CSKT water compact questions need answering

Sen. Bruce Tutvedt’s most recent letter to the editor brings nothing new to the table and, as usual, ignores the vast majority of the real questions relevant to the issue of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes water compact.

In fact, the Treaty of 1855 did not require negotiations over water rights. In reality, the treaty did not even mention water, just fishing rights. In addition, this compact does have significant impact on many water users. Just ask the members of the Western Water Rights Users Association. That is why they are fighting this so hard.

The questions ignored by Sen. Tutvedt in his letter are numerous and profound:

1. Why is the compact so long and complex that no one really can understand its effects in the near term much less in the future?

2. Why do the Indians want and/or deserve off-reservation water rights?

3. Why do the Indians want so much water — in fact 48 million acre feet as compared to 2.5 million acre feet for all the other Indian tribes in Montana combined? And why should the state want to relinquish control of its waters to the federal government?

4. Will the Indians have an ability to sell/lease the water to other entities and/or increase the rates that we pay for it? Will we have to pay money to them in the future for water for our cities and counties and/or our farms and ranches?

5. Why should the Indians control Kerr Dam?

6. Why is Pennsylvania Power & Light selling the dam to them for $18 million? It would surely cost over $1 billion to replace it — if it could ever be done. Why shouldn’t there be a public auction for it?

7. Why should the state of Montana be forced to spend $55 million for ditches and other infrastructure for a federal irrigation project? Shouldn’t they be paying us for our water instead?

8. What constitutes a “drought year,” and what happens when the water users’ rights are called/curtailed? Does that mean farmers could lose their entire crops for that year?

9. Why should water users on reservations be forced to be under the regulation of non-elected boards in control of their water, land and their future?

10. Why should we ignore the constitution of our state to support this compact?

11. Why should we be threatened by lawsuits funded by the federal government?

12. Why should this compact be forever and unchangeable? There is no cogent reason for this.  

13. What kind of green agenda is hidden inside of this compact which will give the CSKT/federal government the power to shut down new or even established businesses and/or proposed developments?

14. What is the effect of this compact on other compacts across our state? Does it set precedents which will lead to a reopening and renegotiation of those compacts as well? Is there any guarantee it won’t lead to this conclusion?

These are just some of the more relevant questions that have been asked and subsequently ignored or glossed over during this debate.  

But while we are asking questions, why do the Indians get another $1 million set aside in a nonprofit organization to promote this theft of our water? Why doesn’t the state of Montana give money to groups opposing it, thus evening up the playing field so the other side of the story can get a fair hearing?

Why is the federal government giving so much money to the Indians to the detriment of the non-Indian citizens of this state who are citizens as well? Does the federal government have an underlying motive prompting this type of support?  

Sen. Tutvedt’s letter to the editor is, in reality, a puff piece designed to lull people into a feeling of security about the potential effects of this draconian piece of legislation. In that regard, it is irresponsible. The fact is this piece of legislation is too long, too complex and leaves too many questions unanswered.

A “responsible Republican” should insist it be scrapped and replaced by a clear, concise and understandable document which gives definitive answers to the questions above and about its effects not only in the present but for our children and grandchildren in the future.

In addition, it should have an absolute guarantee that no further demand by the Indian tribea will ever be considered in the future. That is the responsible thing to do.     

Mark Agather is a resident of Kalispell.