WSP03082 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'~ I 20 0639 :. -, Fifth, the limitations on monthly diversions that the Tribes may make from the Missouri River in Section F impose a constraint on diversion of water for marketing outside the Reservation (as well as for on-reservation uses such as irrigation). The lowest monthly limits, however, are 40,000 acre-feet per month, and these are in the winter months. Consequently, a consistent year-round municipal and industrial marketing program would not reach these diversion limits until it diverted 480,000 acre-feet per year. The monthly limits are much larger in the spring and summer to accommodate probable irrigation in addition to municipal and industrial marketing. For example, a diversion of 215,000 acre-feet is authorized for July. Thus, assuming the overall annual consumptive use ceiling was not exceeded, for example, the Tribes could divert 40,000 acre-feet in July for municipa~2and industrial marketing and 175,000 acre-feet for irrigation. Sixth, under Section G the Tribes must comply with any valid state law prohibiting or regulating export of water outside the State at the time of a proposed transfer. Montana law has prohibited "exports" of water, but this law may be changed in the future. There is also some question as to whether this state law is invalid because it conflicts with the commerce clause of the United States Constitution. (Tr. Nov. 13-14, 1984, p. 32.) Seventh, Section I of Article III sets the sources from which diversions may be made for uses outside the Reservation. Paragraph 3 of Section I provides that the Tribes can divert water for marketing outside the Reservation from the ,., .,; (Footnote Continued) a diversion or use. The last phrase of the section provides that once authorization has been obtained, the diversion or use may then be made unless it has been found unlawful by a court having jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter. .j Under existing law, non-Indian companies or even Tribes must comply generally with state law outside the Reservation. E.g., Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145 (1973); Tr. Nov. 14, 1984, pp. 131-133. State law cannot, however, regulate the use of a trust resource. Id. For that reason, state water laws do not apply to the use-of the reserved water right under the Compact. ~ f\ ~l ~J '1 ~ 32The Tribes must report the amount of actual annual Missouri River diversions to the United States Army Corps of Engineers. These diversions may be made without making any payment to the United States.