The Lincoln County Republicans Central Committee is not happy about their state senator’s support for the water rights compact for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes.

State Sen. Chas Vincent, R-Libby, received a sharply worded letter Jan. 24 from Aubyn Curtiss, the committee’s chairwoman. The letter also was addressed to Reps. Mike Cuffe, R-Eureka, and Jerry Bennett, R-Libby.

“This is a heads-up to inform you that your Central Committee voted to adamantly oppose the CSKT Compact and expects you to vote accordingly,” the letter begins, going on to allege constitutional conflicts, the potential for future lawsuits by the tribes and unfair “takings” of water rights from nontribal water users.

The proposed compact aims to quantify the tribes’ water rights in Western Montana and obligate the state to spend $55 million to improve the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project. It is the result of more than 10 years of negotiations among the state, the tribes and the federal government.

Undeterred, Vincent said Thursday that he will continue to support the compact and will sponsor compact legislation in the Senate, hoping the revised compact will alleviate many of the concerns that led to its lack of legislative support during the 2013 session.

“I had a hand in the revised compact as a member of the interim water rights committee … and have made sure that the proposed changes are in fact in the bill,” he said. “It’s as good a deal and as good a negotiation as we could have hoped for, and I for one am very proud of that.”

The Lincoln County Central Committee’s letter also states that the compact would allocate greater volumes of water to tribal members than nontribal members, a point that Vincent acknowledged.

“What we negotiated was more water for the tribe, but in an area where it was going to have zero impact to any water holder in Lincoln County, either public or private,” Vincent said.

Reached via email Friday, Curtiss disagreed, stating she believes only some tributaries of the Kootenai River were exempted in the proposed agreement.

A source of political friction in the last legislative session, a bill that would have ratified the compact died in committee.

Following a review of the compact by an interim committee and negotiations among the state, tribes and federal government last year, the Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission unveiled a revised version earlier this month and voted unanimously to send it to the Legislatire less than a week later.

The issue of the tribes’ water rights goes back to the 1855 Hellgate Treaty, which formally created the Flathead Indian Reservation and gave the tribes “the exclusive right” to harvest fish in streams running through and bordering on the reservation.

In 1908, the Supreme Court interpreted such treaties as giving tribes the ability to claim seniority over the water rights of nontribal water users on the reservation.

Proponents of the compact fear that if the compact fails, the tribes could potentially win wide-ranging water rights if they take their case to the state water adjudication court. Opponents have frequently dismissed this as a scare tactic and the central committee’s letter says the compact is a raw deal for nontribal water users.

“We have been told the authorization of this Compact will save millions. We strongly disagree and believe the courts will be clogged and backed up,” the committee letter states. “What, if anything, does Montana stand to gain in what appears to be the largest giveaway in Montana history? A giveaway for all time!”

In her follow-up email, Curtiss, a former legislator, said the adjudication process is based on the state’s establishment of where and by whom water is being put to beneficial use.

“The Salish/Kootenai Tribes are on pretty shaky ground, legally,” Curtiss wrote. “Compacts negotiated with other tribes are premised on the fact that they ... have complied with the adjudication process. These Salish/Kootenai have not done that.”

Asked about the specifics in the letter, which included criticism of the water quantification models and a devaluing of the water court’s adjudication process, Vincent said many of the claims warranted more than “yes or no” answers, but said many of them were “just not true.”

“Unfortunately, there have been some entities that passed resolutions opposed to this revised compact without actually reading what was in [it],” he said. “I think they would consider this a fair settlement if they actually took the time to look at it.”

Vincent said he plans to respond soon to each of the concerns raised in the letter, and noted that a legislative “education session” has been scheduled at the Capitol on Feb. 7 at 10 a.m. to address many of the Legislature’s concerns and questions about the compact. The public may attend the post-floor-session meeting, but there will be no hearing or public comment.

Vincent’s water compact bill is still going through the final parts of the drafting process. A similar measure by Rep. Daniel Salomon, R-Ronan, is also in the drafting process in the House.

Reporter Samuel Wilson may be reached at 758-4407 or by email at swilson@dailyinterlake.com