WSP03082

• File Number: 8064
• Description: Section "D" General Federal Issues/Policies - Indian Water Rights
• Date: 4/19/1985
• Title: Final Report of Tribal Negotiating Team to Fort Peck Tribal Executive Board of Fort Peck-Montana Water Compact
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

~646

27

ultimately adopted new legislation essentially conferring a
monopoly upon the State Department of Natural Resources to
lease water within the State of Montana. Commission member Dan
Kemmis, a member of the legislative task force that developed
this legislation, reported on the draft legislation at the
January 8 and 9 meeting in Helena (Tr. pp. B-20). Commissioner
Kemmis indicated that the legislature was unlikely to
authorize general water marketing by state water users, and
would even insist upon tight restrictions as to water marketed
by the State. He stated that environmental and public interest
criteria and limits on the quantity to be marketed would be
contained in that legislation.

Because the state water marketing legislation
restricts the amount of water the State can market, the
Commission was insistent that the Tribes be limited in 45
quantity. (E.'!., Tr. Jan. 28-29, 1985, pp. 82, 134-140.)
The tribal negotiating team resisted quantity limitations, but
finally as reed to that concept in view of the overall benefits
to the Tribes under the Compact. (Tr. Feb. 2B, 1985, pp.
24-34). On thp other hand, while the state water marketing
legislation enacted in 1985 confers authority to market water
exclusively in the State Department of Natural Resources, the
tribal negotiating team was concerned with the possibility that
the Statp may in the future drop this public leasing concept
and simply allow private water users to make commercial
marketing transactions. This concern gave shape to the
requirements of Section K, paragraphs 5 and 6.

(3) Benefits to the Tribes

The tribal negotiating team believes that this water
marketing authority creates an opportunity which may someday be
of great economic value to the Tribes. The restrictions that
we agreed to were drafted so that they could be complied with
easily for diversions from Fort Peck Reservoir and the mainstem
of the Missouri River. There is an ample water supply there,
and it is unlikely that a diversion will adversely affect an
existing user, impair water quality, create saline seep or
injure fish or wildlife populations in the River. Although a
use cannot cause unreasonable and significant environmental
damage and must comply with certain state regulations such as

. i

,
j
..1

45partial agreement in principle had been reached on other
provisions concerning tribal transfers of diversions from the
Missouri outside the Reservation at the January 28, 1985 Helena
meeting (Tr. p. 138; see also Tr. Jan. 8-9, 1985, pp. 21-28,
103, 128-131). The State at that time agreed to the reciprocal
joint venture arrangement contained in Section K, paragraphs 2
and 3 (Tr. Jan. 2l'-29, 1985, pp. B7, 141).

'''.'j
,..
;:.
,-I