+menu-


  • Category Archives Fishing for Answers?
  • The Elwha River Limbo Land

    The Elwha River Limbo Land

    SOME 1,100 ACRES OF LAND WITH AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE?

    ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AUGUST 10, 2012  By Lynda V. Mapes  Seattle Times staff reporter

    WHAT WILL BECOME OF “THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS”? THAT USED TO BE UNDER THE ELWHA DAM AND LAKE ALDWELL?

    THEY WERE TO BE SET ASIDE FOR USE, AS, BY ELIGIBLE PARTY’S?

    THAT IS THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE SET ASIDE, “ACCORDING” TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1992.

    WERE THEY FACTUALLY?  SPECIFICALLY? SET ASIDE BY CONGRESS IN THE 1992 ELWHA ACT??

    WHY IS CLALLAM COUNTY WA NOT LISTED AS AN ELIGIBLE PARTY FOR A CLALLAM COUNTY RECREATIONAL AREA?

    WHEN CONGRESS AUTHORIZED REMOVAL OF THE DAM SOUTHWEST OF PORT ANGELES IN 1992, THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE TO BE SET ASIDE EITHER FOR USE AS

    1. A STATE PARK,
    2. A NATIONAL PARK OR
    3. A NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, OR
    4. BE TRANSFERRED TO THE LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE.

    SO FAR, THE TRIBE IS THE ONLY ELIGIBLE PARTY THAT HAS A PLAN AND A DESIRE FOR THE LAND.

    AUGUST 10, 2012 THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE LAND, BUT AT THE MOMENT HAS NO FUNDING TO PAY FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT STATEMENT, NOTED TODD SUESS, ACTING SUPERINTENDENT FOR OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

    THE AGENCY IS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE LAND, BUT CAN’T JUST TURN IT OVER. “WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC PROCESS,” SUESS SAID.

    FOR NOW, THE PARK SERVICE, WHICH ALREADY MANAGES 85 PERCENT OF THE ELWHA WATERSHED, IS MANAGING THE LANDS. PARK RANGERS ARE PROVIDING LAW ENFORCEMENT AND OFFERING INTERPRETIVE WALKS ON SOME OF THE PROJECT LANDS, EXCLUDING THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES, WHICH ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED.

    NO MATTER WHO ENDS UP OWNING THE LAND, MORE THAN 700 ACRES OF IT ALONG THE RIVER AND IN ITS FLOOD PLAIN WILL REMAIN IN ITS NATURAL STATE IN PERPETUITY,

    WITH PUBLIC ACCESS MAINTAINED.

    THAT IS ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1992.

    ——————————————————————

    QUESTION THIS….. SOME 1,100 ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND WAITING IN OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK LIMBO LAND SINCE AUGUST 10, 2012?

    ACCORDING TO ???? 

    THAT IS “ACCORDING” TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1992.

    READ THE ELWHA ACT, WHAT DID IT PROMISE? CLEAN WATER? HOW MUCH WATER? POWER REPLACEMENT? PUBLIC ACCESS INTO PERPETUITY? 

    WITH ALL THE FALSE NEWS NOW DAYS….

    THIS IS THE LAW, READ IT,  YOU DECIDE…

    Public Law 102-495 102d Congress An Act

    https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-106/pdf/STATUTE-106-Pg3173.pdf

    Oct 24, 1992 – 24, 1992. 106 STAT. 3173. Public Law 102-495. 102d Congress. An Act … SHORT TITLE. This Act may be referred to as the “Elwha River Ecosystem … of the Projects and his plans for the full restoration of the Elwha.

    ———————————————————————————-

    ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AUGUST 10, 2012 at 9:00 pm Updated February 11, 2016 at 12:49 pm

    Elwha tribe finds legendary creation site, wants uncovered land

    WHAT WILL BECOME OF THE LANDS THAT USED TO BE UNDER THE ELWHA DAM AND LAKE ALDWELL, including sacred lands of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe?

    Section Sponsor Share story

    By Lynda V. Mapes Seattle Times staff reporter

    SLOWLY EMERGING FROM WHAT USED TO BE UNDER LAKE ALDWELL AND ELWHA DAM ARE SOME 1,100 ACRES OF LAND WITH AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE.

    WHEN CONGRESS AUTHORIZED REMOVAL OF THE DAM SOUTHWEST OF PORT ANGELES IN 1992, THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE TO BE SET ASIDE EITHER FOR USE AS A STATE PARK, A NATIONAL PARK OR A NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, OR BE TRANSFERRED TO THE LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE. SO FAR, THE TRIBE IS THE ONLY ELIGIBLE PARTY THAT HAS A PLAN AND A DESIRE FOR THE LAND.

    That desire became even more intense last month, with the discovery of the tribe’s creation site. Long passed on in oral tradition, the sacred site is where, by tribal teaching, the Creator bathed and blessed the Klallam people, and where tribal members for generations uncounted sought to learn their future.

    But the site was covered by the waters behind Elwha Dam, and had not been seen by anyone in the tribe since construction of the dam between 1910 and 1913. Many feared it had been destroyed by blasting during dam construction — and some came to doubt if it had ever existed at all.

    Frances Charles, chairwoman of the tribe, said she and other tribal members visited the site last month after receiving a call from National Park Service cultural-resources staff, who believed they had found the site.

    “A group of us walked to the site and actually stood on the rock known to us as the creation site,” Charles said this week. “It was eerie in some ways. We were walking on the soil that had been underwater for 100 years, and witnessing the old cedars. It was emotional, with joy and happiness. We sang a prayer song and an honor song, and had the opportunity to stand there and really praise our ancestors and the elders for telling the stories.”

    To see that those stories actually were true was overwhelming, Charles said.

    “To so many out there, it was a myth,” she said. “To be able to feel the spiritual tie to the land, and know, yes, this is real, the stories that you have heard, they are true. It is very, very powerful and very humbling.”

    The park service also reported this week finding a site in another location within a former reservoir that documents human use as far back as 8,000 years ago, establishing it as one of the oldest known archaeological sites on the Olympic Peninsula. The park service collected material for analysis and reburied the site.

    For the tribe, the recovery of its cultural sites is a deeper dimension of the Elwha restoration, affirming the truth of the tribe’s presence here for so long.

    “The land continues to show us, it speaks,” Charles said. “To be able to go down there and feel the power of the water and the land, and look at a landmark that has been covered for so many years, now being able to breathe.”

    THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE LAND, BUT AT THE MOMENT HAS NO FUNDING TO PAY FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT STATEMENT, NOTED TODD SUESS, ACTING SUPERINTENDENT FOR OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

    THE AGENCY IS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE LAND, BUT CAN’T JUST TURN IT OVER. “WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC PROCESS,” SUESS SAID.

    FOR NOW, THE PARK SERVICE, WHICH ALREADY MANAGES 85 PERCENT OF THE ELWHA WATERSHED, IS MANAGING THE LANDS. PARK RANGERS ARE PROVIDING LAW ENFORCEMENT AND OFFERING INTERPRETIVE WALKS ON SOME OF THE PROJECT LANDS, EXCLUDING THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES, WHICH ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED.

