Benefits of compact outweigh the risks

In response to Dr. Myerowitz’s letter to the editor, concerning the water compact, I don’t think he’s going to get good answers to his questions. When it comes to vaccination issues he knows his stuff. He’s certainly aware how some folks can be off base in a loud way.

Sans accurate reporting, I don’t think the water compact issue at center is as big a deal as some would make it seem. It sounds like the compromise would only involve streamflows sufficient to protect fish populations (plus the dollars to improve the tribal irrigation system). We already do that with rivers like the Big Hole and Jefferson, using cooperative agreements. If our local rivers get so low that a reduction in outflows is needed, the tribes would be just one of a multiple part formula to arrive at a fix. In addition, an improved irrigation system probably would mitigate further by keeping water waste at minimum. 

Without complete knowledge of formula, if it goes to adjudication or ends up in court the outcome becomes uncertain. Both sides know they might lose, hence negotiated settlement. Don’t forget the cost of and time involved with litigation, especially when it comes to hydrology and treaty law. It certainly appears the benefits of settlement outweigh the risks. —James How, Kalispell