edberry.com

this is the tagline

Archives for April 2015

Compact Brings Water Security to Montana

by Susan Lake, Ronan, reprinted from Flathead Beacon

Lost in all the false rhetoric about the CSKT compact is the good and positive it brings to Montana.

First and foremost it protects junior water users from having to object to the very senior claims of the CSKT tribe but beyond that it brings more years than we can guess to water security in Western Montana. It secures 90,000 acre feet of water in Hungry Horse for use solely in Montana. That means down river states cannot take that away from us. This is water that has never been available to Montana.

It creates co-ownership of water rights with Fish Wild Life and Parks. There is no co regulatory authority. The co-owned instream flow rights will continue to be managed by FWP. There is no federal control and no additional water in these rights.

There is no change in regulatory authority off the reservation. There is no additional control by the federal government. The DNRC continues to manage off reservation water issues.

On reservation the state still has input on new uses on the reservation. This occurs on no other reservation in the state as the other tribes have sole authority for new uses on their reservations.

As has been done in other state-tribal compacts money is put into securing water for irrigators on the reservation by spending money on improving irrigation infrastructure. It also guarantees the low block of power for irrigators to help keep down the cost of irrigation to the tune of about $300,000. This is not a cost to tax payers. Protections are put in place to guarantee irrigators receive historic amounts of irrigation water. Drought water sharing practices are put in place. Protections are given to irrigators that would otherwise lose water to endangered bull trout.

The CSKT compact brings water security to Montana.

Susan Lake
Ronan

 

Drought Insurance offer Expires May 1

by Dr. Ed Berry

The year is 2025, ten years after the Montana legislature acted on the CSKT Water Compact. We look in on a Montana high school class as they discuss the 2015 vote on the Water Compact that permanently changed Montana’s future.

No one remembers what other bills the 2015 Montana legislature voted on but everyone remembers exactly how they voted on the Water Compact.

Two plaques display the names of the 2015 Montana legislators. The top plaque lists the legislators they honor as heroes. The bottom plaque lists the legislators they burned in effigy.

The teacher leads the discussion about how Montana Legislators made their decision on the CSKT Water Compact. It was a hot issue in 2015 but it’s history now. The teacher explains,

The political divisions were clear. Democrats, with 41 legislators, supported the Compact. Republicans, with 59 legislators, were split into two groups.

The House Judiciary Committee hearing on April 11, 2015, was contentious. In the end, the committee determined Montana’s future by one vote.

This vote is an example of chaos. Chaos means a small difference in input can cause a distinct shift in outcome. Like when you adjust your bathroom water faucet and find a very small difference in the faucet setting shifts the water flow from smooth to turbulent.

That’s what happened to Montana in 2015. The committee’s final vote determined whether Montana’s future would be smooth or turbulent. It was a permanent decision with permanent effects on Montana.

No wonder Montana’s schools in 2025 have plaques to honor those who voted correctly and dishonor those who voted incorrectly.

They learned in science class that physicists’ predictions in 2015 were correct. By 2025, Earth had cooled and the western drought that began in California in 2012 had expanded. Now, the drought includes Oregon and Washington. Even Idaho and Montana feel the effect of lower precipitation.

The class asks, almost all at once,

“Did the 2015 legislature understand the trees below the surface of Lake Tahoe and Lake McDonald show severe droughts occurred in the past?”

 “Did the 2015 legislature consider the effects of a future drought before they voted on the Compact?”

“Did the 2015 legislature understand the Compact would save Montana’s water for Montana by stopping Oregon, Washington, and Idaho from calling Montana’s water?”

The teacher replies the legislators knew this before they voted on the Compact. [Read more…]

Water Compact Denier

 They won’t let me modify the negotiated Compact. It’s unconstitutional.

I can’t vote for an unconstitutional bill even if it would be good for Montana.

I know, all the professional compact attorneys say it’s constitutional but I don’t trust attorneys. I can interpret the Hellgate treaty and all its case law better than any attorney.

I don’t care if the Compact is the best thing for Montana. I have my principles to uphold even if this means screw Montanans.

I know Montana needs drought protection and the Compact provides this, but I just can’t agree with everything in the Compact even if I don’t understand it.

I think the Compact gives the Indians too much money. They don’t deserve it. I don’t care that Montana’s $55 million will help Montana’s economy. This sounds like a government conspiracy to me.

And the $2 billion the feds will add to the Tribes project? That just shows there’s a conspiracy going on. I don’t care if this is good deal for Montanans.

I know they’ve worked 30 years to make this Compact. I say “Screw it” because I’m ethical.

Compact Opponents Exposed

by Dr. Ed Berry

But the reality is today’s conservatives are not being led by those with intelligence; they are being led by those who repeat the never-ending mantra of the Tea Party’s fear-mongering – which is increasingly accepted as being the hallmark of a true conservative. – Tom Muri, Daily Inter Lake, April 5, 2015

Compact Opponents are over-represented in the Montana Legislature.

It’s no secret that most opponents of the CSKT Water Compact are conspiracy-believing, doomsday-fearing, Very Conservative Evangelical voters who represent less than twenty percent of Republican voters and less than ten percent of Montana’s voters.

Based on these percentages, which are easily derived and explained below, we would expect to have twelve NO votes on the Compact in the Montana House and two NO votes on the House Judiciary Committee. If our Legislature fairly represented the people of Montana, the Compact would easily pass.

By contrast, I estimate that half or more of the House Republican legislators will vote NO on the Compact on the first round. This is twice the NO votes we would expect if the House fairly represented Montana’s voting demographics.

The House Judiciary Committee is even more biased toward NO votes. I estimate all nine Democrats and one Republican will vote YES on the Compact, and eight of the twelve Republicans will vote NO. The remaining three Republicans will decide the Compact’s fate in the Committee. [Read more…]

The Four Faces of the Republican Party

by Dr. Ed Berry

Henry Olsen of the Ethics and Public Policy Center wrote an insightful article “The Four Faces of the Republican Party” in February 2014. His review of the national Republican Party helps us understand the Montana Republican Party.

According to Olsen, Republicans fall into “four rough camps,” with approximate composition shown in parentheses:

  1. Somewhat Conservative (40%)
  2. Moderate to Liberal (30%)
  3. Very Conservative but Secular (10%)
  4. Very Conservative Evangelical (20%)

While the group percentages vary slightly among the states, they have been very consistent over many presidential elections. Each group supports very different types of candidates. [Read more…]