    NO MATTER WHO ENDS UP OWNING THE LAND, MORE THAN 700 ACRES OF IT ALONG THE RIVER AND IN ITS FLOOD PLAIN WILL REMAIN IN ITS NATURAL STATE IN PERPETUITY, WITH PUBLIC ACCESS MAINTAINED. THAT IS ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1992.

    But the tribe, if it comes to steward the lands, also would like to use some portions of the remaining property outside the archaeological sites and river corridor for housing or economic development, said Robert Elofson, director of river restoration for the tribe.

    In addition to protecting the tribe’s cultural resources, transfer of the property to the tribe would help the Lower Elwha Klallam realize a long unmet need for an adequate land base, Elofson said.

    When the United States purchased the core of what is now the tribe’s reservation in the late 1930s, the superintendent of the then-Office of Indian Affairs stated that six sections of land, almost 4,500 acres along the Elwha River, would be the appropriate size of the reservation for the tribe — which was far smaller then.

    But in the end, the government acquired only 300 acres for the tribe — and took another three decades to finally convey the land for the tribe’s reservation in 1968, in part because of opposition by sport fishermen.

    The tribe has continued to buy land ever since on its own, and today has about 1,000 acres along the Elwha River. But the reservation still is missing the lands that used to be under Elwha Dam and its reservoir.

    “We lost a lot of land,” said Adeline Smith, one of the oldest living members of the tribe. “There were campsites along the river, and at least two big settlements. The medicinal plants, the berries, the wildlife, they were all part of our life by the river.

    “It was ours and our way of life. I hope someday it will be again.”

    Lynda V. Mapes: 206-464-2736 or lmapes@seattletimes.com. On Twitter @lyndavmapes.

    Lynda V. Mapes: 206-464-2736 or lmapes@seattletimes.com; on Twitter: @LyndaVMapes. Lynda specializes in coverage of the environment, natural history, and Native American tribes.

    —————————————————————

    WHAT WILL BECOME OF “THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS”? THAT USED TO BE UNDER THE ELWHA DAM AND LAKE ALDWELL?

    A CLALLAM COUNTY CONCERNED CITIZEN EXPRESSED INTEREST ON MARCH 9, 2017

    THE ELWHA RIVER PROJECT LANDS THAT WERE A PUBLIC TOURIST RECREATIONAL DESTINATION?

    WHAT HAS BECOME OF THE ELWHA RIVER CAMP GROUNDS, FOR PUBLIC CAMPING, PICNICS, FISHING, ALLOWING A PRIVATE WALKS ON PUBLIC TRAILS,  UN-ESCORTED BY ONP PARK RANGERS, PEACEFUL HIKING TRAILS,  SOLITUDE WITHOUT ONP RANGERS INTERPRETATIONS ,  A BOAT LAUNCH, RESTROOMS, A STORE, AND OUR CITIZENS WAY OF LIFE. I HOPE SOMEDAY IT WILL BE AGAIN.”

    THIS IS A  CLALLAM COUNTY CONCERNED CITIZEN EXPRESSING  INTEREST

    Behind My Back | The New Elwha Bridge and Rest Stop?

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/03/09/the-new-elwha-bridge-and-rest-stop/

    Mar 9, 2017 – With the replacement of the Elwha River bridge by WSDOT at an … Why stop with just a Clallam County rest stop on the Norm’s Resort Property …

    THESE ARE CONCERNED CITIZEN’S OF CLALLAM COUNTY EXPRESSING  INTEREST

    Clallam County WA | Citizen Review Online

    citizenreviewonline.org/category/clallam-county-wa/

    Posted on March 9, 2017 by Pearl Rains Hewett, www.behindmyback.org. The New Elwha Bridge and Rest Stop? Who knew? What Rest Stop?


  • Calif. Farmers High Dry and Destitute

    Calif. Farmers HIGH, DRY AND DESTITUTE

    Obama admin allocates water for endangered fish, leaves …

    m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/24/obam
    The Washington Times

    Logo: The Washington Times · Home · NewsObama admin allocates water for endangered fish, leaves California farmers high and dry … Wednesday, February 24, 2016 … some farmers are looking at another year of a zero federal water … “We’ve got to not only take a look at providing project [water] yield, we’ve also got …

    Washington State citizens, private property owners and farmers, in Skagit and Clallam County have been left HIGH, DRY AND DESTITUTE by WA State DOE WATER RULES.

    SO WHAT’S NEW? ENDANGERED FISH BEFORE FARMERS, FOOD AND THE ECONOMY.

    YEP… AGAIN AND STILL, FLUSHING TRILLIONS OF GALLONS PEOPLE WATER DOWN THE ENDANGERED SPECIES TOILET.

    ——————————————————-

    New post on Pie N Politics

    Feds allocate water for endangered fish, leave Calif. farmers high and dry
    by Liz Bowen
    By Valerie Richardson – The Washington Times
    Wednesday, February 24, 2016
    Despite wetter-than-average weather in California, some farmers are looking at another year of a zero federal water allocation even as the billions of gallons of water continue to be dumped into the ocean in order to save a three-inch fish.
    The worst part for many lawmakers at Wednesday’s House subcommittee hearing is that the Delta smelt remains as vulnerable as ever after the loss of 1.4 trillion gallons of water since 2008 under the federal Endangered Species Act.

    ———————————————————–

    PLEASE CLICK ON  AND LISTEN TO THE

    subcommittee hearing

    ———————————————————-

    High, Dry and Destitute

    Posted on by Pearl Rains Hewett

    Fish Before People Regardless of Cost

    Fish Before People Regardless of Cost

    The court held that the protection of EVERY ENDANGERED SPECIES is the highest priority of the federal government, REGARDLESS OF THE COST.

    California’s worst drought in 1200 years in pictures – BBC.com

    FARMERS BEFORE FISH?

    Pacific Legal Foundation, CHALLENGED, sought Supreme Court review, but the High Court denied, it set up reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s  ruling…..

    the court held that the protection of every endangered species is the highest priority of the federal government, regardless of the cost. The result has been a heavy-handed, top-down bureaucracy that frustrates human interests and species conservation.

    Status: On July 23, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied rehearing before the entire court, leaving an adverse ruling from March in place. PLF attorneys filed a petition for certiorari on September 30, 2014. The petition was denied on January 12, 2015.

    ——————————————————————————————————————–Pacific Legal Foundation, a bit of unedited text..

    Stewart & Jasper Orchards v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    Issue: Representing several California farmers, PLF attorneys are challenging the biological opinion (BiOp) by federal agencies used to restrict water deliveries from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in order to protect the Delta smelt, a small fish listed under the Endangered Species Act. In 2012, PLF previously sought Supreme Court review of the case on a Commerce Clause challenge because smelt are in intrastate species, but the High Court denied cert. With a recent adverse ruling at the Ninth Circuit on the biological opinion, it sets up reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s TVA v. Hill decision, relied on by the Ninth Circuit to uphold the smelt BiOp. In TVA v. Hill, the court held that the protection of every endangered species is the highest priority of the federal government, regardless of the cost. The result has been a heavy-handed, top-down bureaucracy that frustrates human interests and species conservation.

    Status: On July 23, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied rehearing before the entire court, leaving an adverse ruling from March in place. PLF attorneys filed a petition for certiorari on September 30, 2014.

    The petition was denied on January 12, 2015.

