LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Water compact

Dear Editor,

As I progress through the study of documents pertaining to the history and settlement of the Flathead Indian Reservation, the contents of important documents begin to clarify some of the confusion and misconceptions.

I have discovered that specific language in the Enabling Act of 1889, which established criteria under which Montana would become a state, required “that all lands owned or held by an Indian or Indian tribes shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the congress of the United States,…”

This language was then incorporated into Art. I of the Montana Constitution and is the reason the state of Montana has no taxing authority over tribal trust land.

As stated in my last letter, the proposed CSKT water compact defines “Flathead Indian Reservation” as “All land within the exterior boundaries of the Indian Reservation established under the …Treaty of Hellgate…not withstanding (meaning “in spite of”) the issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way…”

By accepting this definition the Compact Commission, as the negotiating party representing the state of Montana, creates the basis for confusion.

Here is why: The state taxes fee land within the reservation, indicating that fee land cannot be in “reservation status.” Otherwise, the state would be in violation of its Enabling Act and Art. I of its own Constitution.

Art. IX Sec. 3 of the MT Constitution proclaims that “all surface, underground, flood and atmospheric waters within the boundaries of the state are the property of the state for the use of its people…”

Either the Reservation was diminished or it was not. It can’t be both ways. If it was not, as the compact assumes, then the state should not be taking fee land here.

If it was, then the state has an obligation to apply its constitution equally to each citizen that is subject to its taxation, rather than place some of them under a “Foreign” (UMO) board.

Scott Kerr,

Charlo