County to oppose water plan

The Flathead County commissioners plan to weigh in with their opposition to a water rights compact for the Confederated Salish-Kootenai Tribes.

The commissioners are drafting a letter that will be forwarded to the Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission, which is scheduled to meet in Helena Tuesday to vote on whether to advance a compact agreement to the Legislature for approval.

The compact commission, which includes representatives from the tribes, the state and the federal government, has been negotiating the compact for more than a decade. Its legislative authority to negotiate expires this July.

“The gist of the letter is that we don’t support the compact,” Commissioner Pam Holmquist said. As of Friday, the letter was still being revised.

The compact has three major components. It quantifies tribal water rights on and off the Flathead Reservation and provides protections for existing water uses off the reservation. It establishes a process and a board for administering water rights on the reservation.

The third component was supposed to provide a water use agreement for irrigators on the reservation, but Lake County District Court Judge C.B. McNeil ruled last week that the proposed agreement is unconstitutional.

McNeil found that the organization charged with representing irrigators, the Joint Board of Control, has no authority to transfer water rights to the tribes.

That was a provision in the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project water agreement as a prerequisite for irrigators to obtain water allotments from the tribes.

The Flathead County commissioners have heard from a variety of people, including lawmakers, urging them to oppose the compact for a variety of reasons.

The latest was Lamont Kincaid, a Flathead Valley resident who has followed the compact negotiation process closely.

Speaking to the commissioners Thursday, Kincaid mainly voiced his concern that there have been multiple revisions and different versions of the compact in recent weeks, making it difficult for the public to comprehend exactly what the compact commission will be voting on next week.

That issue is worsened by the recent court ruling on the water use agreement for irrigators.

“Everybody’s being asked to take a position on something that can’t be seen,” Kincaid said, adding that the voluminous compact agreement and its supporting documents do not appear to be entirely available online.

Jay Weiner, an attorney with the compact commission, said this week that it’s expected that Judge McNeil’s decision will be appealed.

Although the compact commission is not a party in the case, Weiner said he expects McNeil’s decision will be reversed.

The compact commission is proceeding with its vote on the overall compact, with a provision that legislative approval will be contingent on the emergence of a water use agreement that passes legal muster.