+menu-


  • Category Archives Tribal Right issues?
  • In An Apparent Shell Game S.2012

    The bill in question is No. S.2012 -the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2016

    In an apparent “SHELL GAME” likely intended to disguise a hidden agenda and to confuse the American public, Congress is considering “BEHIND CLOSED DOORS” two versions of S.2012.

    U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (AK-R) is pushing a massive 792 page Senate Energy bill incorporating more than 393 amendments covering these and other policy areas

    ———————————————-

    Polson, Montana –September 14, 2016

    According to nonprofit Western States Constitutional Rights, LLC,

    S.2012 contains VERY harmful tribal government forest management provisions that could severely diminish the constitutionally protected rights of western and rural private property owners throughout the  United States

    In an apparent “SHELL GAME” likely intended to disguise a hidden agenda and to confuse the American public, Congress is considering “BEHIND CLOSED DOORS” two versions of S.2012.

    ———————————————————————–

    Why would the Politico’s establishment of this Congressional Mumbo Jumbo confuse the American public?

    —————————————————————-

    snippet…

    It is understood that the Senate passed the Murkowski version without forestry measures in April 2016, while the U.S. House of Representatives passed a second version with both forestry and tribal forest management measures in May 2016,namely,H.R. 2647 –the Resilient Federal

    Forests Act of 2015. H.R. 2647 was sponsored by Representative Bruce Westerman (AR-R) and cosponsored by 11 Republicans and 2 Democrats. It seems H.R. 2647 was incorporated within the House version of S.2012 via an amendment adding new Title VII as part of “Division B, Titles I-X”.1 On September 8, 2016, the two versions of House/Senate S.2012 were submitted to a Congressional conference committee to be reconciled for ultimate passage by both chambers and signature into law by President Obama.

    ———————————————–

    DON’T WAIT UNTIL S.2012 IS PASSED  BY CONGRESS, LIKE OBAMACARE, TO FIND OUT WHAT’S IN THE NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY SECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2016  

    We the People must demand an end to the secrecy, shady backroom deals, and usurpation of our natural and constitutional freedoms and property rights.

    ————————————————————–

    WELL NOT REALLY…

    WE THE PEOPLE MUST INFORM AMERICAN CITIZENS REGARDING USURPATION’S of  S.2012

    THAN ON NOV 8, 2016 WE THE PEOPLE  VOTE FOR TRUMP.

    AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TRUMP PUTS AN END TO ALL OF THE SECRECY, SHADY BACKROOM DEALS, AND USURPATION OF OUR NATURAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS.

    ENDING A MASSIVE  NUMBER OF GOVERNMENT USURPATION’S

    By definition an act of usurping; wrongful or illegal encroachment, infringement, or seizure.

    INCLUDING OBAMA’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS

    —————————————————————-

    A UN and tribal takeover? – Canada Free Press

    canadafreepress.com/…/energybillshidden-tribal-forest-management-amp-other-pro

    2 days ago – Hidden provisions in congressional energy bills undermine America’s … of private property owners throughout the United States, the Western States … shared by many citizens throughout the western and rural United States.

     

    By Lawrence Kogan —— Bio and Archives September 17, 2016

    A MASSIVE 792-PAGE SENATE ENERGY COMMITTEE BILL THREATENS TO AUTHORIZE FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS TO CEDE EXTENSIVE CONTROL OVER WESTERN STATE WATER AND PROPERTY RIGHTS, ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AND FOREST MANAGEMENT TO NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES, LOCAL UN SUSTAINABILITY COUNCILS AND RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST GROUPS.

     CERTAIN PROVISIONS COULD UNDERMINE THE FOUNDATIONS OF OUR NATION FROM WITHIN OUR NATION.

    S.2012, the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2016, incorporates some 393 amendments. Incredibly, it is being driven forward by U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and other members of Congress behind closed doors. Probably very few have read the bill in its entirety. Virtually none understand its likely impacts on western and other rural land, water and property rights, potentially throughout America, or on the families and communities whose lives will be upended.

    This secretive approach—with no opportunities for meaningful public examination or comment, even by those who will be most affected—is almost unprecedented. It could well become another example of “we have to pass it to find out what’s in it.” But numerous people will have to live with the consequences, while the authors and implementers walk away exempted, unscathed and unaccountable.

    The bill’s tribal government forest management provisions are extremely harmful and could severely diminish the constitutionally protected rights of private property owners throughout the United States, the Western States Constitutional Rights consortium emphasizes. Indeed, the pending legislation is itself unconstitutional, as explained in a legal memorandum the consortium sent to 13 members of Congress.

    This Montana-based nonprofit was formed to safeguard the property rights of farmers, ranchers and other land and business owners against reckless federal, state and local government laws, regulations and policies. WSCR members live on or near the Flathead Irrigation Project within the Flathead Indian Reservation, and in other parts of northwestern Montana. But their concerns are widely shared by many citizens throughout the western and rural United States. It has a long, hard road ahead on these issues.

    The apparent “shell game” is likely intended to disguise a hidden agenda and confuse people. In fact, Congress is quietly considering two versions: a Senate-passedMurkowski version without forestry measures and a House of Representatives version with both forestry and tribal forest management measures (H.R. 2647, the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015, sponsored by Representative Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and cosponsored by 11 Republicans and 2 Democrats). Bipartisan chicanery.

    On September 8, the two versions were submitted to a conference committee, to be reconciled so that both chambers can pass a bill and President Obama can sign it into law. The problems are extensive.

    The House/Senate versions’ forestry measures embrace Euro-UN-Agenda 21 sustainable forest management principles, plus United Nations Indigenous Peoples Rights policies that would supersede the U.S. Constitution—while implementing unscientific climate change and sustainability objectives devised by the White House and “Forest Service Strategic Energy Framework.”

