MONTANA, SALISH--KOOTENAI WATER AGREEMENT . . . THE ONLY STATE TO HAVE SUCH AN AGREEMENT . . . WHY? BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION TREATIES CLAUSE, UNDER ARTICLE I, I BELIEVE, WHERE IT STATES SPECIFICALLY WHAT STATES, CANNOT DO AND ONE OF THOSE THINGS IS TO MAKE TREATIES, ALLIANCES OR CONFEDERATIONS WITH INIDANS. WHY? BECAUSE THE INDIANS OPERATE AS A SEPERATE NATION, WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE U.S.A., THEREFORE, THEY HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH JUST LIKE DEALING WITH RUSSIA! THE WORD "ALLIANCE" IS DEFINED AS A FORMAL AGREEMENT OR TREATY BETWEEN TWO OR MORE NATIONS TO COOPERATE FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES. IN THE ENABLING ACT OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION, CONSISTENT WITH THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND THIS NOTION OF A SEPERATE NATION, IT CLEARLY STATES, THAT THE INDIANS ARE THE SOLE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. ON A TIMELINE, THE U.S. CONSTITUTION WAS SIGNED, I BELIEVE AROUND 1787, SO IT IS THE CONTROLLING DOCUMENT. THE HELLGATE TREATY, WAS SIGNED IN 1855, WHERE THE INDIANS SEDED THEIR LANDS, TO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, IN TURN FOR PEACE, MONEY, PROTECTION, SCHOOLS, BUILDINGS, HOMES, ETC., IN ADDITION TO THE RIGHT TO FISH, IN THEIR FAVORITE FISHING HOLES, BOTH ON AND OFF THE RESERVATION. THOSE PROPONENTS OF THE WATER AGREEMENT, WOULD CLAIM THAT IT STANDS TO REASON, THAT IF YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO FISH, YOU CONTROL THE WATER THAT IS NEEDED TO TAKE CARE OF THOSE FISH. I WOULD SAY, THAT THE RIGHT TO FISH, ON AND OFF THE RESERVATION, DOES NOT GIVE A WATER RIGHT. THE INDIANS ARE TO HAVE THE "USE" AND "BENEFIT" OF THE LAND ON THE RESERVATION, THERE IS NOTHING MENTIONED IN THE 1855 TREATY ABOUT THE WATERS WITHIN THE RESERVATION, ONE WOULD ASSUME, THAT WATER RIGHTS TO RUN THE HOMES, BUILDINGS, SCHOOLS, ETC., ARE A GIVEN, PLUS FUTURE GROWTH ON THE RESERVATION. THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION, WAS SIGNED IN 1889, GIVING THE STATE OF MONTANA, RIGHTS TO ALL THE WATER IN THE BOUNDARIES OF THEIR STATE, INCLUDING GROUND WATER, SURFACE WATER, SPRING WATER, ETC. SINCE THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION POST-DATES, THE HELLGATE TREATY, IT IS CLEAR, THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR THE UNITED STATES, THROUGH THE ENABLING ACT, MAKING OR ENABLING THE CONSTITUTION TO BE EFFECTUATED OR MAKING MONTANA A STATE, THAT HAD THE U.S. GOVERNMENT GIVEN CONTROL OF THE WATER, EITHER ON THE RESERVATION OR OFF THE RESERVATION, TO PROTECT THE FISH, IT WOULD HAVE SPECIFIED THAT IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE U.S. AND THE STATE OF MONTANA, THAT WAS NOT THE CASE, BECAUSE THE INDIANS, DID NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THE WATER, OR THE UNITED STATES, COULD NOT HAVE GIVEN THE STATE MORE RIGHTS, THAN IT HAD, GIVING WATER RIGHTS TO THE INDIANS. AS SEPARATE NATIONS, IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO GIVE ANOTHER NATION, CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES WATER, DEEDED SO TO SAY, TO THE STATE OF MONTANA. THAT WOULD BE LIKE GIVING RUSSIA, CONTROL OVER OUR WATER, WHICH WOULD BE COMPLETELY INSANE! THERE HAD BEEN TERRIBLE WARS, WITH MANY AREAS OF THE COUNTRY STILL BATTLING THE INDIANS, AND IF YOU