In 2015’s Montana Legislature session, one issue looks certain to cause major conniptions, perhaps even worse than the state budget itself – the proposed Confederated Salish-Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) water compact.
The tribal water issue – along with many others – has festered for over a century.
Prodded into action by federal government litigation, Montana in 1979 created the Montana Reserved Water Rights Commission to “conclude compacts for the equitable division” of water rights – with the state being one side, and the feds/tribes the other. The process began in 1979, with the first compact (Fort Peck) approved in 1985. There was litigation as well – with CSKT being early to court and slow to negotiate. Only when Brian Schweitzer became governor and appointed some new negotiators did the CSKT seriously sit down.
Why is the CSKT compact the last? Long story short, unlike other Montana tribes, the CSKT are a “Stevens Treaty” tribe, having signed the same boilerplate as other Northwest Indians in the 1850s. Over time, other Stevens Treaty tribes in Washington state sued, winning mind-blowing court rulings on fishing and water rights that bolster CSKT’s position.
CSKT could inflict some serious misery upon all of Western Montana’s non-tribal water users – as seemed their intent in winter 2013.
After delaying agreement until the last possible second to dump a ridiculously thick document crammed full of arcane water language into legislators’ laps, CSKT took a “we’re done talking, sign this now or else” attitude.
Many off and on the reservation were shocked not only by the sheer reach of the rights claims, but also the realization the compact vacated on-reservation agricultural water rights in favor of “allowances.” There’s also the implications of closing the Clark Fork basin to new water rights, while unallocated water formerly thought of as available would be either owned by CSKT for sale, or for leasing at the sole discretion of the tribe.
Is that “equitable division?”
Well, the Compact negotiations occurred on the watch of Montana’s political-calculus master, Brian Schweitzer. Has he ever been interested in the “equitable division” of anything?
Equation One: Environmental groups, both wildlife and “smart-growth,” are important Democratic supporters. There’s no doubt Greens would like to see new water uses denied, or made really costly.
Equation Two: Indian voters are critical to Montana Democratic hopes. Period. It is in the best interest of Democrats to keep Indian voters happy, hopefully loyal.
Forget the rents CSKT will get from selling or leasing water, even the $55 million for canal re-engineering offered by the 2013 Legislature as “good faith” bargaining for a “good faith” renegotiation. When the Compact is settled, there will be big money forthcoming from Uncle Sam. When Congress approved the Crow compact in 2010, the deal included $460 million in funding, $15 million being Montana’s share. The Blackfeet are in line for just under $400 million in their settlement trust fund, which is not yet approved by Congress. So, I wouldn’t be surprised if more than that is on the Flathead table.
That’s a lot of happiness.
As some of you know, in June the CSKT Council paid $22,000 to a PAC founded by Kalispell state Sen. Bruce Tutvedt, for “mail-outs for the primary election.” Tutvedt told the council there was “a plan in place how to fix that 60-vote problem in the House” and “if my guys win we’re going to bring the compact in early in the session.”
However, the vote approving the check was only 5-4. CSKT tribal council member Carole Lankford said she was happy to “step up and take on a challenge and battle that could cost us up to a billion dollars over the years. If we can do something now, why not?” But nay-voting council member Leonard Two Teeth stated, “I strongly oppose,” with opposed Patty Stevens adding “I want something to explain to the membership what we just did.”
If some council members are uncomfortable with playing PAC games in hopes of speeding compact passage and a stunning billion-dollar final bonanza, it could be they are as uncomfortable with the compact as their neighbors.
Maybe the “equitable division” is simply – division.