    Tribal Forest Management (TFM) provisions in House/Senate S.2012 are more problematic, because they would racially discriminate in favor of Native American tribes. They would do so by using the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to recognize off-reservation aboriginal pre-European land and water rights—where none exist in U.S. law—at the expense of all other Americans’ constitutionally protected private property rights. S.2012s’ TFM provisions would also:

    • Supplant states’ authority and jurisdiction over their natural resources, as recognized by the Tenth Amendment requirement that these resources be held in “public trust” for the benefit of each state’s citizens—including incredibly hard-working western ranchers who put so much food on your table.
    • Enable Native American Tribes to treat “Federal Forest Lands” (including national forests and national parks belonging to all Americans) as “Indian Forest Lands,” merely by establishing that “the Federal forest land is located within, or mostly within, a geographical area that presents a feature or involves circumstances principally relevant to that Indian tribe.” That means a tribe only has to show that the lands are covered by an Indian treaty, are part of a current or former Indian reservation, or were once adjudicated by the former Indian Claims Commission as part of a “tribal homeland.”
    • Provide Native American Tribes near U.S. national forest and park lands with federal “638” contracts to manage, oversee and control such lands and appurtenant water resources for federal regulatory and other purposes, even when they are well beyond the boundaries of Indian reservations.
    • Expand tribal political sovereignty and legal jurisdiction and control, especially over mountainous forest lands—the source of most snowpack and other waters that farmers, ranchers, and even towns and cities rely on for irrigation, drinking and other water needs.
    • Enable tribes to impose new federal fiduciary trust obligations on the U.S. government to protect their religious, cultural and spiritual rights to fish, waters and lands located beyond the boundaries of Indian reservations, by severely curtailing non-tribal members’ constitutionally protected private water and land rights, without paying “just compensation” as required by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    A recently filed federal lawsuit by the Hoopa Valley Tribe of northern California against the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and National Marine Fisheries Service underscores the importance of this so-called federal fiduciary trust obligation. The tribe wants to compel the agencies to protect the tribe’s alleged off-reservation aboriginal pre-European water and fishing rights in southern Oregon’s Klamath River and Upper Klamath Lake—even though their reservation is more than 240 miles southwest of the lake!

    A tribal court victory would severely curtail Klamath irrigators’ ability to exercise their rights to vitally needed water. Northern California’s Yurok Tribe says it will soon file its own lawsuit. A cascade of such legal actions would disrupt or destroy the entire western water rights system.

    Combined with S.3013 (Montana Democrat Senator John Tester’s Salish and Kootenai Water Rights Settlement Act), the TFM provisions would expand and codify into federal law off-reservation aboriginal water and fishing rights that the tribes now claim. That precedent could then be used by other litigious tribes to override water and private property public trust obligations that Montana, Oregon, California and other western states owe their citizens under state constitutions. It could happen throughout America!

    S.2012 would cause even more problems if Congress adds a Wyden-Merkley Amendment that provides federal funding and implementation for the controversial Klamath Basin Agreements Tribal Rights Settlement. That would greatly expand tribal water rights, in violation of U.S. constitutional requirements that any such expansion be pursuant to Congress’s authority to approve or reject interstate compacts or regulate commerce with Indian tribes.

    It would also create a federal and interstate template for greatly diminishing regional—and potentially all irrigators’—state-based private property rights, in favor of Native American tribes. Its proponents have grossly misrepresented the settlement’s alleged benefits and substantially understated the damage it would impose on Klamath Basin residents.

    If S.2012 is enacted into law with the tribal forest management, Wyden-Merkley Amendment and Salish-Kootenai Settlement, Congress will cede control over western and rural lands and waters to Native American tribes in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth, Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments.

    This year’s presidential and congressional elections are a referendum on the role and performance of government.

    We the People must demand an end to the secrecy, shady backroom deals, and usurpation of our natural and constitutional freedoms and property rights.

    Congress’ immediate withdrawal or modification of this grotesque omnibus energy bill would be a good first step in this direction.

    Lawrence Kogan is managing principal of The Kogan Law Group, PC of New York, NY and legal counsel to Western States Constitutional Rights, LLC.

    —————————————-

    Just asking?

    Why would the Politico’s establishment of this Congressional Mumbo Jumbo confuse the American public?

    ————————————————————————————–

    This West Is OUR West: Uniting Western States – Protecting Our Rights

    thiswestisourwest.com/

    Energy Bill’s Hidden Provisions UndermineS.2012 – the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2016, which many in Congress … protected rights of western and rural private property owners throughout the United States.

    BREAKING NEWS September 15, 2016

    WESTERN STATES CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, LLC

    PRESS RELEASE

    Energy Bill’s Hidden Provisions Undermine Western and Rural U.S. Property Owners

    The following press release is based on a recently prepared memorandum of law and

    correspondences dispatched to 13 members of Congress explaining the unconstitutionality of pending legislation discussed below

    Polson, Montana – September 14, 2016 –

    Energy and forest management are not generally assumed to be interrelated policies.

    Nevertheless, U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (AK-R) is pushing a massive 792-page Senate Energy bill incorporating more than 393 amendments covering these and other policy areas. The bill in question is No. S.2012 – the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2016, which many in Congress have not likely read.

    According to nonprofit Western States Constitutional Rights, LLC, S.2012 contains VERY harmful tribal government forest management provisions that could severely diminish the constitutionally protected rights of western and rural private property owners throughout the United States.

    In an apparent “SHELL GAME” likely intended to disguise a hidden agenda and to confuse the American public, Congress is considering BEHIND CLOSED DOORS two versions of S.2012.

    —————————————————————————————-

    A shell game is a shell game….. by hook,  by crooks or by the U.S. Congress

    Behind My Back | The “RESTORATION” Shell Game

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/06/09/the-restorationshellgame/

    Jun 9, 2014 – The “RESTORATIONShell Game. A highly convoluted “GAME OF RESTORATION” that is involving the sleight of many, many hands, in which …

    ——————————————————————————

    Read more on Pie N Politics

    News from Klamath Basin Crisis.org

    by Liz Bowen

     

    http://klamathbasincrisis.org/billslaws/2016/Energybillshiddenprovisions091516.pdf

    —————————————————————————-

    Western States Constitutional Rights, LLC is a Montana-based nonprofit entity the mission of which is to promote the protection of private property rights held by western United States property owners against reckless federal, state and local government laws, regulations and policies. Its members are irrigators, landowners and business owners located on or near the Flathead Irrigation Project situated within the Flathead Indian Reservation, and from other areas in northwestern Montana, but their concerns are widely shared by many citizens throughout the western and rural United States.

    All media inquiries should be directed to The Kogan Law Group, P.C., NY, NY, Western States Constitutional Rights, LLC’s legal counsel, at: 212-644-9240.

    —————————————————————–

    Energy,  forest management  and TRIBES are not generally assumed to be interrelated policies.

    Connecting the dots on  Senator Murkowski….

    Senator  Murkowski  (R) is an active member of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and served as Vice Chairman of the Committee during the 110th Congress. She is the Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a member of the Committee on Appropriations, She was honored with a Congressional Leadership Award by the National Congress of American Indians


  • Find Your Park Forget Me Not

    National Register of Historic Places listings in Clallam County, Washington

    This National Park Service list is complete through NPS recent listings posted February 12, 2016.

