Letters to the editor - Jan. 16

2013 Toys for Tots Campaign

On behalf of the Marine Corps League, Hellroaring Detachment 1041 and the Toys for Tots Foundation, I would like to thank all of the people of Lake County for a successful Toys for Tots Campaign during the 2013 Christmas season.

Your generosity made this a special Christmas for thousands of children in Lake County and the CSKT.

None of this would have been possible without the help of the Marine Corp League volunteers, Share the Spirit, CSKT Christmas program, private citizens and businesses who were so generous with their time and financial support.  God bless you all.

Mauri Morin

Toys for Tots Coordinator

Lake County

Thank You Sen. Vincent

Sen. Chas Vincent (R-Libby), with the Water Policy Interim Committee (WPIC), deserves our thanks for his stewardship of a very important hearing on the proposed Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) Compact held on Monday, January 6 in Helena.  Sen. Vincent created a safe and respectful atmosphere in which both proponents and opponents of the proposed Compact were able to discuss the recently released Governor’s Report on the subject and the Compact itself.

At one point in the meeting, Sen. Vincent reminded the people in the room that “we work for you, and this is your building.”  Kudos to a state senator who has enough respect for his statewide constituents to remind everyone of that sacred duty of representation.

Thank you for a job well done, Sen. Vincent!

David Passieri

Charlo

Apples and Oranges?

Jerry Johnson’s recent letter seems to mix up federal and state water rights, which is like mixing apples and oranges. I’d rather stick to the facts, and four are presented here.

First, federal law (1904, 1908) creating the Flathead Irrigation Project required that the federal government not only file water rights under state law, but to also abide by state law in all water management and administration actions. Thus the federal government filed water rights in county courthouses throughout the Flathead Valley. Water users bought those rights from the federal government and they became state-based water rights. You can find this yourself plainly written into law.

Second, the McCarren Amendment was passed in order to waive federal sovereign immunity so that federal water rights—aka federal reserved water rights—could be heard in a State Court proceeding such as the Montana General Stream Adjudication. This is why all federal reserved water rights negotiated by the Compact Commission are eventually verified by the State Water Court. The McCarren Act also supports the primary role of the State to administer water resources— not the federal government or the Tribe. Compact or no, all of the CSKT, federal, and state-based water rights will eventually go before the Montana Water Court.

Third, the way to avoid litigation is to recognize that irrigation water rights exist and that the beneficial use of these waters is primary evidence of their existence. No one, except the Compact proponents, gives up their water rights without a fight, or litigation. Water rights are valuable!

Fourth, the McCarren Amendment does not recognize off-reservation, non-federal reserved water rights.

Finally, isn’t it strange that an irrigation district commissioner, who is supposed to protect and represent irrigators, denies that irrigation water rights exist? Just the facts please!

Natalie Champoux

Charlo

Anonymous donation

We had a citizen in the community leave a very nice cash donation at one of the local banks.  I want to thank this person.  I have not been able to find out who left the donation, so this is the only way I know to thank them.  

Chief John Ed Fairchild

Polson

Political games

Is it any wonder many of us are losing faith in government? Some of us are old enough to remember when presidents and congressmen in both parties were statesmen and could work together for the welfare of the nation rather than the Party.

Our people are being victimized by dirty back-room politics in Washington, where most of the key players are more interested in their political aspirations and that of their Party than in principles of good government. The pending appointment of outgoing Montana Sen. Max Baucus is the latest scandal affecting Montana. His appointment to the important position of U.S. Ambassador to China is another example of the amateur handling of foreign affairs displayed by the Obama Administration. It is obviously payback for Sen. Baucus’ unfailing loyalty in backing every move of the administration and back-pedaling on Baucus’ statement that Obamacare is a “train wreck.”

During his thirty-five years in the Senate, Sen. Baucus has never served on a committee dealing with foreign policy or national security and has had no experience as a career diplomat. He cannot speak the Mandarin language as could the majority of our Ambassadors to China.

In addition to reversing Baucus’ comments on the disasters of Obamacare, this is a blatant move on the part of the Administration to try to interfere in the upcoming U.S. Senate race in Montana. Will Gov. Bullock play along with Washington’s dirty politics or exercise moral integrity in selecting a replacement for the remaining months of Baucus’ senate term by appointing an individual who is not a candidate for the Senate on the Democrat ticket?

Mary M. Milheim

Dayton

Talkin’ water

It is often asserted in letters and public comments that under the CSKT water Compact, “individual state based water rights are being transferred to the CSKT.” But irrigators currently do not have individual state based water rights on FIIP project water; no one does. A purpose of the State water adjudication process started decades ago is to determine who has a project water right.

The Compact provides the Tribes instream and project water rights but the Tribes would be obligated to defer their instream objectives until project infrastructure improvements would permit instream increases without reducing project water delivered to farms and ranches. Under the Compact, such improvements would be financed by state and federal money.

If the Compact is not passed by the State legislature, it will be up to the Montana Water Court to determine the instream and project water rights. The Court could decide to give the Tribes a water right for project water and their instream flow objectives as provided under the Compact but the Tribes would be under no obligation to protect irrigation water delivered to farms and ranches. But even if the Court provided the Tribes a water right for only a modest increase in instream flows and denied the Tribes a project water right, irrigators still would get less water delivered unless they found a way to finance improvements in the management of water.

For many of us who have been supporting the Compact, delivered water to our farms is far more important than having a project based water right on significantly less water that may or may not get delivered. I do not want to imply that there are no risks and uncertainties for irrigators in the Compact agreement. But going to the Water Court almost certainly would reduce the amount of water available for irrigation.

Dick Erb

Moiese