    ————————————————————————————————————-

    Complex and contradictory laws, and court decisions, and regulations have made it nearly impossible for water to flow and our communities to grow

    Indeed, a  growing number of communities across the West have become impacted by severe drought conditions,

    Washington State Declares Drought Emergency

    www.huffingtonpost.com/…/washingtondrought-e
    The Huffington Post

    May 15, 2015 – Drought isn’t just a California problem, folks. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee declared a statewide drought emergency on Friday

    ————————————————————————————————–

    How complex is this?

    The court held that the protection of EVERY ENDANGERED SPECIES is the highest priority of the federal government, REGARDLESS OF THE COST.

    ———————————————————————————————————

     As House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy explained, “California is enduring its worst drought in 1,200 years, and a growing number of communities across the West have become impacted by severe drought conditions.”

    This week, the House will consider a bill to address water policies in California and the West:

    What happened to this?

    Western Water and American Food Security Act (HR 2898)

    Pie N Politics In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
    Liz Bowen | February 29, 2016 at 6:42 pm | Categories: CA. Congressman Tom McClintock, Endangered Species Act, Federal gov & land grabs, Politicians & agencies, Water, Resources & Quality | URL: http://wp.me/p13fnu-6xm
    Comment See all comments

    ——————————————————-

    Dec 4, 2015

    Behind My Back | Congress Must Act on Water Issues

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/12/04/congressmust-act-on-water-issues/

    Dec 4, 2015Congress Must Act on Water Issues May 24, 2014 It takes an act of the U.S. … www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/01/high–dry-and-destitute/.

    Comment


  • Are You A Normal Person?

    Are You A Normal Person?

    The is a DIRECT QUOTE OF ECOLOGY’S ANSWER  to a basic question.

    Aren’t people more important than fish?

    IF YOU’RE A NORMAL PERSON, YOU’D ANSWER “YES, PEOPLE USUALLY ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN FISH.”

    HOWEVER, the issue of instream flow isn’t that simple.  It actually boils down to a “VALUE JUDGMENT” of what we want our world to look like.

    ————————————————————————

    VALUE JUDGMENT by definition

    An assessment of a person, situation, or event. The term is often restricted to assessments that reveal the values of the person making the assessment rather than the objective realities of what is being assessed.

    ——————————————————————————–

    WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY  Answers to your basic questions,

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows/isf101.html

    ————————————————————————————————-

    ARE INSTREAM FLOWS ALL ABOUT PROTECTING FISH? WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE?

    ——————————————————————————————————

    SO? WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE?

    ARE YOU A NORMAL PERSON?

     By definition.. NORMAL is also used to describe individual behaviour that CONFORMS TO THE MOST COMMON BEHAVIOUR IN SOCIETY (known as conformity). Definitions of normality vary by person, time, place, and situation – it changes along with changing societal standards and norms.

    —————————————————————-

    ARE PEOPLE USUALLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN FISH?

    By definition.. USUALLY?

    1. Commonly encountered, experienced, or observed

    2. Regularly or customarily used

    3. In CONFORMITY with regular practice or procedure:

    ———————————————————————————

    ARE PEOPLE  MORE IMPORTANT THAN FISH?

    USUALLY…….

    By definition.. HOWEVER

    1. In spite of that

    2. nevertheless

    3.  by whatever means

    4.  in whatever manner

    ——————————————————————

    It actually boils down to aVALUE JUDGMENT” (by definition)

    An assessment of a person, situation, or event. The term is often restricted TO ASSESSMENTS THAT REVEAL THE VALUES OF THE PERSON MAKING THE ASSESSMENT rather than the objective realities of what is being assessed.

    ———————————————————————————

    THE VALUES OF THE PERSON MAKING THE ASSESSMENT?

     WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY VALUES FISH BEFORE PEOPLE?

     —————————————————————————

    Hmmm… THE $$$ VALUES  OF EARTH ECONOMICS ?

    devoted to promoting ecosystem health and ecological economics

    ———————————————————————-

    WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY

    Introduction to Instream Flows and Instream Flow Rules
    Answers to your basic questions,

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows/isf101.html

    ———————————————————————————

    What was the question?

    Are instream flows all about protecting fish? What about people?

    What was ECOLOGY’S Answer?

    Isn’t instream flow really an issue of “water for fish” vs. “water for people”?  Aren’t people more important than fish?  If you’re a normal person, you’d answer “yes, people usually are more important than fish.”  However, the issue of instream flow isn’t that simple.  It actually boils down to a value judgment of what we want our world to look like.  Fish are in fact just one of many organisms that live in streams but they often offer a gauge of overall environmental health.

     Instream flow is an issue of water and river management – seeking ways to maintain healthy, diverse ecosystems that contribute to a high quality of life while sustaining our basic life functions and economies.  Accomplishing this goal is never easy, as it involves integration of scientific knowledge and societal demands within a set of legal limitations.

    But informed and effective instream flow management should afford a healthy, enjoyable existence for people while maintaining healthy, diverse aquatic resources.   It’s much more complicated than “keeping a little water in the creek for the fish.”

    Instream Flow Council

    ————————————————————————————–

    WA STATE ELECTED LEGISLATORS VALUE JUDGMENT?

     INSTREAM FLOW IS AN ISSUE OF WATER FOR CITIZENS

    An assessment of a person, situation, or event. THE TERM IS OFTEN RESTRICTED TO ASSESSMENTS THAT REVEAL THE VALUES OF THE PERSON MAKING THE ASSESSMENT rather than the objective realities of what is being assessed.

    —————————————————————-

    THE OBJECTIVE REALITIES OF WHAT IS BEING ASSESSED?

    Start here

    EVEN,  BEFORE GOVERNOR INSLEE’S WA STATE DROUGHT DECLARATION

    INSTREAM FLOW WAS AN ISSUE OF WATER FOR CITIZENS

    ——————————————————–

    Behind My Back | High, Dry and Destitute

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/01/highdry-and-destitute/

    Feb 1, 2015 – High, Dry and Destitute WA State citizens, private property owners and farmers, in Skagit and Clallam County have been left HIGH, DRY AND 

    DESTITUTE  by definition, WITHOUT THE BASIC NECESSITIES OF LIFE.

    ———————————————————————————-

    WHAT’S NEXT?

    AFTER, GOVERNOR INSLEE’S WA STATE DROUGHT DECLARATION?

    INSTREAM FLOW IS NOW A  CRITICAL ISSUE OF WATER FOR CITIZENS

    —————————————————-

    WHAT’S NEXT?

    Community Drought Forum

    May 21, 2015

    6:00-8:30PM

    Guy Cole Convention Center

    202 North Blake Avenue, Sequim, WA 98382

     ————————————————————-

    Please GO PUBLIC with this.

    Invite every “CITIZEN” that is critically affected by

    Ecology’s WA State Drought Response?

    2015 Dungeness Dry Year Leasing Program FAQs

    GOT QUESTIONS? WANT ANSWERS?

    PLEASE  attend this Clallam County Community Drought Forum

    JEFF MARTI DROUGHT COORDINATOR WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY WILL BE THERE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

    ————————————————————————————————————

    ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT ECOLOGY’S WATER VALUE JUDGMENT?

    GOT QUESTIONS? WANT ANSWERS?

    WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (WRAC)

    Meetings are normally attended by about FORTY PEOPLE WHO REPRESENT STATE AGENCIES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, WATER UTILITIES, INDIAN TRIBES, ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, CONSULTANTS, LAW FIRMS AND OTHER WATER STAKEHOLDERS. 

     GOT QUESTIONS? WANT ANSWERS?

    CONTACT

    Chris Anderson
    Department of Ecology, Water Resources Program
    e-mail: chris.anderson@ecy.wa.gov
    Phone: 360-407-6634

     


  • Water for Fish vs. Water for People?

    Water for Fish vs.  Water for People?

     Aren’t people more important than fish? 

     If you’re a normal person, you’d answer “yes,

    people USUALLY are more important than FISH.” 

    HOWEVER, THE ISSUE OF “INSTREAM FLOW” ISN’T THAT SIMPLE.  IT ACTUALLY BOILS DOWN TO A VALUE JUDGMENT

    WA  STATE LAW IS CLEAR THAT INSTREAM FLOWS  “MUST” BE SET AT LEVELS THAT PROTECT AND PRESERVE FISH

    ————————————————————————-

    WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY

    Introduction to Instream Flows and Instream Flow Rules
    Answers to your basic questions,

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows/isf101.html

    What is an instream flow? Answer…

    Why are stream flows important? Answer…

    What is an “instream flow rule”? Answer…

    Are there instream flows set in my watershed? Answer…

    How could setting instream flows affect me? Answer…

    Are instream flows all about protecting fish? What about people? Answer…

    How are instream flow numbers determined? Answer…

    Why are instream flows sometimes higher than the flow in the stream? Answer…

    Why not set flow levels lower than the existing flows in the stream? Answer…

    What are the laws that allow Ecology to set flows by rule? Answer…

    ——————————————————————————————–

    GOT QUESTIONS?  ECOLOGY’S GOT ALL THE BASIC ANSWERS

    Introduction to Instream Flows and Instream Flow Rules …

    www.ecy.wa.gov › Water Resources › Instream Flows In Washington

    This web page answers basic questions about instream flows and instream flow rules.

    Introduction to Instream Flows and Instream Flow Rules

    This web page answers basic questions about instream flows and instream flow rules.

    What is an instream flow? Answer…

    Why are stream flows important? Answer…

    What is an “instream flow rule”? Answer…

    Are there instream flows set in my watershed? Answer…

    How could setting instream flows affect me? Answer…

    ————————————————————————————

    Are instream flows all about protecting fish? What about people?

    Answer…

    Washington state law requires that instream resources, including fish, have adequate flow levels to protect and preserve them.

    When setting flows, a lot of discussion centers around fish needs because fish are considered an “indicator species” – setting instream flow levels adequate for fish generally provides flows adequate for other instream resources. And fish needs can be more easily quantified by existing methods than other instream values.  This is why fish studies are usually the basis for determining instream flow numbers.

    Adequate stream flows are important for instream resources and values that directly impact people, including water quality, recreational activities like fishing, boating and swimming, and the scenic and aesthetic qualities of natural settings that Washington State is famous for. (Also see the question Why are stream flows important?)

    When making decisions about water right permits, it is necessary to know how much is needed and how much is available.  Adopting instream flow rules help Ecology determine whether there is enough water for additional out-of-stream uses and support local communities in managing their current and future water needs.

    —————————————————————————————

    ISN’T INSTREAM FLOW REALLY AN ISSUE OF

    “WATER FOR FISH” VS. “WATER FOR PEOPLE”? 

     AREN’T PEOPLE MORE IMPORTANT THAN FISH? 

     IF YOU’RE A NORMAL PERSON, YOU’D ANSWER

     “YES, PEOPLE USUALLY ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN FISH.” 

     HOWEVER, THE ISSUE OF INSTREAM FLOW ISN’T THAT SIMPLE. 

     IT ACTUALLY BOILS DOWN TO A VALUE JUDGMENT

    of what we want our world to look like.  Fish are in fact just one of many organisms that live in streams but they often offer a gauge of overall environmental health.

    Instream flow is an issue of water and river management – seeking ways to maintain healthy, diverse ecosystems that contribute to a high quality of life while sustaining our basic life functions and economies.  Accomplishing this goal is never easy, as it involves integration of scientific knowledge and societal demands within a set of legal limitations.

    But informed and effective instream flow management should afford a healthy, enjoyable existence for people while maintaining healthy, diverse aquatic resources.   It’s much more complicated than “keeping a little water in the creek for the fish.”

    Instream Flow Council

    Welcome to the Instream Flow Council (link as provided above by ecology)

    The Instream Flow Council (IFC) is a NON-PROFIT organization made up of state, provincial, and territorial fish and wildlife agencies working to improve the effectiveness of instream flow programs and activities for conserving fish and wildlife and related aquatic resources.

    —————————————————————————————–

    How are instream flow numbers determined? Answer…

    ——————————————————-

    Why are instream flows sometimes higher than the flow in the stream?

    Answer…

    While the amount of water in the stream is considered when determining instream flow numbers, they cannot be based solely on existing levels (see next question).

    STATE LAW IS CLEAR THAT INSTREAM FLOWS MUST BE SET AT LEVELS THAT PROTECT AND PRESERVE FISH and instream resources over the long-term.  The instream flows reflect levels that would be beneficial for fish if those flows were present in the stream.

    Actual stream flow levels naturally vary throughout the year due to seasonal changes and water use.  So the differences between the actual stream flows and instream flows will also vary throughout the year.

    If the instream flow number is high relative to the average stream flow in the stream in the summer, this does not mean that the instream flow number is wrong.  Rather it means that the stream will provide more fish habitat in wet years than in dry ones.  Protecting the occasional “good water year” is needed to preserve a healthy population of fish.  If we want to protect the habitat available in those good wet years, then the instream flow needs to be set at that higher flow level.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    Why not set flow levels lower than the existing flows in the stream? Answer…

    —————————————————————————————————-

    What are the laws that allow Ecology to set flows by rule?

    Answer…

    The legal authority to set instream flows by rule comes from laws passed by the state legislature, including:

    • Construction projects in state waters (RCW 77.57.020)
    • Water code (RCW 90.03.247)
    • Minimum water flows and levels (Chapter 90.22 RCW)
    • Water resources act of 1971 (Chapter 90.54 RCW, particularly section 020)
    • Watershed planning (RCW 90.82.080

    —————————————————————————-

    The bottom line

    The nuts and the Boltd of it

    THE ISSUE OF “INSTREAM FLOW” IS REALLY VERY SIMPLE. 

    IT ACTUALLY BOILS DOWN TO A VALUE JUDGMENT

    NO MORE FISH BEFORE PEOPLE


  • AG Request on Instream Flow

    NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OPINION  (complete text below)

     QUESTION(S):

    Does RCW 90.82.080 obligate the Department of Ecology to undertake rulemaking to amend an instream flow rule if a LOCAL PLANNING UNIT VOTES TO RECOMMEND AMENDMENTS TO AN EXISTING INSTREAM FLOW RULE? 

    Obligate,  by definition, bind or compel (someone), especially legally or morally.

