Letters to the editor

Compact concerns don’t all hold water

By now you’ve heard about the debate and concerns regarding the long-anticipated state-tribal water compact in the Mission Valley. If successful, the compact will end decades of uncertainty and establish how water rights are managed for all residents in the Flathead Valley.

The compact would also bring much needed improvement to the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project, which suffers from decades of insufficient maintenance and rehabilitation. At present, the United States has identified $80 million of deferred maintenance, which means the irrigators either could not or would not pay adequate operation and maintenance fees to maintain the system over time. An agreement would help remedy the problems.

Some irrigators have claimed in the letters sections that the agreement would negatively change agriculture in the Mission Valley. That’s just not true. Some irrigators attacked the empirical, detailed science used to create the agreement. What is true is the agreement was built upon scientific findings that were corroborated by the state, the United States and by an independent study paid for the State of Montana. While some object to the farm turnout water amount of 1.4 acre feet per acre, these attacks are grounded in fear, not fact. Irrigators are arguing to keep water they believe they need. Instead of evaluating the science that determined the water they’ll need, they refer to old reports that support their opinions, but no one has submitted any data to the negotiation teams to refute the current studies that are specific to the Flathead Indian Reservation. The negotiation teams encourage the submission of any scientific data opponents would like considered.

A recent letter to the editor made a statement that explains why the existing duty system cannot continue. “Most of the irrigators start irrigating when soil moisture gets low and then stop when the water goes off in September, never questioning or measuring the amount of water they use.”

That’s part of the problem. That’s like being a user of a city water system and announcing how you turn on your tap and never bother to turn off the water or pay attention to how much water flushes through your system. That practice needs to change or the system will eventually fail for everyone.

Here’s a fact: A compact is not required. Adjudication of water rights through Montana law is required, and a compact is a timely and cost-effective alternative to extensive, expensive, and divisive litigation.

Please evaluate the contents of the proposal. Be cautious of claims that seem designed to elicit fear and distrust. Voice your concerns at the public meetings. You will receive clear and honest answers. What’s being proposed is the best solution for all parties.

Here are some thoughts to consider:

-No compact means we all must litigate for our water rights. The Tribes possess the most senior water rights, a clear legal advantage, which will be deployed as needed in court.

-As part of the compact, if successful, the state of Montana and the United States Congress will authorize significant rehabilitation and maintenance investment into the irrigation project to provide more efficient delivery to irrigators. Without a compact, the system will continue as unfixed and potentially fail in the future while everyone’s jammed up in court.

-Recently, a Mission Valley farmer compared his water needs to grow melons with the water needs of a melon farm in a California desert. You can see how that conclusion may be tainted when compared to water needs of a Mission Valley melon farmer.

-At the Polson water hearing November 28, an irrigator shared the log numbers from his system that were very close to the 1.4 acre feet levels. This wasn’t an endorsement of the compact, but an acknowledgement that the science matched his reality and there was room to discuss the proposed compact.

If the community will focus on the independent and solid proposal on the table, avoid lobbing emotionally and factually inaccurate statements that ignore the science-based proposal derived from facts specific to the Flathead Indian Reservation and accumulated through 30 years of scientific study, the entire community will be better served.

To repeat a message by some members of the Mission Valley business community, the compact brings stability for everyone. Stability is good for business. Our community has learned that fighting each other leads to failure. Working together to answer tough questions builds the best community for us all.

Joe Durglo, Chairman

CSKT Tribal Council

Water worries

It seems that I’m once again confused concerning the process of this Flathead Indian Reservation Reserved Water Rights Compact.  Maybe Mr. Ducheneaux could educate us all once more.  If the tribe (the CSKT) is claiming their Federally Reserved Water Right to fulfill the purpose of this Federal Reservation (as defined by the Winters Doctrine of 1908) why is anyone talking to the tribe?  The CSKT, as clearly stated in the Hellgate Treaty of 1855, is a dependent of the United States Government (refer to Article VIII. of said Treaty).  Shouldn’t everyone be talking, or negotiating, with the parent (the Federal Government of the United States) and not the dependent? Oh, I’m certain the ‘dependent’ will have input and requests and that’s all fine and well, but we’re talking about “Federally” reserved water fights for a “Federal reserve” - not “tribal” water rights for a “tribal” reserve.

Why isn’t the Department of the Interior or the Bureau of Indian Affairs taking a more responsible and dominant seat at the table?  Why are they lurking in the background?  They created this mess; along with an absent U.S. Congress.  Why aren’t they front and center?!  Why are we even listening to the State Water Compact Commission who are more than willing to “negotiate” with a ‘dependent’, rather than the adult in charge and have publicly stated they do NOT represent us, the citizens of Montana?

Seems to me we need to put the shoe on the other foot, about now, if there is any intention whatsoever of moving this compact to a fair and equitably negotiated solution.  Otherwise, we will be litigating for the next 50 years or so.  Who’s running this house, the adults or the dependents?

Just askin’ because it seems to me the proper process would be a negotiation between the responsible parties, as defined by the Federal and State Constitutions, the Winters Doctrine and the Treaty itself; not the illusion and Broadway Stage Play that’s been presented to date.

Remember: “sovereign” only means capable of self-governing and does not infer landmass or water or air; it’s a concept, not a physical entity.

Michael Gale

Ronan

Culture shock

In August, we traveled to Africa, visiting Botswana, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.  The animals were amazing, the people were warm and intelligent, and the landscapes were impressive in their vastness.  The entire experience was life changing.  I am writing to offer a few observations and comparisons.

First, the food we ate in the bush camps was outstanding... lots of fresh fruits, veggies, and salads along with chicken, fish, and meats.  Nothing processed, and nothing from a box or package.  The Africans don’t eat sugar, and they don’t drink soda pop.  We noticed that everyone we met had almost perfect, white teeth.  Is there a connection here?

Everywhere we went, we were treated to singing of unrehearsed harmony and dancing which expressed exuberant joy.  The Africans spoke English (as a second language) with ease and grammatical correctness. The school children we met were clean, well-dressed, and extremely polite.  And although they are not rich with “stuff,” the people we met generally seemed to be happy and productive, even with the multitude of problems they face.

We experienced culture shock, not on our arrival in Africa, but on our arrival back home.  One of the first news “stories” on the Today Show was about the color of Michelle Obama’s nail polish.  Really?  We noticed people addicted to their techy toys, oblivious to eye contact and real conversations.  The English language is being butchered every day by text messages and the lack of writing skills.  The obesity epidemic in this country is being fueled by junk food and soda.  Our school children are becoming increasingly difficult to handle, as our families are becoming increasingly dysfunctional.  Our sense of joy is dampened by a perceived need for more and more “stuff.”

So what’s my point?  We (and I’m including myself) need to take stock of everything that makes this country great.  We need to center ourselves in a place of gratitude for all our blessings.  We need to be willing to face our problems and to work on solutions in a spirit of compromise.  We need to let go of our inner anger, so obvious around election time.  We need to sing out with joy.  We need to eat more whole foods and cut out the sugar and soda.  We need to find answers to what many perceive as a cultural slide downhill.  We need to treat each other with respect and compassion, and to be tolerant of our differences.  We need to become less insular as a country, expanding our knowledge of other cultures and languages.  We need to wake up.  And we need to care.

Food for thought during the holidays.

Gary & Nancy Teggeman

Polson