LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: What is the FJBC Doing?
Compact’s water rights
There seems to be much confusion on what water rights would look like under the compact.
Your pre 1973 water claims will go through the water court and be decreed by the Water Court. The decree results in a water right. After 1973 rights that have gone through the DNRC are waters that have been permitted and will not have to go through any other process and will remain as currently permitted. All water rights and claims holders will be required to go through this process. No one is exempt. Not even those who support the present compact negotiations. Another advantage of the compact is that all the domestic wells drilled after 1996 will have a path to completion. If you have one of these wells and have not filled out a permit it would be wise to do so.
With no compact you will have to file an objection to the tribe’s senior claim on all reservation water. If it is a pre 1973 right you can appear initially in water court without a lawyer if you are not a corporation. Your opponent in water court will be the tribe and the federal government. You will have to prove they did not fish on reservation waters and that your water is not needed to fulfill past, present and future purposes of the reservation.
With no compact if you have a claim through the DNRC you will have to go straight to court to object to the tribe’s senior claim. Your opponent in court will be the tribe and the federal government.
Contrary to what past letters to the editor have said no one will be exempt from the adjudication process with or without the compact. There are no special favors given to anyone. The tribe will be required to file their claims should the compact not pass. If you object they will protect their claims.
Considering what happened in the 70’s and 80’s in court on this reservation, the first being the tribes control of the south half of Flathead Lake and the second being the time immemorial in-stream flows that must be recognized on the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project. I hope we would be cautious in going the litigation route.
Susan Lake
Lake County
What is the FJBC Doing?
Recently a divided FJBC hired a new law firm and at its last meeting discussed hiring a lobbyist. Private property legal expertise was the overriding criteria. No need to have water litigation experience and definitely no need to have experience with this irrigation project.
Better to hire a lobbyist to spend the next two months learning – paid for by farmers and ranchers courtesy of the FJBC.
This would be funny if it weren’t so serious. Nothing was said about how a litigation-lobbying initiative based on private property law would secure farmers and ranchers sustained water deliveries. Nor was there any discussion of some of the crucial differences between a water right and other forms of property.
For example, one can have a surface or subsurface water right but be cut off if another user has a water right with an earlier priority date.
Meanwhile, back on planet earth, the State and the Tribes continue a limited but intense negotiation to incorporate project irrigation water directly into the compact agreement. The mutually agreed objective: to maintain historical based water flows to farms and ranches and increase over time in-stream flows where the tribes have an earlier priority date. To achieve that objective is a major water management challenge given that natural water flows vary so much from year to year. As with other compact agreements, it also requires state and federal funding to improve project operations.
Based on what I have seen in recent negotiating sessions I am optimistic about the future of irrigation water deliveries, but I await the final outcome of the negotiation.
Meanwhile those who favor litigation need to go beyond private property slogans and explain just how such litigation would maintain water deliveries to farmers and ranchers.
Dick Erb
Moiese
Compact’s non-negotiables
Editor,
It seems that now is an appropriate moment to begin a review of the infamous Water Rights Compact for the Flathead Reservation. I believe we ought to start this task with the “non-negotiable” heart of the intentionally cumbersome “negotiated” compact: the Unitary Management Ordinance.
Does everyone remember the words from the mouth of the Compact Commission Chairman, Mr. Chris Tweeten, when he said, “we need to remind the tribes that we have done an extraordinary thing, we’ve agreed to move 23,000 non-tribal citizens from under State control and place them somewhere else.”? We now know that the somewhere else is under Tribal control.
The Tribes U.S. Congressionally approved Constitution does not give them control of non-tribal members. The U.S. Constitution does not allow US Citizens to be controlled by Foreign Nations, within the borders of the USA. The Montana Constitution does not provide for foreign government control of State citizens and residents. This act, by the Compact Commission, is illegal, unlawful, illegitimate and unconstitutional.
Our current governor, Mr. Steve Bullock, fully supports this Compact, as written. He says it is absolutely perfect, better than sliced bread or easy open beer cans, and should be passed through the State Legislature forthwith. It’s failure to even get through committee reviews and into the last legislative session of 2013 has him completely baffled.
I guess, as a lawyer, he has no qualms about creating precedents and laws that are unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional. What a guy. Never give up. And you all elected him - how special.
Michael Gale
Ronan
War on EPA badly construed
Editor,
The recently declared “War on the EPA” and particularly carbon emission controls by Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and fellow Republicans is in my opinion badly construed. It is one thing to enhance capitalism by externalizing environmental costs; it is another thing when such behavior threatens global food supplies, water, and people’s ability to grow food.
With a few exceptions, climate change scientists around the world concur that atmospheric pollutants plus the burning of fossil fuels, is having a major impact on global climate. Carbon dioxide levels are higher than at any time in recorded history, we’re seeing increases in sea levels and global temperatures, and an increase in the frequency and intensity of weather shifts. In 2014, we saw the devastation of one of our country’s most important fruit and vegetable growing areas in central California due to recent drought. As is, our food crops have not evolved to withstand major shifts in weather patterns within short time periods. In western Montana, we just experienced record setting heat in August, and sub-zero temperatures in early November. The latter weather shift by itself is not unusual for Montana, but all of these things taken together are unusual.
