1. Moving Forward
to the Future
Flathead Water Use Agreement
and the
Flathead Indian Reservation Compact

2. What do we want the
future to look like?
Do we want FIIP to
receive tens of millions
of dollars to construct
projects like this …

7. Or … Do we want
irrigators to pay tens
of millions* of dollars
in litigation costs and
continue to have this?
*Dr. Kate Vandemoer, WMWUA meeting, Ronan, MT, January 21, 2013

11. Benefits of Settlement vs. Costs of Litigation
• Uncertainty—irrigators won’t
• Certainty--Irrigators will
know what their future will
secure a legally enforceable
look like for decades
right to receive water from
FIIP. • Water—the CSKT will seek
significantly higher instream
flows in litigation. They
• Water--Irrigators on single certainly will not receive less
duty land will receive 10 than they have now. The FJBC
percent to 20 percent more has already litigated instream
than they have historically flows and lost (1987). Will a
received for the past 25 years. second litigation have a better
Irrigators on extra duty land result—especially with
will be allowed to receive current ESA issues?
their extra duty as they prove
their need.

12. Benefits of Settlement vs. Costs of Litigation
• Land—in this • Land--In litigation, the
settlement, all land, both Court may likely apply
allotted and homesteaded Walton. That means
will be treated the same. allotted lands receive a
Both will enjoy an 1855 senior priority date over
priority date. homestead lands.
Project Rehabilitation— • No Rehabilitation--
settlement provides for Litigation will provide no
tens of millions of dollars in funds for Project
state and federal funding rehabilitation. Litigation
to rehabilitate the FIIP. will cost irrigators tens of
Some of this money will be millions of dollars and 20-
available for on-farm 30 years of continued
efficiency improvements deterioration of FIIP.
and stockwater mitigation.

13. Benefits of Settlement vs. Costs of Litigation
• Flathead River Pumping • Pumping--Litigation will
Plant—settlement provides provide no funds for pumping
for $300,000 per year to fund and other Project purposes.
pumping and other Project
purposes. • Power--Litigation will mean
• Low Cost Block of Power— that the LCB for pumping at
settlement provides that it the Flathead River Pumping
will be continued for as long Plant will expire. Pumping
as the CSKT hold the FERC costs will increase 30 percent
license for Kerr Dam. to 60 percent, depending on
• Net Power Revenues— BPA rates.
settlement provides for net • Power Revenues--There will
power revenues in the be no further accumulation of
amount of $100,000 per year net power revenues to FIIP
to accrue to the Project. with litigation.

14. Benefits of Settlement vs. Costs of Litigation
• Extra Water—settlement • No Extra Water—litigation
provides a mechanism for will provide no mechanism for
irrigators to obtain water irrigators to obtain extra
above their FTA, up to 2 water.
af/ac, plus purchased water • No Saved Water—with
above that, where available. litigation, there will be no
• Saved Water—settlement saved water to be divided
provides a mechanism to between irrigation and
divide saved water between fisheries. Litigation provides
irrigation and fisheries that the winner takes all. Is
purposes. that a risk irrigators are
• Cooperative Management prepared to take?
Entity—will continue to • No CME--The CME will cease
function under settlement. to exist in litigation.
The CME will be Management of the Project
implementing major portions will go from local control back
of the settlement. to federal control under BIA.

15. All Water Users Are Protected
• The Flathead Reservation Compact: The Flathead Project Water Use
Agreement must be approved by the Montana Legislature. No changes
can be made by any single party to the Compact, without approval of all
parties. The CSKT will not have unilateral control over anything in the
Compact or FWUA.
• The Compact calls for the CSKT to appoint 2 people to the Unitary
Management Board and the Governor of Montana to appoint two
people to the UMB, after consulting with water users. Those four
people then choose a fifth member. The CSKT do not control water use.
A true partnership of all parties exists to administer water rights.
• The CME will continue to manage and administer all FIIP water use.
• By legal definition and court ruling, instream flows can only be used for
fisheries purposes. The CSKT will have no ability to lease or sell water
from instream flows to any entity or person.

16. Change is coming …
• There is a misperception. Defeat of the Compact and
WUA will not protect the status quo. That is totally
erroneous. The status quo is not an option in this
situation.
• The state of Montana is bound by law to adjudicate the
water rights of this area. That means quantifying both
tribal and all other rights. If all these rights cannot be
quantified by negotiation, they will be litigated through
an adjudication process. There are no other options.
• The question is: How can some irrigators believe they
can get more through litigation?

17. What can we conclude?
• Litigation can only mean less water
and greater costs for irrigators
• Settlement has only positive benefits
for irrigators, more water and more
money from state and federal sources
• Litigation brings less water and
greater costs

18. What Is Your Vision for the Future?
An irrigation project rebuilt to modern
standards…

19. Or an irrigation project that no
longer exists?

20. The choice is yours …
• Please join with us in moving
forward toward the future with a
modern, economically viable
irrigation project that will exist for
our children, grandchildren and
great grand children, for
generations to come.