    HISTORIC PLACES IN OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK

    15 Elwha River Hydroelectric Power Plant
    Elwha River Hydroelectric Power Plant
    December 15, 1988
    (#88002741)
    N end of Lake Aldwell
    48°05′42″N 123°33′18″W
    Port Angeles
    18 Glines Canyon Hydroelectric Power Plant
    Glines Canyon Hydroelectric Power Plant
    December 15, 1988
    (#88002742)
    N end of Lake Mills at Elwha River
    48°00′11″N 123°35′54″W
    Port Angeles

    Things happen that should always be remembered.

    ARE YOU AS SHOCKED AS I AM? Who knew that our Elwha River and Glines Canyon Hydroelectric power plants were placed on on the National Register of Historic Places listings in Clallam County, Washington on Dec 15, 1988?

    UNBELIEVABLE… Find Your Park Forget Me Not

    Built in 1910 and 1926 respectively, the Elwha dam (108 feet high) and Glines Canyon dam (210 feet high) provided the only power to a lumber mill town called Port Angeles, situated on the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

    ————————————————————————-

    Just, a town called Port Angeles? Port Angeles WA has been our Rains family town for 96 years.

    Find Your park tell your story. Olympic National Park is my park, this is a continuation of my inside story, I have known the Olympic National Park from the inside out for over 70 years. I was an INHOLDER in at Sol Duc Hot Springs inside the  Olympic National Park in 1944 and I still am an ONP INHOLDER inside the park, on the Elwha River,  Sat Feb 13, 2016.

    Forget Me Not

    Things happen that should always be remembered.

    Who remembers? Who Cares?

    History is written by the victors. – Winston Churchill..

    ————————————————————————-

    SO WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARKS LAKES AND HISTORIC ELWHA RIVER HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANTS?

    Find Your Park Forget Me Not

    So, the tribes, along with environmental groups, began petitioning for restoration of the Elwha and its salmon runs. In 1992, their petitions were heard and President George H.W. Bush signed legislation to allow the federal government to buy the dams and begin conducting studies regarding the feasibility of their removal.

    Bush signed legislation… a document of historical interest, it’s only 8 pages long.

    January 3, 1992 H.R.4844 An Act To restore Olympic National Park and the Elwha River ecosystem and fisheries in the State of Washington.

    For local tribes and environmental advocates, it was time to go to work.

    Hundreds of environmental studies later, the decision to remove the dams was finalized.

    ————————————————————————-

    The Supplemental EIS lists the proposed flood mitigation contained in the 1996 Final Environmental Impact Statement and the proposed changes to that list.

    You can find the Supplemental EIS  a document of historical interest, it’s only 366 pages long at:

    http://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=136240

    THEN WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARKS LAKES AND HISTORIC POWER PLANTS?

    ——————————————————————–

    World’s Largest Dam Removal Unleashes U.S. River After …

    news.nationalgeographic.com/…/140826-el…
    National Geographic Society

    Aug 27, 2014 – “Thirty years ago, when I was in law school in the Pacific Northwest, removing the dams from the Elwha River was seen as a crazy, wild-eyed …

    —————————————————————————

    Find Your park tell your story. Olympic National Park is my park.

    Who knew the Olympic National Park Altair and Elwha River’s Campgrounds Community Kitchens  were placed on the National Register of Historic Places listings in Clallam County, Washington on July 13, 2007?

    Find Your Park Forget Me Not

    The Campground Community kitchens were built by the CCC Elwha Camp #935, project 60 in 1933.

     

    2 Altair Campground Community Kitchen
    Altair Campground Community Kitchen
    July 13, 2007
    (#07000732)
    Approx. 4 mi. S of US 101
    48°00′42″N 123°35′30″W
    Port Angeles

    It’s a Place its a thing

    12 Elwha Campground Community Kitchen
    Elwha Campground Community Kitchen
    July 13, 2007
    (#07000735)
    3 miles south of U.S. Route 101 in Washington
    48°01′39″N 123°35′13″W
    Port Angeles

    Olympic National Park is my park

    13 Elwha Ranger Station
    Elwha Ranger Station
    July 13, 2007
    (#07000716)
    Approximately 3 miles southeast of WA 101 on the Olympic Hot Springs Rd.
    48°01′00″N 123°35′27″W
    Port Angeles

    The Olympic Hot Springs Road is my road.

    THIS ROAD WAS THE HISTORIC “GATEWAY TO THE OLYMPICS”

    Who remembers? Who Cares? History is written by the victors. – Winston Churchill..

    The National Park Service,  HISTORICALLY rewrites, renames, redirects, obscures, excludes, deletes and destroys,  much of the HISTORY of the Olympic National Park

    Things happen that should always be remembered. in 1909 The Olympic Hot Spring Resort  was a flourishing tourist destination.

    ————————————

    Find Your Park Forget Me Not

    Repairs and widening of 22 miles of the Olympic Hot Spring Road was done by  the CCC Elwha Camp #935, project 60 in 1933-1934.

    Access to the Olympic National Park interconnected ROAD AND TRAIL SYSTEM belongs to all of us.

    —————————————————————————–

    The Sol Duc River Shelter?

    The renamed as Canyon Creek Shelter, renumbered as #07000712, coordinates missing? image missing? Approximate distance from wherever? is and was  the Sol Duc Shelter.

    The Sol Duc River Shelter was my Shelter inside the Olympic National park in 1944.

    Who remembers? Who Cares? History is written by the victors. – Winston Churchill..

    The National Park Service,  HISTORICALLY rewrites, renames, redirects, obscures, excludes, deletes and destroys,  much of the HISTORY of the Olympic National Park

    30 North Fork Sol Duc Shelter Upload image
    July 13, 2007
    (#07000725)
    Approx. 9.5 mi. from North Fork Sol Duc Trailhead
    47°59′56″N 123°45′42″W
    Port Angeles
    5 Canyon Creek Shelter
    Canyon Creek Shelter
    July 13, 2007
    (#07000712)
    Approximately .9 miles north of the Upper Sol Duc River Trailhead
    Coordinates missing
    Port Angeles

    Find Your Park Forget Me Not

    It’s a Place… it’s in the Olympic National Park, tell your story, things happen that should never be forgotten.

    to be continued…

    ———————————————————————————

    There are 49 properties and districts listed on the National Register in Clallam County.