    The full text of is below, RCW 98.82.080 INSTREAM FLOW COMPONENT –  RULES- REPORT

    —————————————————————————————————

    SECTION V – ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES  THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD

    snippet 3.The Attorneys General of Washington State is elected by popular vote. As the chief attorney for the state, the Attorneys General advises the Governor and state agencies on legal matters, but operates independently of the Governor. Local County and City prosecutors operate independently of the Attorney General’s office.

    ——————————————————————————-

    This is my comment

    It’s not complicated, it’s just another WA State legal conundrum on ECOLOGY’S WATER RULES

    And, it appears to me, that the Attorney General is on a fishing expedition so he can advise the Governor and state agencies on legal matters (like lawsuits)

    ———————————————————————————————–

     THE WORDING IN RCW 90.82.080 IS CONFUSING.

     (it only address’s the “SHALL NOT BE” modified)

    THE QUESTION FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL  IS  ON “SHALL  BE” obligated, to be MODIFIED UNDER THIS CHAPTER.

    THE INSTREAMFLOW, ON THE SKAGIT and DUNGENESS RIVERS, HAS ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED BY RULE.

     IS THE  The AG’s question POINTLESS? …  UNTIL WHEN? SOME  LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT by a recorded unanimous vote “REQUEST” the department TO MODIFY THOSE FLOWS, the minimum instream flows

    Then legal question then  becomes,

    Does the DOE have the legal authority UNDER THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT POLICY, to “DENY THE REQUEST” of THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT, TO MODIFY THOSE FLOWS?

    IF THE  DOE is “NOT” legally AUTHORIZED,UNDER THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT POLICY,  to “DENY THE REQUEST” of THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT.

    Then, yes, under the terms and conditions of RCW 90.82.080 DOE  should be obligated to conduct rulemaking to address the vote.

     And, the DOE is obligated to conduct rulemaking to address the vote.

      ——————————————————————————————-

      ” IF” the members of LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES REQUEST THE PLANNING UNIT to modify instream flows and unanimous approval of the decision to modify such flow IS  ACHIEVED, THEN THE INSTREAM FLOWS SHALL BE MODIFIED UNDER THIS SECTION;

    THE is DOE obligate to conduct rulemaking to address the vote.

     ———————————————————————-

    The legal question is still,

    Does the DOE have the legal authority UNDER THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT POLICY, to “DENY THE REQUEST” of THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT, TO MODIFY THOSE FLOWS?

     IF THE  DOE is “NOT” legally AUTHORIZED UNDER THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT POLICY,  to “DENY THE REQUEST” of THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT.

     Then, yes, under the terms and conditions of RCW 90.82.080 DOE  should be obligated to conduct rulemaking to address the vote.

     And, the DOE is obligated to conduct rulemaking to address the vote.

    ——————————————————————————————-

     IF THE  DOE is “NOT” legally AUTHORIZED  to “DENY THE REQUEST” ?

     WHO IS LEGALLY AUTHORIZED AND BOUND  UNDER THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT POLICY,  TO DENY THE TRIBAL REQUEST?

    Washington State/Tribal Government-to-Government Implementation Guidelines

    SECTION V – ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES,  snippet

    2. State Agency Directors: THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD calls for each state agency to develop a plan to implement the government-to-government policy. “Each agency will establish a documented plan of accountability and may establish more detailed implementation procedures in subsequent agreements between tribes and the particular agency.” Some agency directors report directly to the Governor’s office, while some report to an appointed board or commission.

    3. Attorneys General Office: The Attorneys General of Washington State is elected by popular vote. As the chief attorney for the state, the Attorneys General advises the Governor and state agencies on legal matters, but operates independently of the Governor. Local County and City prosecutors operate independently of the Attorney General’s office.

     ———————————————————————————————-

    complete text of


     NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OPINION

    QUESTION(S):

    Does RCW 90.82.080 obligate the Department of Ecology to undertake rulemaking to amend an instream flow rule if a LOCAL PLANNING UNIT VOTES TO RECOMMEND AMENDMENTS TO AN EXISTING INSTREAM FLOW RULE? 


                                       WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL

    The Washington Attorney General issues formal published opinions in response to requests by the heads of state agencies, state legislators, and county prosecuting attorneys.  When it appears that individuals outside the Attorney General’s Office have information or expertise that will assist in the preparation of a particular opinion, a summary of that opinion request will be published in the state register.  If you are interested in commenting on this opinion request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office of your interest by March 11, 2015.  This is not the due date by which comments must be received.  However, if you do not notify the Attorney General’s Office of your interest in commenting on this opinion request by this date, the opinion may be issued before your comments have been received.  You may notify the Attorney General’s Office of your intention to comment by e-mail to jeff.even@atg.wa.gov or by writing to the Office of the Attorney General, Solicitor General Division, Attention Jeff Even, Deputy Solicitor General, PO Box 40100, Olympia, Washington 98504-0100.  When you notify the office of your intention to comment, you may be provided with a copy of the opinion request in which you are interested, information about the Attorney General’s Opinion process, information on how to submit your comments, and a due date by which your comments must be received to ensure that they are fully considered.

    The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request(s):

                                                      Opinion Docket No. 15-02-03-Ericksen 

    Request by Doug Ericksen, Senator, District 42

    QUESTION(S):

    Does RCW 90.82.080 obligate the Department of Ecology to undertake rulemaking to amend an instream flow rule if a local planning unit votes to recommend amendments to an existing instream flow rule? 

    ——————————————————————————————————-

    COMPLETE TEXT OF RCW 98.82.080

    INSTREAM FLOW COMPONENT –  RULES- REPORT

    (1)(a) If the initiating governments choose, by majority vote, to include an instream flow component, it shall be accomplished in the following manner:

    THE HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY RULE

    (i) If minimum instream flows HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED BY RULE for a stream within the management area,

    “UNLESS” the members of the LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT by a recorded unanimous vote REQUEST the department TO MODIFY THOSE FLOWS, the minimum instream flows

    SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED UNDER THIS CHAPTER.

    ” IF” the members of LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES REQUEST THE PLANNING UNIT to modify instream flows

    and unanimous approval of the decision to modify such flow IS NOT ACHIEVED, THEN THE INSTREAM FLOWS

    SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED UNDER THIS SECTION;

    —————————————————————————–

    THIS SECTION OF RCW 90.82.080 DOES NOT APPLY TO THE  NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OPINION

    QUESTION(S):

    Does RCW 90.82.080 obligate the Department of Ecology to undertake rulemaking to amend an instream flow rule if a LOCAL PLANNING UNIT VOTES TO RECOMMEND AMENDMENTS TO AN EXISTING INSTREAM FLOW RULE? 

    (But it is VERY interesting read)

    THE HAVE NOT BEEN ADOPTED BY minimum streamflows RULE

    (ii) If minimum streamflows HAVE NOT been adopted by rule for a stream within the management area, setting the minimum instream flows

    SHALL BE A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING UNIT.

    The department must attempt to achieve consensus and approval among the members of the planning unit regarding the minimum flows to be adopted by the department.

    APPROVAL IS ACHIEVED IF ALL GOVERNMENT MEMBERS AND TRIBES THAT HAVE BEEN INVITED AND ACCEPTED on the planning unit present for a recorded vote UNANIMOUSLY VOTE TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS,

    AND

     ALL NONGOVERNMENTAL MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING UNIT PRESENT FOR THE RECORDED VOTE, “BY A MAJORITY”, VOTE TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS.