READ THE HELLGATE TREATY, IT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS PEACEFUL TRIBES, OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. THIS WAS A PEACE OFFERING BETWEEN THE TWO SEPARATE AND INDIVIDUAL NATIONS. WHILE THE INDIANS HAVE BEEN GIVEN FULL CITIZENSHIP, IN BOTH THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE OF MONTANA, THEY STILL MAINTAIN A SEPARATE IDENTITY AS A TRIBAL NATIONS WITH DIFFERENT LAWS, DIFFERENT JUDICIAL SYSTEMS, AND THE RIGHT TO THE "USE" AND "BENEFIT" OF THE LAND, WHICH HAS INCLUDED LEASING OIL AND GAS RIGHTS ON RESERVATION PROPERTY. IT WAS IN THE NEWSPAPER, EITHER YESTERDAY OR TODAY, CAN'T REMEMBER, THAT THE INDIANS HAD TO GET, OR SOUGHT APPROVAL TO DO SOMETHING, TIMBER SALES, ON THE RESERVATION . . . THE UNITED STATES, STILL HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE INDIANS, U.S. ATTORNEY DEAL WITH INDIAN ISSUES, WHEN THEIR IS TROUBLE IN THE REZ., STATE ATTORNEYS CAN'T, THEY DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION! WE SAW THIS IN THE ARGULAR CASE, THE LEGISLATOR WHO WAS PICKED UP FOR A DUI, AND SAID THE STATE HIGHWAY PATROL DIDN'T HAVE JURISDICTION OVER HIM, AND HE WENT BEFORE THE TRIBAL COUNCIL, WHO GAVE HIM A REPRIMAND, TOLD HIM TO DO COMMUNITY SERVICE, AND DONATE $200 TO "TOYS FOR TOTS". BECAUSE HE TOOK A PLEA, FEDERAL PROSECUTORS WHO WERE READYING FOR TRIAL, DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO, BECAUSE, HE PLEAD GUILTY TO THE CHARGES, AND WAS ALREADY SENTENCED BY THE TRIBE. AGAIN, SHOWING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRIBES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WHO MAINTAINS JURISDICTION OR POWER TO DEAL WITH THEM. STATES ARE PROHIBITED FROM HAVING THE POWER, TO MAKE CONFEDERATIONS, ALLIANCES OR TREATIES. BOTH THE AGREEMENT AND THE COMPACT, VIOLATE, THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THE STATE CONSTITUTION, STATE LAW, AND WATER AND PROPERTY LAW. THIS IS NOT ABOUT MOB RULE, THE RANCHERS AND FARMERS BUYING ONTO THE AGREEMENT OR CONTRACT, NOR ABOUT NUMBERS AT ALL, IT IS ABOUT LAW, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THE STATE SHOULD NOT BE DOING EITHER DEAL. THIS AGREEMENT HAS EVERYTHING BACKASSWARD, THE TAIL WAGGING THE DOG. THE UNITED STATES AND THE INDIANS, SHOULD BE WORKING OUT THE DETAILS, WITHIN THE TREATY THEY SIGNED IN 1855, SOLE JURISDICTION, WOULD PROHIBIT, THE STATE OF MONTANA TO BE INVOLVED. NOT THAT MONTANA DOES THE WRANGLING WITH THE INDIANS, THEN PRESENTS THE AGREEMENT OR CONPACT TO THE LEGISLATURE FOR APPROVAL, THEN GOING BEFORE CONGRESS, REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES, TO SIGN OFF. IN ARTICLE I, THERE ARE SECTIONS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, THAT STATES WHAT POWERS AND DUTIES BELONG TO CONGRESS, PROHIBITING THE STATES, AS IN MAKING TREATIES, ALLIANCES OR CONFEDERATIONS WITH INDIANS . . . AND THEN AGAIN, THERE ARE SECTIONS THAT PROHIBIT CONGRESS FROM DOING THINGS IN THE STATES, WE CALL THIS A "BALANCE OF POWER" BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! THIS COMPACT AND AGREEMENT BLUR THE LINES, YOU EITHER FOLLOW THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, OR YOU DO NOT. AND IF THE TAX PAYERS, THE LEGISLATURE, OR THE GOVERNOR AND ATTORNEY GENERAL, WANT TO PAY FOR THE REPAIRS TO THE WATER SYSTEM, COSTING YOU $55 MILLION, STUPIDLY GO FOR IT! THE AGREEMENT, STATES (JUST GOT BLOCKE THAT THIS IS A