Letters to the editor

Water rights

For over a decade, representatives from the state of Montana, the Federal Government and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) have been working to conclude a water rights agreement (Compact) for surface and subsurface water on and off the Flathead Indian Reservation.

In order to be able to submit a Compact to the Montana legislature in 2013, an agreement should be reached by the end of 2012. Partial and very preliminary drafts of a Compact and related documents can be found on the Montana DNRC web site. But many complex issues need to be decided in the coming months, including issues related to irrigation water.

Under the framework that has guided the overall negotiations to date, most surface water, including irrigation water, would come under a tribal water right. In that connection, technical meetings have been taking place between representatives of the CSKT and representatives of the Flathead Joint Irrigation Board of Control (FJBC).

The objective of these meetings is to lay the basis for what is called a “stipulation agreement” between the FJBC and the CSKT that would cover irrigation water rights issues under the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project (FIIP).

Access to irrigation water is important for the survival of individual farmers and ranchers. I know because I raise hay on 240 acres. A large number of families on this reservation—tribal and non-tribal — earn all or a portion of their income directly or indirectly from farming and ranching activities. Any major declines in the availability of irrigation water will make it more difficult to maintain economically viable operations and obtain financing.

It is important for all parties to come to a mutually beneficial agreement. Our common interests exceed conflicting interests. For example, from an irrigator’s perspective, irrigation water will have greater protection from potential downstream claims under an 1855 tribal water right than under a FIIP-based claim dating to the early 1900s.

From the Tribes’ perspective, the irrigators’ claims increase the total volume claimable for beneficial use. In other words, if the FIIP impoundments did not exist, downstream claimants would have a stronger claim to reservation surface water.

Protecting existing uses of water is an important principle guiding these negotiations, but as with any principle, the devil is in the details. I had hoped that by now there would be Compact drafts, stipulation agreement drafts and relevant technical background covering irrigation water issues available for public comment.

Farmers, ranchers and the general public need to know the details and how their rights may be affected. Given the importance and complexity of the issues involved, all parties will need a reasonable time period to carefully evaluate and submit comments on technical presentations and draft documents.

I hope that negotiators at the upcoming Feb. 29 public meeting of the compact water rights negotiating session will outline the main issues that remain open and present a clear timetable that will guarantee sufficient time for public comment before any decisions are made. It would also be helpful to know how a stipulation agreement will be incorporated into a Compact agreement. In that connection, the FJBC also should discuss every issue and all relevant documents in sessions open to the public with adequate prior notice.

Information, technical background, tentative agreements and documents related to the Compact agreement, including the stipulation agreement, should be made available to the public. The DNRC Compact web site could provide a valuable means for making such information available to the public.

I also would encourage the local news media to follow this important negotiation and help keep everyone informed.

Dick Erb

Moiese

College costs

I must take issue with Peregrine Frissell’s letter to the editor who is also an Occupy Polson organizer. He feels that the government must do something about the cost of education.

For some reason he feels that students are entitled to a college education and that it is up to government and society to provide that for them. The one thing that I want to know is why people feel they must spend $50,000 per year for a college education? What do they get for that investment? Why can’t they get an equal education by taking online courses which are considerably less expensive?

If a student wants to take college courses, there is no reason why one could not work while going to school and pay for one’s education. I agree that some colleges can be extremely expensive but are they cost effective? Over the years from what I have observed, I would bet you that less than 10 percent of college graduates are working in the fields that they studied for and got degrees in. That is not a very good return for the money invested.

I do agree with Mr. Frissell’s statement; “Saddling the majority of young people with massive debt is no way to build an economy or a strong society.” Currently our national debt is at $15 trillion which equals approximately $48,500 for every man women and child. If you think that is bad, the unfunded liabilities which include Medicare, Social Security and government pensions amount to $114.5 trillion.

That figures out to a mere $365,800 per man, women and child. The best thing we can do to help Mr. Frissell and Occupy Polson crowd is to cut government spending. It is our moral responsibility in order to help the younger generation to elect responsible people to our government to accomplish this.

Our current Democratic administration is unwilling to even consider curbing spending, they want to pile even more debt on our children and bankrupt our great nation. How much more can we take?

