News you can use

Montanans ask for greater share of Milk River water

Montanans on Monday asked an international commission to change a 1921 order so that more Milk River water can flow into the state.

During a hearing of the International Joint Commission in Havre, Canadians testified Monday that the order should remain unchanged.

The IJC held the first of four meetings to collect comments on whether the order should be reviewed. More than 100 people attended, with about 22 making comments to the commission.

The IJC meets tonight in the Malta High School auditorium, Wednesday night at the T-Rex Discovery Centre Theatre in Eastend, Saskatchewan, and Thursday night in the Lethbridge Lodge in Lethbridge, Alberta.

Elsie Bertelsen, who farms near Harlem, said the fact that Canada gets more water than Montana from the Milk River is driving people out of farming, especially in a time of prolonged drought.

"We can't meet our expenses. It's really hard to keep on farming when we can't get enough water in a timely fashion," she said.

Dave McGee of Alberta Environment, the government agency that oversees environmental issues in the Canadian province, said any problems the two countries have can be solved without re-opening the 83-year-old order. Alberta has built water and irrigation infrastructure based on the 1921 order, and the survival of many communities and the strength of Alberta's economy hinge on its existence, he said.

"It is not productive to open the IJC order at this time," McGee said. "The order provides the framework to resolve differences."

A treaty in 1909 between the United States and Canada requires that the combined waters of the Milk and St. Mary rivers are shared equally by the two countries.

Montana Gov. Judy Martz submitted a study to the IJC early this year that claimed the 1921 order gives Canada more water than the United States. The order gives Canada the greater share of the St. Mary River, which has more water than the Milk River, while the U.S. receives the greater share of the Milk, the study said.

Martz asked the IJC to review the order and decide whether it meets the treaty requirements.

Jim Crueff, who lives on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, told the commission Monday that Indian tribes were left out of the negotiation of both the 1909 treaty and the 1921 order. Both rivers originate on or near the Blackfeet reservation.

"It seems as though they made a claim on what belongs to the Blackfeet people," he said.

He added that he hopes the situation can be resolved in the best interests of people on both sides of the border.

"We need to work things out for the benefit of everyone," Crueff said.

Mary Anne Bach, regional director of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, said the U.S. Department of the Interior wants the IJC to review the 1921 order and see if it fairly implements the provisions of the treaty, and offered the department's services in determining the facts.

"The request is not about questioning the treaty. It's about looking at the order," she said.

Kim Falcon, field director for U.S. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., said Baucus also believes the IJC needs to look at the order.

"It's not only fair to re-examine the order, it needs to be done," Falcon said.

She said the impacts of drought are being felt throughout Montana, and farmers not receiving their fair share of water exacerbates the problem.

"There is no such thing as a profit in Montana agriculture (today), especially in northern Montana," Falcon said.

Rich Moy, chief of the Water Management Bureau of the state Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, told the commission the 1921 order does not meet the spirit of the treaty in how it apportions water from the two rivers.

"They are not treated as one stream. They are apportioned separately," he said. "We like the treaty just fine. We just want our fair share of the water and we think the United States was outnegotiated in the 1921 order."

While the 1909 treaty says the water of the two rivers must be shared equally, it says a country can take more than half of the water from one river and the other country can take more than half from the other. The treaty specifies that during the irrigation season the United States will receive 500 cubic feet per second of the Milk River or three-fourths of its natural flow and Canada receives the same from the St. Mary.

The 1921 order specifies that during the irrigation season the United States is entitled to three-fourths of the flow of the Milk up to 666 cubic feet per second. Above that level, the natural flow is split equally between the United States and Canada. The reverse is true for the St. Mary.

Outside of the irrigation season, the water is split evenly.

Moy said that because the St. Mary has more water, that gives more water to Canada. The disparity is even greater during dry years, he said. During a drought year the natural flow of the St. Mary can be more than 10 times as great as that of the Milk, he said.

Moy said the time the rivers receive spring runoff also affects how much each country gets. The Milk River runoff comes before the irrigation season, so the runoff is split evenly. The St. Mary runoff occurs during the irrigation season, so Canada receives 75 percent of it, Moy said.

State Rep. John Musgrove, D-Havre, told the commission that all of the evidence he can find shows Canada receives more water, in contradiction of the 1909 treaty. Canada gets about 60 percent, he said.

"I've searched to find data to refute this and I've found none," he said. "I request that you agree to revisit that order."

David Hill of the Alberta Irrigation Project Association said the problems are the same on both sides of the border, with people in both countries dependent on limited amounts of water.

"To say (the irrigation system) is economically important is certainly understated where Alberta is concerned," he said, adding that the 1921 order has worked well and should be left alone.

Paul Tuss, executive director of Bear Paw Development Corp., said he has seen the impact of a shortage of water in north-central Montana. Crops have failed, businesses have closed and the economy is struggling, he said.

"I believe what we're asking for is nothing more than fairness, certainly nothing less than fairness, but I believe nothing more than fairness," Tuss said.

The commission told the audience that people can submit comments by mail or e-mail. The meetings are not formal hearings to review the order, said Commissioner Allen Olson, who presided at the meeting, but are just to collect information.

If the IJC decides to review the order, it will start collecting data, he said.

Commissioner Irene Brooks said after the meeting a decision will probably be reached in several months.

Comments can be mailed to: Secretary, United States Section, 1250 23rd St. N.W., Suite 100, Washington, D.C., 20440, or Secretary, Canadian Section, 234 Laurier Ave., W., 22nd Floor, Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 6K6.

Comments can be e-mailed to: [email protected] or [email protected].

 

Reader Comments(0)

 
 
Rendered 11/09/2024 17:49