    This is intended to be a complete list of the properties and districts on the National Register of Historic Places in Clallam County, Washington, United States. Latitude and longitude coordinates are provided for many National Register properties and districts; these locations may be seen together in a map.[1]


  • 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

     


  • 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.

     


  • (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,

    ————————————————————————

     


  • How Do the Tribes Do It?

    How do the Tribes do it?

    Since 1990, the Indian gaming industry has made political contributions of nearly $58 million

    THE POWER OF TRIBAL POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS? Among all senators who have served since 1990, OBAMA ranks fourth in contributions, with $259,000, TRAILING ONLY DEMOCRATIC SENS. MARIA CANTWELL AND PATTY MURRAY OF CASINO-RICH WASHINGTON STATE

    TRIBAL POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS?  to DEMOCRATIC SENS. MARIA CANTWELL AND PATTY MURRAY?

    TRIBES, CASINO’S TAX RULES? FISH AND WATER? INSTREAM FLOW? RESTORATION? AND FEDERAL?STATE? AND LOCAL GRANTS? THE WILD OLYMPICS?

    Obama was a favorite for the tribes even as a senator from Illinois:

    And the tribes also have been spending heavily on lobbying, more than $20 million in 2011 alone.

    —————————————————————————-

    Based on the following?  How do the Tribes do it?

    I’m Just asking? Under my freedom of speech.

    AND, BECAUSE,  SENS. MARIA CANTWELL AND PATTY MURRAY were elected to, and, are supposed to be representing all of “We the People” in WA State.

    This information is from JUST 2011 and 2012.

    How much “ELSE” has  been going on in 2013 and 2014?

    WITH THE TRIBES, CASINO’S TAX RULES?

    FISH AND WATER? INSTREAM FLOW? RESTORATION? CONSERVATION? PROTECTION?

    REPLACING CULVERTS?

    AND FEDERAL? STATE? AND LOCAL GRANTS ALL USING TAXPAYERS $$$?

    AND THE POWER OF POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS IN PATTY MURRAY’S  WA DC PUSH FOR THE “WILD OLYMPICS”?

    ———————————————————————-

    0/11/2012 @ 9:42PM 28,178 views

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/10/11/native-american-casino-and-tax-rules-that-may-surprise-you/

    Native American Casino And Tax Rules

    That May Surprise You

    1. Federal Law Regulates Indian Gaming. In California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, the Supreme Court ruled that tribes can conduct gaming on Native American lands unhindered by state regulation in states that allow gaming. A year later, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), creating a regulatory framework for gaming on Indian lands. The National Indian Gaming Commission within the Department of the Interior has oversight.

    2. Tribes are Tax Exempt. Gaming on Native American lands earned $26.5 billion in 2011. 236 Native American tribes operate 422 facilities across 28 states. Yet Native American tribes and their wholly owned tribal corporations are not subject to federal income taxes on their earnings.

    3. The Exemption is Absolute. Some types of tax-exempt organizations are taxed on some types of income. Tribes are exempt from federal income taxes even when conducting commercial activities. They can form corporations to conduct business and their income remains exempt.

    4. Individual Native Americans are Taxed. Native Americans are U.S. citizens, and unlike their tribes, individuals are subject to federal income taxes. Even exempt tribal income can be taxed when distributed to individual members of the tribe. One of the more complicated provisions of IGRA permits Native American tribes to make per capita distributions of revenue from gaming activities to tribe members. These per capita distributions are taxed.

    5. But Some Payments to Native Americans are Exempt. Some “general welfare” payments to individuals under social benefit programs are not taxed. In general, to be tax-free, payments must be made under a governmental program; be for the promotion of general welfare (i.e., based generally on individual, family or other needs); and not be compensation for services. This General Welfare Exception from income has become increasingly controversial as applied to tribal members and the IRS is being asked to weigh in.

    6. State Taxes are TrickyAbsent an express authorization from Congress, states do not have the power to tax Native Americans living on a reservation whose income is derived from reservation sources. However, a state may tax Native Americans on income (including wages from tribal employment) if they reside in the state but outside the reservation.

    As with many other tax rules, these rules are becoming more controversial. Expect renewed discussion of these rules and their limits in the future.

    ———————————————–

    In a new twist, Indian tribes are moving to open more casinos far from home

    By Rob Hotakainen

    McClatchy Newspapers July 5, 2012
    Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/05/155126/in-a-new-twist-indian-tribes-are.html#storylink=cpy

    Since 1990, the Indian gaming industry has made political contributions of nearly $58 million, with 70 percent of the money going to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And the tribes also have been spending heavily on lobbying, more than $20 million in 2011 alone.

    “The thing that makes that remarkable is that 20 years ago it wouldn’t have occurred to anyone that tribes would ever have enough money to have that kind of political influence,” Rand said.

    Schmit and other opponents say the relaxed rules on off-reservation casinos are merely a payoff to the tribes, WHICH HAVE MADE THE PRESIDENT THEIR TOP RECIPIENT OF CAMPAIGN CASH in the last two years. Obama was a favorite for the tribes even as a senator from Illinois: Among all senators who have served since 1990, he ranks fourth in contributions, with $259,000, TRAILING ONLY DEMOCRATIC SENS. MARIA CANTWELL AND PATTY MURRAY OF CASINO-RICH WASHINGTON STATE and Hawaii Democratic Sen. Daniel Inouye. In 2011 and 2012, Obama has received $140,500 from Indian gaming interests, more than any other presidential candidate or member of Congress, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group.
    Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/05/155126/in-a-new-twist-indian-tribes-are.html#storylink=cpy

    WASHINGTON — After buying a new chunk of land 50 miles north of San Francisco, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria just broke ground on a new, Las Vegas-style casino. It will be the largest in the Bay Area, with 3,000 slot machines, 200 hotel rooms, a spa, bars, restaurants and parking for more than 5,000 cars.

    In New York, the Shinnecock Indian Nation is considering Long Island as a site on which to build the Big Apple’s first tribal casino.

    AND IN WASHINGTON STATE, the Spokane Tribe of Indians wants a new 13-story casino and hotel next to the Fairchild Air Force Base, prompting fears that the city will become “Spo-Vegas.”

    The plans are extraordinary for one reason: In all three cases, the tribes want to build their palaces on new land that’s not part of their original reservations.

    The expansions are the latest twist in the nation’s Indian casino wars, and they mark a major shift for the tribes, which already run 385 casinos and bingo halls in 29 states.

    Since the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for large-scale Indian gambling 25 years ago, tribes have been forced to keep the majority of their casinos on reservation land held in trust by the federal government, usually in remote regions far from public view.

