Compact will lead to years of litigation either way

State legislators:

You have a difficult task as you deliberate the subject compact. Please do so carefully, and do not be overwhelmed by proponents on either side.

 There is no question that water in NW Montana needs to be finally adjudicated. There is, however, a huge question about the suitability of the proposed CSKT Water Compact agreement to accomplish that need in a way that is equitable to all parties affected by that agreement.

The Tribes represent a very small minority of people in the areas affected by the water compact that strongly favors them, at the expense of all others.  Proponents of the proposed compact threaten that if the compact is not approved in its presented form, exactly, that years of litigation will result. That may be.  

Another way of looking at it is that whether it is approved in its present form or not, years of litigation will result, whether put forth by the Tribes or by the irrigators and all others negatively affected by the compact. My guess is that this will ultimately be decided in the U.S. Supreme Court. That being the case, given that there will be years of uncertainty in either event, please do not be threatened by the Tribal threat of litigation, as it will happen anyway.  There is no point in being cowed into ratifying a bad agreement for threat of litigation....because litigation is likely in either event.

 My thinking about the compact is pretty simple.The Tribes put forth the belief that treaties allowing them to fish waters inside and outside the boundaries of the reservation give them the right to control all of those waters. This defies common sense, logic, and hopefully law. None of the land outside reservation boundaries is owned by the tribe, and only approximately one half of the land inside the reservation is owned or controlled by the Tribes/U.S. Federal Govt.  How much subsistence fishing do the tribes/Native American members do inside or outside the reservation? Probably none.

So....why would our legislature approve such a measure? It is fraught with very debatable law, favors a very small minority at the huge expense of the majority, and provides almost no Montana or Federal oversight as to the expenditures of large amounts of money required to be spent under the proposed compact.

—  Tony Marshall, Montana Real Estate Broker, Polson