Laserfiche WebLink
<br />c <br /> <br />0645 <br /> <br />26 <br /> <br />return for agreement by the tribal negotiating team to protect <br />all existing uses established pursuant to state law on the <br />various t=ibutaries of the Missouri River that flow through or <br />are adjacent to the ReservRtion. This protection, which is a <br />part of the Compact, is contained in Article IV, and is <br />discussed in greater detail below in this Report, pp. 28-35. <br /> <br />As the marketing provisions were refined by <br />negotiation in late 1982 and early 1983, the United States <br />Department of the Army and Department of Energy insisted upon <br />some limitations on the amounts of water that would be diverted <br />from the Missouri River at particular times of the year to <br />protect somewhat the navigational and hydropower production <br />activities of the United States. These limitations were <br />negotiated at the Denver meeting in February 1983. They were <br />contained in the 1983 Compact, and are now contained in <br />somewhat simpler form as Section F of Article III in the 19B5 <br />Compact. <br /> <br />Also, the State insisted in 19B3 that diversions for <br />Tribal water marketing comply with valid state law prohibitions <br />against exporting water out of the State, and that off <br />Reservation marketing should be limited to the Missouri River <br />and its tributaries outside of the Yellowstone River Basin. <br />This was also agreed to in both 19B3 and 19B5, and forms the <br />basis for Sections G and I, paragraph 3. <br /> <br />j <br /> <br />In its January 19B4 proposal, the State asserted the <br />position that all tribal water marketing outside the <br />Reservation should be subject to all state laws. At the <br />November 1984 meeting in Billings~he tribal negotiating team <br />rejected this proposal. The tribal negotiating team reminded <br />the State that State agreement to tribal water marketing <br />authority had served as the basis for the Tribes' protection in <br />19R3 of all existing uses on the various tributary streams to <br />the Missouri River that flow through the Reservation. We <br />insisted that the State would have to agree to a water <br />marketing authority of substantial potential economic value to <br />the Tribes if a settlement was to be reached. The negotiating <br />team did not view the State 1984 proposal as allowing for <br />significant economic value, since it is unlikely that anyone <br />would purchase water marketed by the Tribes if they also had to <br />comply with all state law provisions. In the view of the <br />negotiating team, such persons would simply comply with state <br />laws and make the diversions themselves. The negotiating team <br />expressed a willingness to be flexible on details of water <br />marketing so long as the tribal authority recognized was of <br />substantial economic value. (Tr. Nov. 13-14, 1984, pp. 32-34, <br />6B, 111-112, 119-122, 125-137). <br /> <br />...~ <br />.~ <br /> <br />During 19B5, discussions about water marketing <br />occupied a major part of the negotiations. During its 19B5 <br />legislative session, the State legislature was considering and <br />