    BUT NOW, THANKS IN PART TO THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, Indian tribes across the country are ready to bust out, bringing gambling to the same land that was taken from them so long ago, when the U.S. government executed its bloody campaign to relocate Indians to a patchwork of lands across the country and eventually to reservations.

    In Oklahoma, the Kialegee Tribal Town went so far as to propose a casino half a continent away, on the coast of Georgia, on land that it said it once occupied, raising the specter of tribes going across state lines to pursue new gambling ventures.

    Tribes are seeking to cash in on a loosening of the rules, announced in June 2011, when the BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS JUNKED A BUSH-ERA REQUIREMENT that a casino had to be within easy driving distance from a tribe’s reservation.

    The decision by Larry Echo Hawk, who at the time was head of the bureau and is an enrolled member of the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma, MARKED A CLEAR WIN FOR THE TRIBES, WHICH HAVE BECOME BIG PLAYERS IN WASHINGTON’S POWER-AND-MONEY POLITICS. IN RECENT YEARS, THEY’VE STEERED 70 PERCENT OF THEIR POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARD THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA.

    Casino opponents now fear that the tribes, with their sovereign status, will have far too much authority to do as they please on their new land, especially as they press for even less federal control. And from coast to coast, the tribes are finding plenty of resistance as they angle to get closer to big cities, busy freeways, military bases, even popular national parks.

    –––

    In the small desert town of Joshua Tree, Calif., Victoria Fuller said she worries what might happen if the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians is allowed to open a new off-reservation casino near the entrance to the popular Joshua Tree National Park.

    “They could do anything they want,” said Fuller, the president of the Joshua Tree Community Association and a leading opponent of the plan. “They could put a 20-story building with spotlights on it, and we would have no say.”

    The new push by the tribes is aimed at reviving a $28 billion-a-year industry hit hard by the recession. After growing at a brisk 14 percent annual rate from 1995 to 2007, gaming revenues have essentially stalled out, increasing by only 1 percent a year.

    And it comes as the 240 tribes that run casinos face an onslaught of new competition, from states eager to get a cut of the gaming business with lotteries and new casinos of their own, to poker players who want Congress to legalize online gaming this year. The changes will allow tribes to move into new markets creating competition not only for existing Indian casinos, but also for gambling centers such as Las Vegas and Atlantic City, N.J.

    The move already has ignited a debate over how quickly the U.S. will hit a saturation point with casinos. While polls show broad public support for gambling, some say the tribes are ready to push the envelope.

    “The tribes are going to try to run the table, which means they’re going to try to move as many casinos off-reservation as quickly as possible,” said John Kindt, a gambling researcher and professor of business and legal policy at the University of Illinois. “It’s just all about the money, and the model is very simple: It’s to get as many slot machines as possible as close to maximum-population areas. . . . They’re going to go everywhere.”

    Art Reber, a retired professor from Point Roberts, Wash., and the co-author of “Gambling for Dummies,” said that the market ultimately will determine whether the tribes are overplaying their hands.

    “When you start sticking neon signs and huge casinos at the Joshua Tree entrance, it starts to get a little ugly,” Reber said. “If you overbuild, you will hurt yourself, and I’m not sure the tribes are necessarily sensitive to these market issues. There’s a saturation point here that you can’t go beyond.”

    The epicenter of the battle is in California, one of six states – along with Washington, Florida, Oklahoma, Arizona and Connecticut – that account for more than two-thirds of all Indian gaming revenue.

    The Golden State already has more than 60 Indian casinos, the most in the nation. And when Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California introduced a bill last year that would make it harder for tribes to buy new land for gaming, she said the state could easily have another 50 casinos in coming years if Congress doesn’t stop them. Feinstein warned that another 67 tribes in the state were already seeking federal recognition, the first step toward getting a casino. And she said “the problem is only going to get worse,” with some tribes vying to open new casinos more than 100 miles from their tribal headquarters.

    In many ways, the move marks the coming of age for Indian gaming, which started small with bingo halls in Florida in the late 1970s but then exploded in a way that few envisioned. But experts say it’s just common business sense for tribes to try to go to places where they can woo more gamblers.

    “Just like real estate, it’s all location, location, location,” said Barry Brandon, the former chief of staff for the National Indian Gaming Commission and now a New York-based consultant who works with tribes. An enrolled member of the Muscogee Nation and the former senior president of the Seneca Gaming Corp., he helped the Seneca Nation of Indians open an off-reservation casino in downtown Buffalo, N.Y., which now is being expanded and which tribal officials tout as a national model for urban settings.

    The 1988 law passed by Congress has always allowed off-reservation casinos. But they’re extremely rare, with only a handful approved by the federal government.

    Backers say that dropping the “commutable distance standard” adopted by the Bush administration will lead to more off-reservation casinos and help tribes create more jobs. That, they say, is just as President Ronald Reagan and Congress envisioned when they passed the law allowing tribes to get into the big leagues of gambling.

    But even some tribal officials are leery, worried that off-reservation casinos stray far from the original intent of the law, which they say clearly was aimed at keeping the casinos on reservation land.

    “I think Indian gaming had good intentions – it was intended to help tribes, but there are ways that I think it can be used to get away from what its intentions were. . . . We’ve been worried about off-reservation gaming,” said Chris Mercier, a tribal council member for the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde in Oregon. The tribe has gone to court to try to block its neighboring tribe, the once landless Cowlitz Indian Tribe of Washington state, from opening a casino on a 152-acre site it bought near La Center, Wash.

    Because it still takes years to plow through the bureaucracy to actually open a casino, it’s far too soon to know whether the tribes will experience large-scale success in moving beyond their borders.

    But the early signs are telling.

    In California, gambling opponents say the new approach already has resulted in a flood of new applications for tribes to acquire more property. Casino opponents who are tracking the tribes’ activities said that at least 137 applications from California are pending with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which must sign off on the land transfers before casinos can be built. The bureau would not disclose how many applications it has received in other states or across the country and has yet to respond to a formal request for the data, filed in May by McClatchy under the federal Freedom of Information Act.

    Cheryl Schmit, founder and director of Stand Up For California, a statewide organization that has been leading the fight against more casinos, called the rule change a mistake and said, if allowed to stand, it could result in casinos opening “on every off-ramp.”

    The tribes already have the largest land trust in the nation, at more than 56 million acres. And when the Bureau of Indian Affairs pitched its $2.5 billion budget request to Congress in February, Echo Hawk, who resigned in April to accept a position with the Mormon church, boasted that it had processed 697 applications from 2009 to 2011, acquiring more than 157,000 acres of new trust land for the tribes and individual members.

