Water rights negotiations could use extension
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
Another water rights meeting was held last night where people vented their frustrations with the current state of the water rights negotiations. Too much secrecy, legally flawed, failure to honor individual property rights and too bureaucratic were some of the charges. Each of these criticisms has some validity.
I had to leave the meeting early to change irrigation and fight mosquitoes, but I couldn’t help think about the meaning of the meeting. There are those who would like to pursue a legal strategy and fight for individual water rights through the courts. I do not have a problem if some wish to spend the money and further explore that option. After all, the CSKT also has been quite open about the possibility of pursuing a legal strategy if the compact negotiations fail, and there are tribal members who believe that would be the best course of action.
I would prefer to see the CSKT, state and federal governments continue to negotiate, but there are many open issues, including the fact that irrigation water has been negotiated between the CSKT and the Flathead Joint Board of Control outside the formal compact process. Like many other farmers and ranchers, I have been very discouraged by the Draft Stipulation Agreement and even more so by the FJBC process.
I agree with compact commissioner Dan Salomon that it might be better for the legislature to extend the compact negotiations to give time to sort out the many issues that remain open. If the main parties decide to extend, much more thought needs to be given about how to organize the negotiations. For example, I would like to see the stipulation negotiations moved to the heart of the compact negotiations among the three main parties and not continue as a side negotiation between the CSKT and the FJBC.
Dick Erb
Moiese
