaty-recognized natural resource use sites in western Montana. Because these tribal water rights don’t fit neatly into the basin specific approach that the Water Court typically uses, such UNIQUE types of rights and a multi-basin geographic scope are beyond the typical state law water right claimant. Therefore, opening a special case to address this unique situation is entirely appropriate.” This approach ensures that the compact grievances will not be resolved on the merits.
• In 2022, a state attorney uses the 10,000 claims to threaten explain to the Water Court the consequences of reopening all 51 affected basins to resolve these unlawful claims if the Flathead Compact is not approved.

Montana Caves Under Pressure

Since the early 1970’s, the U.S. / CSKT have worked to influence, sabotage and undermine  Montana’s statewide adjudication process. 

It took approximately 25 years for the state to capitulate to the US / CSKT. 

By 2004 the state was fully on board with the tribe’s 2001 proposal, and the Compact Commission hired tribal advocate attorney Jay Weiner to develop the compact and the legal legs needed to rationalize the state’s capitulation. 

The state also took steps to control the public narrative so as to hide the compact overreach, by threatening the public with decades of litigation and telling them that the tribe had given up far more than it would have gotten if it had litigated their claims.

On its face, this is laughable.  How much more could the U.S. / CSKT possibly get than what the compact and the Daines legislatiion already gave them?

Montana crossed the rubicon in 2004 when it began to actively participate in the fraud, collusion and overreach that brought us the CSKT Compact.

Mr. Water Court Judge:  How Exclusive is “Exclusive”?

Adding insult to the compact injury and the methods used by the compact parties and a handful of legislators to achieve its questionable “ratification,” the most egregious aspect of the compact is Montana’s cession of its constitutionally mandated jurisdiction over water in the compact. via its Grand Bargain.

So in a post compact world, who or what has the legal authority to do such an adjudication?

CSKT Compact MCA 85-20-1901: 

ARTICLE IV I. 1. of the compact confers “EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION” upon the UMB as follows:

There is hereby established the Flathead Reservation Water Management Board.

Upon the Effective Date, the Board shall be the exclusive regulatory body on the Reservation for the issuance of Appropriation Rights and authorizations for Changes in Use of Appropriation Rights and Existing Uses, and for the administration and enforcement of all Appropriation Rights and Existing Uses.

The Board shall also have exclusive jurisdiction to resolve any controversy over the meaning and interpretation of the Compact on the Reservation, and any controversy over the right to the use of water as between the Parties or between or among holders of Appropriation Rights and Existing Uses on the Reservation except as explicitly provided otherwise in Article IV.G.5. The jurisdiction of this Board does not extend to any water rights whose place of use is located outside the exterior boundaries of the Reservation.

On the other side of the jurisdictional coin, the Montana Water Court website says this: 

The 1979 Legislature created the Montana Water Court to expedite and facilitate the statewide adjudication of over 219,000 state law-based water rights and Indian and Federal reserved water rights claims. The Water Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the adjudication of water rights claims.

Unitary Management and Administration Ordinance:  MCA 85-20-1902:

Section 1-1-101.3. of the Unitary Management Ordinance codified into Montana law says this: 

Upon the Effective Date of the Compact, this Ordinance shall govern all water rights, whether derived from tribal, state or federal law, and shall control all aspects of water use, including all permitting of new uses, changes of existing uses, enforcement of water right calls and all aspects of enforcement within the exterior boundaries of the Flathead Indian Reservation. Any provision of Title 85, MCA, that is inconsistent with this Law of Administration is not applicable within the Reservation.

So who has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes over water within reservation boundaries, the water court or the tribally controlled water management board? 

Which “jurisdiction” will apply for any disputes that butt up against the US / CSKT overreaching claims?  A tribally controlled board, the Water Court or federal court?

Who or what will “adjudicate” the water rights in basins 76L and 76LJ that have been negated by the compact when the water court stay is lifted at long last?

How is it possible that any adjudication can take place in any of the 51 water basins in western Montana affected by the 10,000 claims and the water compact? 

After all of this and even more, we do not see a pathway forward that can give Montanans the confidence they need that they will receive a fair and unbiased adjudication of their water rights.

Montanan’s living within reservation boundaries no longer know which provisions of the Montana Water Use Act apply to them, and which provisions don’t.

The statutes don’t clarify it and the state has not even bothered to tell us.  Perhaps it has failed to do so because it does not want the general public to see the Flathead Compact Proceeding itself for the legal sham that the compact made of it.

But it is also reasonable to think that the reach of the Unitary Management Board monster they created may also have jurisdiction over disputes between the tribe and water users in an area covering approximately 2/3 of the state.

Montana has no one to blame but itself.

It’s time to dump the compact, hold those who gave us the compact accountable, and send the United States and CSKT into the state-wide adjudication with everyone else so their claims can be resolved once and for all.  

Sincerest thanks to the Flathead Compact Davids

© 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.