    (b) The department shall undertake rule making to adopt flows under (a) of this subsection. The department MAY adopt the rules either by the regular rules adoption process provided in chapter 34.05 RCW, the expedited rules adoption process as set forth in RCW 34.05.353,

    OR THROUGH A RULES ADOPTION PROCESS THAT USES PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NOTICE PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE.

     Such rules do not constitute significant legislative rules as defined in RCW 34.05.328,

    and do not require the preparation of small business economic impact statements.

    (c) If approval is not achieved within four years of the date the planning unit first receives funds from the department for conducting watershed assessments under RCW 90.82.040,

    the department may promptly initiate rule making under chapter 34.05 RCW to establish flows for those streams and shall have two additional years to establish the instream flows for those streams for which approval is not achieved.

    (2)(a) Notwithstanding RCW 90.03.345, minimum instream flows set under this section for rivers or streams that do not have existing minimum instream flow levels set by rule of the department shall have a priority date of two years after funding is first received from the department under RCW 90.82.040, unless determined otherwise by a unanimous vote of the members of the planning unit but in no instance may it be later than the effective date of the rule adopting such flow.

    (b) Any increase to an existing minimum instream flow set by rule of the department shall have a priority date of two years after funding is first received for planning in the WRIA or multi-WRIA area from the department under RCW 90.82.040 and the priority date of the portion of the minimum instream flow previously established by rule shall retain its priority date as established under RCW 90.03.345.

    (c) Any existing minimum instream flow set by rule of the department that is reduced shall retain its original date of priority as established by RCW 90.03.345 for the revised amount of the minimum instream flow level.

    (3) Before setting minimum instream flows under this section, the department shall engage in government-to-government consultation with affected tribes in the management area regarding the setting of such flows.

    (4) Nothing in this chapter either: (a) Affects the department’s authority to establish flow requirements or other conditions under RCW 90.48.260 or the federal clean water act (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et seq.) for the licensing or relicensing of a hydroelectric power project under the federal power act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 791 et seq.); or (b) affects or impairs existing instream flow requirements and other conditions in a current license for a hydroelectric power project licensed under the federal power act.

    (5) If the planning unit is unable to obtain unanimity under subsection (1) of this section, the department MAY adopt rules setting such flows.

    (6) The department shall report annually to the appropriate legislative standing committees on the progress of instream flows being set under this chapter, as well as progress toward setting instream flows in those watersheds not being planned under this chapter. The report shall be made by December 1, 2003, and by December 1st of each subsequent year.

    [2003 1st sp.s. c 4 § 4; 1998 c 247 § 4.]

    Notes:

         Findings — 2003 1st sp.s. c 4: See note following RCW 90.82.040.

     


  • Water Out of DOE Control?

    Who’s in and Who’s out  of Water  Power?

    NEWS FLASH January 15, 2015 ECOLOGY’S WATER RULERS  document in a letter, that, THEY ARE POWER-LESS, RULE-LESS, TOOL-LESS,  INEFFECTIVE? AND INADEQUATE?

     “Under current law, Ecology has no rule making tools that would allow us to adequately protect instream resources and effectively make water available for new year-round consumptive uses in the Skagit Basin.”

     ———————————————————————————————————————

    WHY IS WA STATE ECOLOGY (DOE) POWERLESS?

    IT’S COMPLICATED, GREAT QUESTION, GLAD YOU ASKED

    I once received a response from WA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BOB FERGUSON

    The response, ABOUT WATER, was ? IT’S COMPLICATED

    COMPLICATED by definition,  difficult to understand, deal with, or explain

    1. A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD BE INCAPABLE OF  UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFICULTY OF IT?

    2. That the issues of the problems are too difficult to deal with?

    3. That the issues of the problems are too difficult to explain?

     I MUST BE A  REALLY UNREASONABLE PERSON (I posted this in response)

    Everything is too Complicated

    Posted on February 17, 2014 12:57 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett

    —————————————————————————————

    HOW COMPLICATED ARE THE IN’S AND OUT’S OF WATER CONTROL?

    This short form IS NOT in chronological order

    The individual States own all of their water?

    BUT THE  FEDS CONTROL all of the  water?

    Congress Acts? The Clean Water Act

    The Clean Water Act was linked  to,  the Endangered Species Act,

    Which in turn, was  linked to the Boldt decision,

    Which in turn, was  linked to first right of WATER for tribes,

    Which in turn was  linked to the  taking of WATER  FOR FISH BEFORE PEOPLE,

    Which in turn was  linked to the feds giving ownership of the water to the individual states

    Which in turn was  linked to Ecology’s state water rulers

    Which in turn was  linked to Ecology’s taking of water from a multitude of private property owners.

    Which in turn was  linked to a multitude of objections, appeals,  lawsuits, and repeals.

    Which in turn was  linked to  Ecology letter, January 15, 2015,  in  response to the Petition to Repeal the 2001 Instream Flow Rule

     Which in turn was  linked to  Ecology letter “Under current law, Ecology has no rule making tools that would allow us to adequately protect instream resources and effectively make water available for new year-round consumptive uses in the Skagit Basin.”

    Which in turn was  linked to  the Jan 17, 2015 posting of The Ins and Outs of Water Control

    Which in turn was  linked to  the NEWS FLASH on ECOLOGY’S WATER RULERS  document in a letter, that, THEY ARE POWER-LESS, RULE-LESS, TOOL-LESS,  INEFFECTIVE? AND INADEQUATE?

    ——————————————————————-

    (I wouldn’t even support a man in that condition) Sorry, I just can’t help myself

    ———————————————————————————————

    WHO HAS THE POWER TO CONTROL ALL WATER?

    MOTHER NATURE…

    ———————————————————-

    IT’S COMPLICATED

    WHO? WHEN? WHERE? WHY? AND WHAT? IS  REALLY  IN CONTROL? AND CONTROLLING AMERICA’S WATER?   OUR ELECTED CONGRESS? GOVERNING?, THE APPOINTED, GOVERNMENT AGENCY, TRIBAL TREATY? THE TRIBES? THE FISH? THE EPA? SUPPORTED BY THE NGO SELFIES, AKA WATER WITCHES?

    ————————————————————————

    I HAVE A REALLY BIG PROBLEM WITH ECOLOGY AND OUR WA STATE LEGISLATORS

    THEY LEGISLATED THE POWER TO ECOLOGY TO RULE AND TAKE OUR WATER

    which in turn was  linked to Ecology’s state water rulers

    which in turn was  linked to Ecology’s taking of water from a multitude of private property owners.

    AND THE ALL POWERFUL ECOLOGY HAS RUN AMOK EVER SINCE,  RULING, AND TAKING, AND TAKING, AND RESTRICTING, AND DENYING US WATER

    which in turn was  linked to a multitude of objections, appeals,  lawsuits, and repeals.

    AND WHAT HAVE OUR ELECTED WA STATE LEGISLATORS DONE TO CORRECT THE WATER DEBACLE  THEY LEGISLATED?

    AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE

    Which in turn was  linked to  the Jan 17, 2015 posting of The In’s and Out’s of Water Control

    documentation below

    BACK TO THE TOP

    From: Zachary Barborinas

    To: Skagit Watershed

    Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 2:29 PM

    Subject: Skagit Watershed: Ecology Petition Denied

    The Department of Ecology has responded to the Petition to Repeal the 2001 Instream Flow Rule. Not surprisingly, they have denied the request (see attached). Ecology agrees that a plain reading of the rule only requires mitigation at the main stem gauge, but as expected, cautions such a reading could result in litigation.  And perhaps my favorite part of their response:

    “Under current law, Ecology has no rule making tools that would allow us to adequately protect instream resources and effectively make water available for new year-round consumptive uses in the Skagit Basin.”

    Once again, the Legislature must engage this situation since the managers of our water cannot find a solution in the third largest watershed on the west coast.  The Petitioners will be meeting in the days ahead to discuss their next step.

    Have a good weekend.

    Regards,

    Zachary J. Barborinas

    Just Water Alliance

    www.justwateralliance.org

     


  • (2) How Do The Tribes Do It?

    Part (2) How Do the Tribes Do It?

    CASINO INCOME? or FISH INCOME?

    GAMING ON NATIVE AMERICAN LANDS EARNED $26.5 BILLION IN 2011.

    “IN 2012, THE INDIAN GAMING INDUSTRY SAW ITS LARGEST GROSS GAMING REVENUES EVER,” said Tracie Stevens, Chairwoman of the NIGC. http://500nations.com/news/Indian_Casinos/20130723.asp

    HOW MANY TRIBES STILL DEPEND ON (by treaty rights and agreement) FOR AN “ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF FISH”

    TO PROVIDE THEM WITH A MODERATE LIVING?

    —————————————————————————

    BY TREATY THE  ADEQUATE FISH AGREEMENT? V. CASINO MODERATE LIVING INCOME?

    Therefore, as this Court acknowledged in its Phase II decision,

    Fishing Vessel CONCLUDED THAT THE TRIBES ARE ENTITLED UNDER THE TREATIES TO AN “ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF FISH” SO LONG AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE THEM WITH A MODERATE LIVING.

    See 759 F.2d at 1358.

    A MODERATE LIVING FOR THE TRIBES? FROM FISH INCOME?

    ENTITLED UNDER THE TREATIES? SO LONG AS NECESSARY?

    TIMES HAVE CHANGED, HAS TRIBAL CASINO’S INCOME EXCEEDED AND REPLACED

    THE NEED FOR FISH INCOME?

    ———————————————————————————————————————

    HOW MANY WA STATE TRIBAL CASINOS?

    WOW, MORE WA STATE TRIBAL CASINOS THEN THERE ARE TRIBES?

    HOW MUCH TRIBAL CASINO INCOME?

    Washington Indian Casinos by Tribes

    Search by  Map  | Casino List  |  Tribe  |  Cities

      Tribes   Casinos
    Confederated Tribes and Bands
    of the Yakama Indian Nation

    P.O. Box 151
    Fort Road
    Toppenish, WA 98948
    Phone Number: (509) 865-5121
    Fax Number: (509) 865-5528
    Yakama Nation Legends Casino
    580 Fort Road
    Toppenish, Washington 98948
    (509) 865-8800

    Confederated Tribes of the
    Chehalis Reservation

    P.O. Box 536
    Oakville, WA 98568
    (360) 273-5911Gaming compact signed 12/21/1992.
    Lucky Eagle Casino
    12888 188th Avenue SW
    Rochester, WA 98579
    360-273-2000Eagles Landing Hotel & Slots
    12840 188th Ave SW
    Rochester, WA 98579
    360-273-8640

    Confederated Tribes of the
    Colville Reservation

    P.O. Box 150
    Nespelem, WA 99155
    Phone Number: (509) 634-2200
    Fax Number: (509) 634-4116Gaming compact signed 8/29/2002.
    Coulee Dam Casino
    515 Birch Street
    Coulee Dam, WA 99116
    509-633-0766Mill Bay Casino
    455 Wapato Lake Road
    Manson, WA 98831-9577
    1-800-648-2946Okanogan Casino
    41 Apple Way Road
    Okanogan, Washington 98840-9689
    (509) 422-4646Omak Casino – Opens Mid-2015
    Omak, WA

    Cowlitz Indian Tribe
    Administration Office
    1055 9th Ave, Suite B
    Longview, WA 98632
    Phone: 360-577-8140
    Fax: 360-577-7432
    Cowlitz Casino Resort
    La Center, Washington

    Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe
    1033 Old Blyn Highway
    Sequim, WA 98382
    Phone Number: (360) 681-1109
    Fax Number: (360) 681-4643Gaming compact signed 2/19/1993.
    7 Cedars Casino
    270756 Highway 101
    Sequim, Washington 98382-7677
    (360) 683-7777

    Kalispel Tribe
    Box 39
    Usk, WA 99180
    Phone: 509-445-1147
    Fax: 509-445-1705Gaming compact signed 10/22/1998.
    Northern Quest Resort & Casino
    100 North Hayford Road
    Airway Heights, WA 99001
    (509) 242-7000
    (888) 603-705

    Lower Elwha Tribal Community of the Lower Elwha Reservation, Washington
    2851 Lower Elwha Rd
    Port Angeles WA 98363
    Phone Number: (360) 452-8471
    Fax Number: (360) 452-3428
    Elwha River Casino
    631 Stratton Road
    Port Angeles, WA 98363
    (360)452-3005

    Lummi Nation
    2616 Kwina Road
    Bellingham, WA 98226
    Phone Number: (360) 384-1489
    Fax Number: (360) 380-1850Gaming compact signed 9/21/1995.
    Silver Reef Casino
    4876 Haxton Way at Slater Road
    Ferndale, WA 98248
    (360) 383-0777
    (866) 383-0777

    Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
    39015 172nd St., SE
    Auburn, WA 98002
    Phone Number: (253) 939-3311
    Fax Number: (253) 931-8570Gaming compact signed 2/19/1993.
    Muckleshoot Casino
    2402 Auburn Way South
    Auburn, Washington 98002
    (800) 804-4944Muckleshoot Casino II
    2600 Auburn Way South
    Auburn, WA 98002Muckleshoot Indian Bingo
    2117 Auburn Way South
    Auburn, Washington 98002
    (253) 735-2404

    Nisqually Indian Tribe of the Nisqually Reservation
    4820 She-Nah-Num Drive S.E.
    Olympia, WA 98513
    Phone Number: (360) 456-5221
    Fax Number: (360) 456-9553Gaming compact signed 5/25/1995.
    Red Wind Casino
    12819 Yelm Highway Southeast
    Olympia, Washington 98513-9111
    (360) 412-5000
    (866) 946-2444

    Nooksack Indian Tribe
    P.O. Box 157
    Deming, WA 98244
    (360) 592-5176Gaming compact signed 10/28/1991.
    Nooksack Northwood Casino
    9750 Northwood Road
    Lynden WA 98264
    (360) 734-5101Nooksack River Casino
    5048 Mt Baker Hwy
    Deming, Washington
    (360) 592-5472

    Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
    31912 Little Boston Road NE
    Kingston, WA 98346
    (206) 297-2646Gaming compact signed 1/27/1995.
    The Point Casino
    7989 Salish Lane NE
    Kingston, WA 98346
    (360) 297-0070