    Nedra Darling, a spokeswoman for the BIA, said the amount of land held by the Indians actually represents a sharp decline from the 130 million acres they had in 1887. And she said the bulk of the land applications approved for tribes in the past few years have been for agriculture, infrastructure, housing and other projects, with only seven of 781 for gaming purposes, she said.

    Schmit told a House subcommittee last year that tribes can easily change their minds and use their new land for gaming once it is placed into trust, even if they don’t make that clear in their initial applications.

    She said that if the tribes’ new requests for land in California are approved, more than 15,000 acres will be transferred from local jurisdictions and put into federally protected trust land.

    “Some of these are just land grabs by wealthy tribes,” Schmit said, lamenting that the tribes are making their push to expand with little attention from either the press or the public. “It’s huge, but everybody’s kind of been numbed by all the gambling,” she said. “It’s here, but nobody really sees the expansion of it.”

    With the financial stakes so high, the push to expand has ignited growing warfare among the tribes, which are quick to feud over everything from the placement of new casinos to whether smaller tribes that lack casinos will be allowed to enter the fray.

    “Tribes are acting more like states now,” said Kathryn Rand, co-director and a founder of the Institute for the Study of Tribal Gaming Law and Policy at the University of North Dakota.

    She said that there already has been one big change caused by Indian gaming: Tribes can now spend millions on Capitol Hill and in statehouses across the nation to try to get their way. While the tribes did nothing illegal, their money fueled the Jack Abramoff scandal, one of the biggest to hit the nation’s capital in the past decade, in which the super-lobbyist known as “Casino Jack” represented tribes with gambling interests and ended up in prison.

    Since 1990, the Indian gaming industry has made political contributions of nearly $58 million, with 70 percent of the money going to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And the tribes also have been spending heavily on lobbying, more than $20 million in 2011 alone.

    “The thing that makes that remarkable is that 20 years ago it wouldn’t have occurred to anyone that tribes would ever have enough money to have that kind of political influence,” Rand said.

    Schmit and other opponents say the relaxed rules on off-reservation casinos are merely a payoff to the tribes, which have made the president their top recipient of campaign cash in the last two years. Obama was a favorite for the tribes even as a senator from Illinois: Among all senators who have served since 1990, he ranks fourth in contributions, with $259,000, trailing only Democratic Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray of casino-rich Washington state and Hawaii Democratic Sen. Daniel Inouye. In 2011 and 2012, Obama has received $140,500 from Indian gaming interests, more than any other presidential candidate or member of Congress, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group.

    Opponents hope that both the courts and Congress ultimately will slow the tribes’ momentum.

    Last month, the Supreme Court denied a request by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to stop a lawsuit filed by a Michigan man who’s out to shut down the off-reservation Gun Lake Casino in southwestern Michigan. The case is significant because, if it ultimately succeeds, it could force the closing of an off-reservation casino long after it opened.

    With the high court ruling against Salazar in an 8-1 decision on June 18, Schmit said the justices delivered a strong rebuke.

    “The justices didn’t just say no to Secretary of the Interior Salazar’s argument and policy – they said, ‘Hell no!’ . . . The ruling is a game-changer,” said Schmit.

    In Congress, both Feinstein and Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona are pushing bills to clamp down on off-reservation casinos. When she introduced the Tribal Gaming Eligibility Act last year, Feinstein said she wanted to end the practice of “unbridled reservation shopping.” Without congressional action, she warned, “Californians have no power to stop these tribes from opening unwanted casinos in their backyards.”

    Feinstein personally intervened in one of the hottest fights in California, lobbying Salazar to kill the plan to open a casino in Joshua Tree. She has emerged as a powerful ally for casino opponents, serving as a veteran member on the appropriations subcommittee that’s in charge of the budget for the Interior Department and the BIA.

    Fuller cheered Feinstein’s entry into the fray and said there is no shortage of gambling opportunities in Joshua Tree, with seven casinos already operating within an hour of the city. She said the tribes have created “a real ticking time bomb for communities and states.”

    “I don’t think anybody ever envisioned that they would be able to go out and buy land and have casinos everywhere,” she said.

    But Steve Gralla, chief financial officer for the Twenty-Nine Palms Band, said a new casino would create at least 100 new jobs. And he defended Obama’s new policy, saying, “It’s good to have options to continue to create economic development.”

    The tribe has had its share of headaches. In May, a grand jury indicted its attorney in a land-buying scheme that led to bribery and money-laundering charges involving alleged kickbacks to others involved in construction projects. Gralla said the indictment would not affect the tribe’s casino plans, which are still under review.

    “Nothing’s been 100 percent decided, so there’s not much to say, other than we’re still looking at all the different ways to go,” Gralla said.

    Tribes are encountering many roadblocks elsewhere, too.

    In California, a group called the Stop the Casino 101 Coalition has gone to court to try to block the Graton Rancheria tribe from building its off-reservation casino on a 252-acre site in Rohnert Park in Sonoma County. While Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown in March signed a tribal-state gaming compact allowing the tribe to build the casino, the citizens’ coalition said the federal government erred in allowing the land to be placed in trust for the tribe and that Brown had no right to sign the compact.

    In New York, the Shinnecocks’ drive to open a casino has run into a headwind from Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo and many state legislators who are pushing to have the state open casinos of its own.

    And in Washington state, the Spokane Tribe of Indians’ drive to open a casino in Airway Heights, a suburb of Spokane, has encountered opposition from the military, from the neighboring Kalispel Tribe of Indians and from a group called Citizens Against Casino Expansion.

    But even with the new policy change, Brandon, the tribal consultant, said that tribes face a hard fight, noting that “getting land taken into trust off-reservation for gaming is a very, very difficult proposition.” He’s among those who argue that the current system is working and that there’s no need for Congress to get involved. He said the Bush administration “created the chilling effect that just stopped everything dead in its tracks.”

    And with the change by the Obama administration, Brandon said, “You’re really kind of seeing the jam in the pipeline is being cleaned out.”

    Kindt, the University of Illinois business professor who has testified on gambling issues on Capitol Hill, said that the tribes are expanding their operations with “just the illusion of regulation and the illusion of control,” and that Congress definitely needs to intervene. He said the situation is “like throwing gasoline on the fires of recession,” because gamblers are just transferring assets instead of spending their money to help the economy.

