Another water compact-related bill — to require a two-thirds vote by the Legislature to ratify the water rights agreement — was heard by a state House committee on Wednesday.

Rep. Matthew Monforton, R-Bozeman, said his bill would “codify what has been the custom and tradition in Montana for the last 30 years,” citing the fact that the 17 other water rights compacts ratified by the state have passed by supermajorities.

The compact has emerged as one of the flash points of the 2015 session, with both legislators and constituents sharply divided over the agreement involving the state, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and the federal government. 

The compact would quantify the tribes’ share of water flowing into the Flathead Indian Reservation, obligate the state to spend $55 million and aim to avoid litigation over thousands of claims the tribes say they will pursue before the Montana Water Court.

Monforton compared the compact to a treaty, which he said by definition diminishes the sovereignty of the U.S. government or in this case, the state. By that logic, he said, the two-thirds ratification rule that applies to federal treaties in the U.S. Senate should also apply at the state level.

No proponents spoke for House Bill 437, but representatives of several pro-compact interest groups, including the Montana Water Resources Association and the Montana Stockgrowers’ Association, condemned the proposal as unfair.

“We think it’s inappropriate to change the rules of the game in the fourth quarter,” said Christa Lee Evans of the Association of Gallatin Agricultural Irrigators. “It’s like being on the one-yard line and choosing to throw the ball instead of running it.”

She added the bill would have a broader impact on other agreements, pointing to a compact among Montana, the U.S. government and Canada regarding water rights in the Milk River.

Retired Col. James P. Moran raised similar concerns. He noted the federal government periodically enters into agreements with the state on issues such as emergency response, with the federal Department of Defense able to give an officer of the state temporary command over federal resources. 

Without the term “compact” being clearly defined, he said it was unclear whether those agreements would also require a supermajority to pass.

Monforton responded that the term was in fact clearly defined and would not affect such agreements. He also noted his bill would not apply retroactively.

Casey Schreiner, D-Great Falls, indicated the bill failed constitutional muster by citing Article V, Section 11 of the Montana Constitution: “No bill shall become law except by a vote of the majority of all members present and voting.”

Monforton replied that the provision does not apply to agreements between sovereign governments.

After Monforton’s bill received a chilly reception from the State Affairs Committee, no executive action was set on the bill.

Reporter Samuel Wilson can be reached at 758-4407 or by email at [email protected]m