Montana Has Lost Its Water Rights

A highly exaggerated title IMO but relates to my motivation to join ATS when I did.

"Montana Has Lost Its Water Rights" by Jeremiah Johnson, August 27, 2022

This article covers the appropriation of Montanans’ water rights by the federal government in the name of the CKST (Confederated Kootenai and Salish Tribes). Superficially, the federal government is upholding the rights of the Indian Tribes to claim all surface and subsurface waters of the western one-third of the state of Montana. In reality, the federal government is taking a 170-year-old treaty, expanding its meaning, and using it as a tool to commandeer everyone’s water.

LINK

I'm not so sure that legally spelling out what waterways and use rights that the Native Americans have in Montana is a bad thing. Maybe the tribe is so far in the pocket of the Federal Government that they will do their master's bidding without question. I don't think that's how the tribe will play this, but that article makes it seem like that's what will happen. The treaty goes back to 1855, so this has been an issue for a long time now.

I know it would piss me off if the local tribe around here legally established use rights over my property's water. I think some non-tribal people and businesses in these areas in Montana may get up in arms over this if it effects their personal water rights.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

You may have a key to the puzzle here.
In Idaho the NA have been fighting for years to remove the lower Snake River dams, in the name of saving the salmon, despite record spawning in recent years, ending our inland seaport. If this same thing happens like Montana just experienced, the fight will be over.

I hope the Greener's are happy with less electricity and far higher groceries truckers replace the barges. Maybe all those working on the tugs and loading docks can segway into big rig drivers?

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

wonder if the guy used the name Jeremiah Johnson for a reason, you know like snacking on livers.

back to the story, apparently this has been going since the 90's maybe even longer, here is the Salish and Kootenai Water Rights Settlement Act of 2016,

A. Negotiations Seeking to avoid costly litigation, provide certainty for all water users, and meet the Tribes’ needs, the State of Montana, the Tribes and the United States have made a number of attempts since the early 1990s to negotiate the Tribes’ instream flow and other water right claims. These negotiations became more active and focused in 2007, when the Tribes submitted a set of key negotiation principles. First, the Tribes committed to negotiate toward a settlement in which all verified existing water uses on the Reservation – Tribal and non-Tribal – would be protected. This included a commitment that the water supply for the Project would be protected to the full amount needed to meet existing net irrigation requirements. Second, rather than exercise the full extent of the Tribes’ instream flow rights (which are senior in priority to and would reduce water available for irrigation water rights), the Tribes agreed instead that flow protections for fish would be met by dedicating water saved through conservation practices and Project improvements. Third, all waters on the Reservation would be jointly administered by the Tribes and the State to reflect the principle that water on the Reservation is a unitary resource.

Share S. 3013 Salish and Kootenai Water Rights Settlement Act of 2016

so i guess their passing another act? really doesn't seem to make a lot of sense as to what the whole story is.

As I understand it, in 1855 the Federal government signed a treaty with the Salish and Kootenai Tribes which required the tribes to confine themselves to a reservation and relinquish claim to all other lands. Part of the treaty language guaranteed tribal members to hunt and fish at all their ancestral sites both on and off reservation. It also gave the tribes ownership of all water flowing through or into the reservation- all the way to the source of that water on or off the reservation.

Part of the reservation includes the southern half of Flathead Lake. This is the largest freshwater lake west of the Mississippi River. That's a lot of water.

Long story short, the tribes believe that non-tribal users are consuming enough water that their rights to use what water they want is in danger and so they lawyered up. Over several decades they brought many lawsuits about the subject, and since the treaty language is pretty clear they were going to win them. The tribes would have been given ownership of all water leading into the lake, including every pond and well on or off the reservation that was in the watershed. Imagine owning a house and being told you can no longer use the well...

In order to prevent a new water war, State, Tribe and Federal administrators started working on an agreement to protect everyone now and in the future. The Compact is the result. I'm not saying it's a good thing. I'm not saying it's well written. And I'm not saying I agree that the tribes are due 2.3 billion dollars.

I'm just saying it is what it is.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
...
I'm not so sure that legally spelling out what waterways and use rights that the Native Americans have in Montana is a bad thing. Maybe the tribe is so far in the pocket of the Federal Government that they will do their master's bidding without question. I don't think that's how the tribe will play this, but that article makes it seem like that's what will happen. The treaty goes back to 1855, so this has been an issue for a long time now.
...

Yeah, because it worked out so damn well for them last time they had a promise from the federal government.

If they are "so far in the pocket of the Federal Government that they will do their master's bidding without question, then that's are a stupid bunch of fools with no knowledge of history.
:

originally posted by: incoserv

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
...
I'm not so sure that legally spelling out what waterways and use rights that the Native Americans have in Montana is a bad thing. Maybe the tribe is so far in the pocket of the Federal Government that they will do their master's bidding without question. I don't think that's how the tribe will play this, but that article makes it seem like that's what will happen. The treaty goes back to 1855, so this has been an issue for a long time now.
...

Yeah, because it worked out so damn well for them last time they had a promise from the federal government.

If they are "so far in the pocket of the Federal Government that they will do their master's bidding without question, then that's are a stupid bunch of fools with no knowledge of history.
:

I agree. Maybe the article is trying to say that even though the tribes are exercising their water rights, the government will come along and take them away or use them some how. Seems to be how it ends up working for the Native Americans in regards to deals with the government.

a reply to: Montana

The tribes would have been given ownership of all water leading into the lake, including every pond and well on or off the reservation that was in the watershed. Imagine owning a house and being told you can no longer use the well...

This is exactly the concern I have. I like my well water, I think I'll keep it. I like my swamp and seasonal stream too, but those surface waters are in trust of the State of Michigan here. The Great Lakes and it's watersheds are under federal laws as well as state (not to mention Canadian and Native laws within their territories).

In my area of Michigan I'm in West Michigan region 9. Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Potawatomi Indians (Gun Lake Tribe). The Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe is in Mt Pleasant NW of me.

However, I thought that in this case the treaty specifies surface water use for hunting, fishing, gathering, irrigation, and cultural uses, not management of a whole water shed including ground water that was never mentioned in the treaty that I saw. I only glanced over the highlights though.