    “It’s just out of control,” he said. “And if Congress doesn’t step in quickly, this is going to take our economy further into the quagmire. . . . I wish it would work, but you can’t gamble your way into prosperity.”

    With so many new proposals pending, Rand, with the University of North Dakota’s Institute for the Study of Tribal Gaming Law and Policy, said the tribes run the risk of a public backlash as more casinos move into higher-profile locations. But she said that Indian gaming “is expanding not in a vacuum, but in response to a market.”

    “Part of the reason – and perhaps the biggest reason – that we’ve seen such a rapid expansion in tribal gaming is because Americans love to gamble, and we have a much higher tolerance for legalized gambling than we did even 20 or 30 years ago,” Rand said.

    NEXT: In the second installment of this series, a look at how small tribes are locked out in the casino wars in Washington state, an example of the growing warfare between tribes in the $28 billion-a-year Indian casino industry.

    email:rhotakainen(at)mcclatchydc.com
    Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/05/155126/in-a-new-twist-indian-tribes-are.html#storylink=cpy

     


  • Tribal Water Approved by Congress?

    Tribal Reserved Water Right Settlements

     It takes an act of the  US Congress to make SETTLEMENT/QUANTITY (AC-FT/YR) of reserved water rights with Indian tribes.

     

    SETTLEMENTS APPROVED BY CONGRESS Updated August 2011

     SIGNIFICANT FEATURES OF SETTLEMENT/QUANTITY (AC-FT/YR)

     ——————————————————————

    Indeed,

     

    It takes an act of the  U.S. Congress to make SETTLEMENT/QUANTITY (AC-FT/YR) of reserved water rights with Indian tribes.

     

    In States, the tribes demand quantities of  instream flow water, to be reserved for the fish?

     ON, quantities of Indian Reserved water rights that have not yet been determined or settled, BY AN ACT OF U.S. CONGRESS?

     

     See the attachment for the

    (request an email copy of the attachment phew@wavecable.com)

     

    SIGNIFICANT FEATURES OF SETTLEMENT/QUANTITY (AC-FT/YR)

     

    This is the list of Congressional Acts  of Indian Water Rights Settlements

    1) Ak-Chin Indian Water Rights Settlement Act final 2000

     

     

    (2) Fallon Paiute Shoshone Indian Tribes Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990

     

     

    (3) Fort Hall Indian Water Rights Act of 1990

     

     

    (4) Fort McDowell Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990

     

     

    (5) Jicarilla Apache Tribe Water Settlement Act of 1992

     

     

    (6) Northern Cheyenne Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act of 1992

     

     

     

    (7) Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988

     

     

    (8) San Carlos Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act

     

     

    (9) San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988

     

     

    (10) Seminole Indian Land Claims Settlement Act of 1987

     

     

    (11) Southern Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act

     

     

    (12) Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Act

     

     

     

    (13) Ute Indian Rights Settlement Act of 1992

     

     

    (14) Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 1994

     

     

    (15) Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act of 1999

     

     

    (16) Shivwits Band of the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Water Rights Settlement Act

     

     

    (17) Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000

     

     

    (18) Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2003

     

     

    (19) Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004

     

     

    (20) Snake River Water Rights Act of 2004

     

     

    (21) Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians Settlement Act

     

     

    (22) Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects Act (Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project/Navajo Nation Water Rights)

     

     

    (23) Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley Water Rights Settlement Act

     

     

     (24) Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2010

     

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

     

    Let us climb the ladder of responsibility, to the U.S. Congress for failure to “ACTon Tribe Water Rights Settlements

     

    That has caused  the TRIBES and WA State DOE, to have expensive, taxpayer paid lawsuits,  in the WA State.

     

    AND, as a result of these TRIBES and WA State DOE, expensive, taxpayer paid lawsuits, in WA State? 

     

    Private property owners and farmers, in Skagit County and Clallam County, our citizens,  have been left HIGH AND DRY by the WA State DOE.

     

    Thus,leaving private property owners, citizens, no choice, but to “duke it out”  in court with EXPENSIVE PRIVATE LAWSUITS against the WA State DOE. 

     


  • Everything is too 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?

    ————————————————————————

    A GLARING EXAMPLE OF COMPLICATED

    Behind My Back/Violation of Public Trust

    Jul 1, 2013 – Is the Tribal closure of LAKE QUINAULT A VIOLATION of WA State Public Trust Doctrine?

    This request for information was sent WA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BOB FERGUSON, to Derek Kilmer in WA DC and to our elected Representatives in Olympia.

    I received ONE timely brief  response from WA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BOB FERGUSON

    The response was ? IT’S COMPLICATED.

    How complicated can a violation of the WA State Public Trust Doctrine be?

    ——————————————————————————————

    I have approved a comment from Tom Landreth  on behindmyback.org 

    LAKE QUINAULT CLOSURE
    April 14, 2013
    IMPACT ON CITIZENS AND THE LAKE QUINAULT COMMUNITY

    How complicated can a violation of the WA State Public Trust Doctrine be?

    Please go to my website and read Tom’s comment and questions.

    ——————————————————————————

    Here is part of my running (behindmyback.org) web site, posted dialogue on the Quinault Tribal Closure of Lake Quinault

    DIALOGUE by definition is a formal discussion or negotiation, especially between opposing sides in a political or international context

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/07/violation of public trust

    Jul 1, 2013 – QUINAULT VIOLATION of WA State Public Trust Doctrine? This request for Is the Tribal Closure of Lake Quinault a violation of. WA STATE  PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE?

    This request for information has been sent WA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BOB FERGUSON, to Derek Kilmer in WA DC and to our elected Representatives in Olympia.

    I received ONE timely response from WA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BOB FERGUSON

    The response was ? IT’S COMPLICATED.

    Questions for the Quinault

    posted on July 7, 2013 10:46 am by Pearl Rains Hewett comment

    Quinault tribe QUESTIONS SENT TO Senator Maria Cantwell AND Derek Kilmer.

    (I received a single robo response from Derek Kilmer)

    Dec 13, 2012 – Maria Cantwell (D-WA) will head the Senate Indian Affairs Committee for the 113th Congress.

    In all fairness, I think we need some answers to these and other rumors that are flying

    THE DAILY WORLD 7:30 am – July 06, 2013 — Updated: 7:30 am – July 06, 2013

    http://thedailyworld.com/sections/news/local/cormier-addresses-lake-closure-shrinking-quinault-population-town-hall.html

    Posted  October 24, 2013 – 8:30am

    Cormier addresses lake closure, shrinking Quinault population at town hall

    By Amelia Dickson

    The Daily World

    Lake Quinault closures and the shrinking Quinault community were once again topics of discussion at a town hall meeting hosted by Grays Harbor County Commissioner Wes Cormier on Tuesday.

