Six points about water compact that are red flags

Once again, two diametrically opposed opinions regarding the Salish and Kootenai water compact were published on the Perspectives page. I would hope the Legislature would be wise enough to delay any consent until the people, all the people, are convinced of its fairness.  

A few points seem difficult for a non-lawyer, such as myself, to  understand. Perhaps someone in favor of the compact can respond.

First, it is astounding that a four and a half page treaty — the 1855 Treaty of Hellgate — requires 1,400 pages of water rights definitions.

Second, seems to me the statement, “The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams running through or bordering the reservation... in common with citizens of the territory...” in no way describes water rights extending to headwaters well off the reservation, but rather fishing rights, no matter how tortured a definition a judge places on the actual words.  

Mr. Hill’s statement in his letter, “... the Treaty of Hellgate grants the Salish and Kootenai certain rights including the right to claims for water on and off the reservation,” seems a major stretch in interpreting “taking fish.” If the courts want to expand “taking fish” to include maintaining stream levels necessary for fisheries, then none of the water entering the reservation should be allowed to be used for anything other than maintaining said “taking of fish.” Does the court also redefine Article IX of the Hellgate Treaty which forbids alcohol on the reservation?

Third, the overwhelming one-sided advertising we have been forced to endure leads me to believe something “ain’t right” about this agreement. Something this important and contentious should be handled in a referendum with We the People voting rather than legislators with agendas or promised campaign contributions.  

Fourth, I am not thrilled about a board which has exclusive jurisdiction and is composed of two members of the tribe, two members appointed by a governor (who could have an agenda), and a fifth agreed upon by the other four. Where is the ability for Montanans, other than tribal members, to have a direct say in the composition of the board? 

Fifth, why does no other water compact grant off-reservation water rights and remove any requirement for compliance with state laws?

Finally, for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai to threaten 10,000 lawsuits if the compact isn’t approved is blackmail, and, if for no other reason, this compact should be rejected. Blackmail shouldn’t be rewarded. —P. David Myerowitz, Columbia Falls