When certain political ideologies, i.e. Republicanism, ignore the evidence in front of their noses and continue to promote policies that exacerbate climate change, thus threatening world food supply, it becomes a moral issue. Renewed attacks by Senate-elect Daines, Rep-elect Zinke, and state Republicans on EPA & state environmental regulations, thus allowing more pollution, is straight out of the Republican playbook. Freedom to make profit or create jobs does not give one the freedom to pollute another’s air, land and water, be it in this country or around the world.
Kirwin Werner
Ronan
Thanks for letters of support
This letter is to express my sincere gratitude to 13 local community leaders who recently wrote heart-felt letters of support for our local public schools.
Though not a certainty, it appears likely that the Polson School District - and Cherry Valley Elementary School in particular - will soon benefit from receipt of a Montana Quality Schools Department of Commerce facility grant.
If our state legislators, including Greg Hertz and Janna Taylor, vote to accept the twenty-nine recommended grants submitted to them in January 2015, Cherry Valley may benefit from a $1.33M grant award for new boilers, piping and ventilation systems.
My sincere thanks to Dennis Anderson, Ken Avison, Brent Benkelman, Pat DeVries, Bob Fulton, Shad Hupka, Penny Jarecki, Heather Knutson, Rob McDonald, Wade Nash, Chad Smith, Darlis and Daniel Smith, and Rob Turner. Each of those named above wrote incredible, detailed supportive letters which were submitted with our grant application.
Finally, thanks also to Carl Elliot and Pam Owen in PSD’s administrative building for providing accurate and specific data required by the grant application. Their detailed information added to the necessary credibility of our PSD request for funding.
Whether or not Polson is awarded this grant, our community taxpayers owe a debt of gratitude to these fifteen committed individuals who unselfishly worked toward achieving this financial goal. Due to their efforts, benefactors will likely include all of the local citizens starting with our local Pre-K and Kindergarten students!
Thank you.
John Laimbeer
Polson
America on the brink?
America may well be in the brink of destroying itself. These words from Abraham Lincoln:
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
A related quote from Robert Reich, our Secretary of Labor under Clinton from 1993-97 and presently a professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
“ Charles and David Koch should not be blamed for having more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of Americans put together. Nor should they be condemned for their petrochemical empire. As far as I know, they’ve played by the rules and obeyed the laws. They’re also entitled to their own right-wing political views. It’s a free country. But in using their vast wealth to change those rules and laws in order to fit their political views, the Koch brothers are undermining our democracy. That’s a betrayal of the most precious thing Americans share.”
Between Lincoln and Reich have we learned much about building democracy and America? How about the Supreme Court’s ruling that corporations are people? Destruction from within.
Destroying ourselves is a most classic maneuver. Any good psychological counselor will tell us that, generally, people create their own misery. This is true with individuals, with couples, and with families. And we can take it right on up to the federal level and into our world as well.
We don’t like to look within for the source of problem. It can be painful. It takes time. It definitely requires changes. It is simpler to continue blaming others and ignoring the underlying source.
In my way of thinking there is a serious concern as to whether we continue destroying America or start reviving America by looking within our presently evolved system and taking the actions necessary to heal the disease of greed, fear and anger.
This last thought is for me and I’ll share it with you. Within me is the power to make of my life either a heaven or a hell.
Bob McClellan
Polson
Montana would love a head start
Serving on interim committees is a lot of work but also solves many problems during the off year, saving time during the regular session. I served on the State Administration & Veterans’ Affairs Committee (SAVA) when I was a state representative. I watched the SAVA Committee meeting yesterday which was chaired by Senator Dee Brown. You, too, can watch the committee hearing from the state website: leg.mt.gov, Click on Interim, then watch the 8 hour meeting or go directly to 7:34 (7 hours and 34 minutes) to watch a discussion of an idea that would be of great benefit to Montana and our congressional delegation.
The idea came up late in the afternoon when Secretary of State (SOS), Linda McCulloch, came before the committee to answer a couple of questions regarding this month’s elections.
The crash of the website on election night was disturbing to many of us but the other question was an even bigger one. Why didn’t the SOS set up a special election with the general election to have the voters weigh in on a huge question: Since the temporary appointment to fill the vacancy until the election (state law 13-25-202) was finished at 8 p.m. on November 4th, why wasn’t there wording on the ballot to appoint the winner of the general election to finish out the Baucus term?
The Secretary of State’s lack of special election wording will keep newly-elected Steve Daines out of the position until other candidates take office in January. With our small delegation, Montana would benefit with a head start and better committee assignments.
Actually, Governor Tom Judge recognized this situation in a similar election when Max Baucus won the general election in 1978. Judge had appointed Senator Hatfield who lost in the primary to Baucus.
Hatfield then submitted his resignation which allowed Governor Judge to fill the brief vacancy with Baucus in the Senate seat. We know as Montanans that the Baucus’ seniority served us for several decades, including the chairmanship of the powerful Finance Committee.
Although our chief election officer Linda McCulloch did not recognize the benefit to Montana, I hope the sitting governor will do the right thing for Montana.
By appointing Senator-elect Daines and Representative-elect Zinke, right now, it will serve us well in 2014, just as the temporary appointment served us well in 1978.
Senator Verdell Jackson
Kalispell
(Send your letters to
editor@leaderadvertiser.com.)