Lonnie D. Haack

Polson

Obama and religion

At the recent National Prayer Breakfast, Mr. Obama declared that Jesus was on his side with the idea of wealth redistribution by quoting Jesus in Luke, “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required.”

I cannot believe that Jesus was thinking at all about material possessions when he said that. I think he was speaking of God’s precious gift of understanding that God is our creator and provider—that He is, in fact, love.

Obviously, these are two different interpretations of scripture. Fortunately, because we both live in America, Mr. Obama and I are allowed to have our own interpretations of what we read in the Bible. Neither of us should be compelled ever to accept an interpretation that we don’t hold.

It has become clear to me that Mr. Obama, his advisers and supporters are essentially religious zealots. They think we should all worship their idea of God — a strong Federal government that provides unlimited good to everyone. They expect all of us to join in their worship. And they condemn us if we don’t.

It is my strong hope that most Americans will recognize this bigotry and vote to remove it from a position of leadership in November.

Carol Cummings

Polson

United Nations

There have been a number of letters to the editor decrying the United Nations. I am always willing to learn and would be interested in those authors extending their thoughts. However, I have two concerns.

The first is that I have learned to be wary of speech that totally and unequivocally vilifies the subject at hand. Generally, that means the speaker/writer is very selectively picking the evidence to support only one supposition. That is hardly seeking the truth.

The second is that I would be greatly interested in what vision these authors have for the United States of America and its place in the world in the years 2012, 2312 or 2512? What do they expect the world to be like in 100, 500 or 1,000 years? What is their vision for how there will be peace among nations? What is their world view?

A few details would help readers understand how seriously to take those accusations.

Gene Johnson

Polson

Rated-R

Reading the letter from Connie Browning about two 12-year-olds dropped off at the theater to watch the R-rated movie, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, was very disturbing.

Connie described explicit sexual scenes she and her husband saw that were also viewed by the children. Although they had parental permission, it was not a movie I’d want my grandchildren or myself to watch, and I’m waaaay beyond the legal age. From Connie’s description, that movie should have been X-rated!

It bothers me that such films are even made, much less shown, but of course, we have a law granting “free speech.” Sadly, the law has been interpreted to permit the making and sale of media pornography and violence that degrades our lives and makes love and sex a mere commodity to be bought and sold.

Our lives are increasingly being polluted by such “free speech,” exposing children to unwholesome sights, sounds and ideas. Lewd and lascivious topics, scenes and language that were once taboo are now in our faces whenever we watch movies, television, log onto the Internet or listen to music. Little wonder that it’s practically impossible to “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil,” since it permeates our lives at an increasingly earlier age.

Why is this happening? Because sex sells. Because people worship Mammon more than God, and because humans are attracted to forbidden fruit. How can we stand in opposition to media pollution? Like Nancy Reagan said, “just say no!”

Monitor what your children see, hear, say and do. Set a good example by choosing family-friendly TV, video games, music and movies, and speak out! Let’s demand higher quality media and boycott anything lesser. As the good book says, let’s focus on things that are true, high-minded, honest, pure, lovely, reputable and praiseworthy (Philippians 4:8).

Suzanne Marshall

Polson

Common sense spending

This editorial is not about religion or politics. It is about common sense in the spending of my hard-earned tax dollars.

I have lived in the state of Montana for 42 years and have been luckier than most. I have never found myself between jobs and worked in many occupations. I have never had to accept any government handouts such as farm subsidies, food stamps or any program Denny Rehberg labels as “welfare.” I pay approximately 35 cents on the dollar in taxes.

I have been following stories in the newspapers about Representative Rehberg’s attempt to save Jesus on the ski hill. I would appreciate any information Rep. Rehberg could give me regarding how much the plane rides to Washington, the lawyers and the man-hours spent saving this statue have cost me, a Montana taxpayer, so far.

I am sure the veterans that this statue is meant to honor would be ashamed and embarrassed about the amount of money spent saving a memorial to veterans. I think that they would want this money spent helping our veterans recently returning from war.

Rehberg is running for political office on a platform that includes the desire to keep big government out of our daily lives while simultaneously hard at work to allow Homeland Security the right to trample every environmental law created in this state, 100 miles south of the Canadian border.

I am not sure whether he is trying to save this memorial for political or religious reasons, but common sense tells me he is wasting my money as a taxpayer.

Tonya Marshall

Polson