Bill calls for supermajority vote for CSKT compact

Rep. Matthew Monforton, R-Bozeman, said his bill would “codify what has been the custom and tradition in Montana for the last 30 years.” He noted that the 17 other water rights compacts ratified by the state have passed by supermajorities.

The compact seeks to quantify CSKT’s share of water flowing into the Flathead Indian Reservation, obligates the state to spend $55 million for infrastructure improvements, and aims to avoid litigation over thousands of claims CSKT says it will pursue before the Montana Water Court.

Monforton compared the CSKT compact to a treaty, which he said by definition diminishes the sovereignty of the U.S. government or in this case, the state. By that logic, he said, the two-thirds ratification rule that applies to federal treaties in the U.S. Senate should also apply at the state level.

No proponents spoke for House Bill 437, but representatives of several interest groups that support the compact, including the Montana Water Resources Association and the Montana Stockgrowers Association, condemned the proposal as unfair.

“We think it’s inappropriate to change the rules of the game in the fourth quarter,” said Christa Lee Evans of the Association of Gallatin Agricultural Irrigators.

Evans added that HB 437 could impact other agreements. She cited a compact between Montana, the U.S. government and Canada for water rights in the Milk River.

Retired Col. James P. Moran raised similar concerns. He noted the federal government periodically enters into agreements with the state on issues such as emergency response, with the federal Department of Defense able to give an officer of the state temporary command over federal resources.

Rep. Casey Schreiner, D-Great Falls, claimed the bill failed constitutional muster. He cited Article V, Section 11 of the Montana Constitution: “No bill shall become law except by a vote of the majority of all members present and voting.”

Monforton replied that the provision does not apply to agreements between sovereign governments.

A bill that would require a two-thirds vote by the Montana Legislature to ratify the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes water rights agreement received a chilly reception from the House State Affairs Committee on Feb. 18. No executive action was set on the bill.

Rep. Matthew Monforton, R-Bozeman, said his bill would “codify what has been the custom and tradition in Montana for the last 30 years.” He noted that the 17 other water rights compacts ratified by the state have passed by supermajorities.

The compact seeks to quantify CSKT’s share of water flowing into the Flathead Indian Reservation, obligates the state to spend $55 million for infrastructure improvements, and aims to avoid litigation over thousands of claims CSKT says it will pursue before the Montana Water Court.

Monforton compared the CSKT compact to a treaty, which he said by definition diminishes the sovereignty of the U.S. government or in this case, the state. By that logic, he said, the two-thirds ratification rule that applies to federal treaties in the U.S. Senate should also apply at the state level.

No proponents spoke for House Bill 437, but representatives of several interest groups that support the compact, including the Montana Water Resources Association and the Montana Stockgrowers Association, condemned the proposal as unfair.

“We think it’s inappropriate to change the rules of the game in the fourth quarter,” said Christa Lee Evans of the Association of Gallatin Agricultural Irrigators.

Evans added that HB 437 could impact other agreements. She cited a compact between Montana, the U.S. government and Canada for water rights in the Milk River.

Retired Col. James P. Moran raised similar concerns. He noted the federal government periodically enters into agreements with the state on issues such as emergency response, with the federal Department of Defense able to give an officer of the state temporary command over federal resources.

Rep. Casey Schreiner, D-Great Falls, claimed the bill failed constitutional muster. He cited Article V, Section 11 of the Montana Constitution: “No bill shall become law except by a vote of the majority of all members present and voting.”

Monforton replied that the provision does not apply to agreements between sovereign governments.