    Puyallup Tribe of Indians
    2002 East 28th Street
    Tacoma, WA 98404
    Phone Number: (253) 573-7828
    Fax Number: (253) 680-5996Gaming compact signed 5/28/1996.
    Emerald Queen Hotel & Casino
    5700 Pacific Hwy. E
    Fife, WA 98424
    888-831-7655Emerald Queen Casino I-5
    2024 E 29th St
    Tacoma, WA 98404-4974
    253-594-7777

    Quinault Tribe of the Quinault
    Reservation Washington

    PO Box 189
    Taholah WA 98587
    Phone Number: (360) 276-8211
    Fax Number: (360) 276-8256Gaming compact signed 7/9/1996.
    Quinault Beach Resort & Casino
    78 St. Rt. 115
    Ocean Shores, Washington 98569
    (360) 289-9466

    Shoalwater Bay Tribe of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation
    PO Box 130, Tokeland WA 98590
    Phone Number: (360) 267-6766
    Fax Number: (360) 267-6778Gaming compact signed 8/22/2002.
    Shoalwater Bay Casino
    4112 Highway 105
    Tokeland, Washington 98590
    360-267-2048
    888-332-2048

    Skokomish Indian Tribe of the
    Skokomish Reservation

    P.O. Box 130
    Tokeland, WA 98590
    Phone: (360) 267-6766
    Fax: (360) 267-6778Gaming compact signed 5/25/1995.
    Lucky Dog Casino
    19330 N US Highway 101
    Skokomish Nation, WA 98584
    (360) 877-5656

    Snoqualmie Nation
    P.O. Box 280
    Carnation, Washington 98014
    Phone: 425-333-6551
    Fax: 425-333-6727Gaming compact signed 2/16/2008.
    Snoqualmie Casino
    37500 SE North Bend Way
    Snoqualmie, WA 98065
    425-888-1234

    Spokane Tribe of the Spokane Reservation
    P.O. Box 100
    Wellpinit, WA 99040
    Phone Number: (509) 458-6500
    Fax Number: (509) 458-6553Gaming compact signed 4/30/2007.
    Chewelah Casino
    2555 Smith Road
    Chewelah, Washington 99109-9689
    (800) 322-2788
    (509) 258-9845Two Rivers Casino & Resort
    Spokane Tribe of Indians
    6828-B Highway 25
    Davenport, WA 99122
    (800) 722-4031

    Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin
    Island Reservation

    70 S.E. Squaxin Lane
    Shelton, WA 98584
    Phone Number: (360) 426-9781
    Fax Number: (360) 426-6577
    Little Creek Casino Resort
    91 West State Route 108
    Shelton, Washington 98584
    (360) 427-7711

    Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington
    P.O. Box 277
    Arlington, WA 98223
    Phone Number: (360) 652-7362
    Fax Number: (360) 659-3113
    Angel of the Winds Casino
    3438 Stoluckquamish Lane
    Arlington, Washington 98223
    (360) 474-9740

    Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation
    P.O. Box 498
    Suquamish, WA 98392
    Phone Number: (360) 598-3311
    Fax Number: (360) 598-3135
    Clearwater Casino
    15347 Suquamish Way
    Suquamish, Washington 98392-9649
    (360) 598-8700

    Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation, Washington
    11404 Moorage Way
    LaConner, WA 98257
    Phone Number: (360) 466-3163
    Fax Number: (360) 466-7363
    Swinomish Casino & Lodge
    12885 Casino Drive
    Anacortes, Washington 98221-8363
    (360) 293-2691

    Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation, Washington
    6700 Totem Beach Road
    Marysville, WA 98271
    Phone Number: (360) 716-4500
    Fax Number: (360) 716-0628
    Tulalip Bingo
    2911 Quil Ceda Way
    Tulalip, WA 98271
    800-631-3313Tulalip Resort Casino
    Tulalip Tribes
    10200 Quil Ceda Blvd.
    Tulalip, WA 98271
    (360) 651-1111Quil Ceda Creek Nightclub & Casino
    6410 33rd Ave NE
    Tulalip, WA 98271
    360-716-1700

    Upper Skagit Indian Tribe of Washington
    25952 Community Plaza Way
    Sedro Woolley, WA 98284
    Phone Number: (360) 854-7090
    Fax Number: (360) 854-7004
    Skagit Valley Casino Resort
    Operated by Harrah’s Ent
    5984 N. Dark Lane
    Bow, WA 98232
    (360) 724-7777

    WA State TRIBAL TREATY’S

    Stevens Treaties Treaty of Medicine Creek, December 26, 1854 (10 Stat. 1132); or

    Treaties Treaty of Point Elliott, January 22, 1855 (12 Stat. 927);

    Treaty of Point No Point, January 26, 1855 (12 Stat. 933);

    Treaty with the Makah, January 31, 1855 (12 Stat. 939);

    Treaty of Olympia, July 1, 1855 (12 Stat. 971)

    ————————————————————

    HOW MANY WA STATE TRIBES?

    HOW MANY Washington Indian Casinos?

    Tribes Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation

    ————————————————

    Hoh Tribe

    Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe

    Lower Elwha Bank of Klallams,

    Lummi Indian Nation

    Makah Indian Tribe

    Muckleshoot Indian Tribe

    Nisqually Indian Tribe

    Nooksack Indian Tribe

    Port Gamble

    Band Clallam,

    Puyallup Tribe

    Quileute Indian Tribe

    Quinault Indian Nation

    Sauk-Suiattle Tribe,

    Skokomish Indian Tribe

    Squaxin Island Tribe

    Stillaguamish Tribe

    Suquamish Indian Tribe,

    Swinomish Indian Tribal Community

    Tulalip Tribes

    Upper Skagit Indian Tribes

    ———————————————————————–

    the bottom line

    HOW MANY TRIBES STILL DEPEND ON (by treaty rights and agreement) FOR AN “ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF FISH”

    TO PROVIDE THEM WITH A MODERATE LIVING?

    —————————————————————

    A MODERATE LIVING FOR THE TRIBES? FROM FISH INCOME?

    ENTITLED UNDER THE TREATIES? SO LONG AS NECESSARY?

    TIMES HAVE CHANGED, HAS? TRIBAL CASINO’S INCOME EXCEEDED AND REPLACED  THE NECESSITY OF FISH INCOME?

    IS IT TIME TO REVOLT ON THE BOLDT?

    ——————————————————————————————–

    “IN 2012, THE INDIAN GAMING INDUSTRY SAW ITS LARGEST GROSS GAMING REVENUES EVER,” said Tracie Stevens, Chairwoman of the NIGC. http://500nations.com/news/Indian_Casinos/20130723.asp

    ———————————————————————————————–

    Gaming Tax Law and

    Bank Secrecy Act Issues

    for Indian Tribal Governments

     

    A 44 PAGE REPORT  read more at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p3908.pdf

     

    Even though INDIAN TRIBES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO FEDERAL INCOME TAX, an individual tribal member not exempt from income taxation must report gross income amounts distributed or constructively received1. In tribal gaming, structure and ownership of a gaming operation has a significant impact on the taxability of the income, as explained in the examples below:

    Example1:

    A tribe may operate In incorporated businesses in or away from Indian country. THE INCOME DERIVED IS NOT SUBJECT TO FEDERAL INCOME TAX. If the tribe decides to incorporate its business,

    ————————————————————————