The Lake County Commissioners unanimously voted to object to the Confederated Salish and Kootenai’s (CSKT) water compact with the U.S. Government and the State of Montana on Feb. 8.

The commissioners had originally placed their objection to their agenda in December, but postponed the decision after the filing date for objections was extended until Feb. 9 by the Montana Water Court.

The CSKT’s water compact was ratified by the tribes, the state and the federal government, but long-standing local opposition has remained outspoken. Recently government officials in Mineral and Lake county took stances against the compact, and there have been other forms of organized opposition, including an out-of-state ad campaign launched in 2022.

The Montana Water Court is receiving objections until Feb. 9, at which point they will begin to settle reasonable objections to the compact on a basin-by-basin basis.

Wally Congdon the deputy attorney for Mineral County has been an outspoken critic for several years. Recently he held public meetings in Sanders and Mineral Counties where he urged the public and the counties themselves to object to the document for a wide range of non-specific reasons.

In their Feb. 8 meeting the commissioners presented the public with a draft of their objection, which insinuated fraud between the negotiating parties of the compact as well as government overreach.

“As a non-participant in the negotiations, we have no proof or knowledge of fraud or collusion between the parties negotiating, but suspect that this may have taken place due to the Federal government’s refusal to provide Lake County with documents pivotal to the negotiations between the parties, namely the ‘Comprehensive Damages Report,’” the objection states.

The Comprehensive Damages Report is a document that the CSKT compiled outlining damages to their native homeland after colonization. The Lake County Commissioners tried to obtain this report from Republican Sen. Steve Daines, but they were told that it was privileged information.

"We tried to stay within the parameters that we were asked to stay within, as far as our objections,” county commissioner Gale Decker said. “Whether or not the compact was an over-reach, whether there were situations of fraud or collusion among the parties that were negotiating the water compact. So that’s where we kind of stayed, again, between those sideboards.”

In order to draft the objection, the county pulled on documents from Congdon as well as a draft objection that he sent.

“We got multiple documents from Wally Congdon and also (an) attorney in Kalispell,” that helped the commissioners formulate the draft,” Decker said.

He gave a brief history, stating that originally Lake County commissioners supported the compact. He said the county is alleging the document is an overreach of constitutional authority, primarily based on some language in the compact.

“Part of the argument also is based on the reservation water management board and the composition of that board,” Decker said, of the county’s objection.

He also cited a lack of an administrative process, saying there doesn’t seem to be a clear administrative process. Decker then told the public he heard “this is only one-seventh of the total damages report.”

The objection also outlines the commissioners’ displeasure with the Compact Implementation Technical Team and the Flathead Reservation Water Management Board established by the compact. The objection claims these organizations have been given authority beyond the rehabilitation of canals – over which they were given authority by the compact – and the commissioners see this as a “taking” that doesn’t require action from the Secretary of Interior.

During the public comment period several members of the public expressed their concern with the land exchanges that will be part of the compact as well. These land exchanges will be decided by the Montana Land Board, and are part of a separate decision, Decker said.

“Don’t you think it’s important in this land swap that you take a position, not only in (this current objection) but I would encourage you to go directly to the governor in writing,” said one member of the public, Steve Dennison.

Decker said the commissioners had gotten a response in March, 2022, and the Governor's office had simply sent a document outlining answers to frequently asked questions.

Another member of the public, Frank Mutch, criticized the proposed improvements to the irrigation system that the compact laid out for allegedly not taking into account federal environmental protections.

The CSKT were not immediately available to comment on the environmental review process for the irrigation project, but the tribes have a history of taking progressive environmental protection actions – such as designating the first Tribal Wilderness and enacting unique protections for grizzly bears in the wilderness.

“I’m really honestly torn on this, I think we need to file an objection,” Commissioner Bill Barron said. “I mean we talked about it a lot, making some changes to it and stuff, but like it’s been stated we have no proof of fraud. Collusion? Yes. I mean I think the problem lies in the Senator’s office, I really do, Senator Daines.”

The commissioners then voted unanimously to submit to the water court their objection to the CSKT compact with the United States and the State of Montana as drafted, with potential minor changes.

The CSKT were not available by presstime for comment on this story.