    The meeting was held at the Lake Quinault Lodge, and about 10 citizens attended to air their grievances.

    “We’ve been attacked on federal, state and tribal issues from all sides,” said Keith Olson, a Quinault resident, of the summer’s Lake Quinault closures and of Olympic National Park.

    “The park damages our community,” he added. “They’ve damaged our valley, they’ve stolen homes, and then there’s the thing about the tribe shutting down the lake.”

    Tom Landreth, a Lake Quinault property owner, expressed his concern for property values on the lake with the Quinault Indian Nation still prohibiting non-tribal fishing and boating. He said his property isn’t worth anything now because no one wants to buy a house on a lake they can’t use.

    “Everyone up here has been impacted and it’s going to take a long time to recover,” Landreth said.

    Cormier, who previously worked as a real estate appraiser for the county, said Landreth’s analysis is probably right — lakeside property values have likely decreased. But he said there’s not much the county can do to help the situation, as the tribe controls lake usage.

    “We don’t have the authority to step on the toes of another government,” Cormier said. “They are a sovereign nation.”

    The commissioner said he and his counterpart, Commissioner Frank Gordon, have been doing what they can to remedy the situation. Gordon met with tribal officials over the summer regarding the lake closures.

    Tribal officials closed the lake to non-tribal fishing in April, and non-tribal swimming and boating in June. They lifted the ban on swimming in early July. Quinault Indian Nation President Fawn Sharp cited pollution as a reason for the closures.

    Dave Christiansen, also a Quinault resident, said the community’s problems started long before the Quinault Indian Nation closed the lake — the population has dwindled over the last decade because of the decline in logging. He served on the school board for several years, and said the school has lost about a third of its population.

    “The school is really suffering,” Christiansen said. “It’s one of our largest employers and we have to lay people off.”

    Christiansen blamed the spotted owl for the community’s problems, and said the state and federal governments should be giving the community more money. He also suggested that the county provide incentives to bring manufacturing to the rural area.

    Cormier said he’s not sure what to do to help the Quinault community, but he’s willing to look at job growth options.

    “I’m lucky enough that I can stay in the same place where my parents lived,” Cormier said. “That’s not something a lot of people can do in this county.”

    This was the first in a series of town hall meetings hosted by Cormier. The next meeting will be held at the Sharon Grange in Porter on Wednesday, Oct. 30, at 6 p.m. The final meeting will be held at the Westport council chambers on Thursday, Nov. 7, at 6:30 p.m.

    – See more at: http://thedailyworld.com/sections/news/local/cormier-addresses-lake-closure-shrinking-quinault-population-town-hall.html#sthash.Y5ukGNGv.dpuf

    ————————————————————————————————-

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

    So if fact the brief response from the WA State Attorney’s office indicated?

    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?

    ————————————————-

    How COMPLICATED is it to get straight answers from our elected representative and appointed agencies?

    Indeed, moving forward we must all add this one size fits all word, COMPLICATED, to our vocabulary, with regard to current government issues.

    The  Wild Olympics Wilderness & Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 2014 (S. 1949; H.R. 3922)

    is COMPLICATED?

    The Endangered Species Act,  SUE AND SETTLE settlements are COMPLICATED?

    The Benghazi attack is COMPLICATED?

    The Affordable care act is COMPLICATED?

    The IRS targeting of non-profits is COMPLICATED?

    The spying on American citizens by NSA is COMPLICATED?

    The EPA unfunded mandates of the Clean Water and Clean Air Act are COMPLICATED?

    ———————————————————————————————————–

    How COMPLICATED has our  United States government become?

    If the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow.

    Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed? So incoherent that they cannot be understood?

    Or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow?

    We were warned long ago in the

    The Federalist Papers 1787-1788

    http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

    The Federalist Papers were written and published during the years 1787 and 1788 in several New York State newspapers to persuade New York voters to ratify the proposed constitution.

    James Madison and others argued that the proposed U.S. Constitution would protect the liberty and property of the citizens from usurpations of power from the federal government.

    Otherwise, he warned The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessings of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their choice

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

    The bottom line

    Everything in our government has become too 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 problems are too difficult to explain?

     


  • Public? Meeting Act

    Email sent to our Federal Representatives concerning and questioning PUBLIC? MEETING’S
    —————————————————-
    Derek, Maria and Patty

    You were ALL invited and did attend this PUBLIC meeting.

    TEN (10) representatives FROM the INDIAN TRIBES were INVITED? to this PUBLIC meeting and TEN (10) representatives FROM the INDIAN TRIBES did attend.

    Did you notice WHAT WAS MISSING? At this by invitation only, PUBLIC MEETING?

    The PUBLIC! YOUR CITIZEN CONSTITUENTS.

    Indeed, there were interested members of the PUBLIC that were not only OMITTED AND EXCLUDED

    THEY WERE NOT EVEN NOTIFIED THAT THE broadband access MEETING PUBLIC WAS GOING TO TAKE PLACE IN FORKS.

    YOUR CONSTITUENTS, the PUBLIC, voters, taxpayer, vested private property owners, were NOTIFIED after the fact, in newspaper reports

    This has become common practice in WRIA 20, THE DRONES are another example,

    YOUR CONSTITUENTS, the PUBLIC, voters, taxpayer, vested private property owners, were NOTIFIED after the fact, in newspaper reports.

    Perhaps the three of you would like to explain to YOUR WRIA 20 CONSTITUENTS, CITIZENS?

    What justification can you give us? for the failure to notify the local CITIZENS in WRIA 20, about the Drones?

    What justification can you give us? for the local CITIZENS in WRIA 20’s exclusion from the Public meeting on the Broadband Access in their area?

    Has the” PUBLIC MEETING INCLUSION” OF THE citizens in WRIA 20 been DOWNGRADED to the point that they don’t even EXIST on the proverbial TOTEM POLE?

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ————————————————————————————————
    SIGN IN SHEET
    Participants Western Olympic Local FORKS Technology Planning Team Kick-off Meeting Sept. 5th 2013

    First Name
    Last Name
    Agency
    Title

    Monica
    Babine
    WSU
    Senior Associate: Program for Digital Initiatives

    Angela
    Bennick
    NoaNet

    Larry
    Burtness
    Quileute Nation
    Planner/ Grant Writer

    Betsy
    Carlson
    WSU Extension
    WOLTPT Project Manager

    Jeff
    Christopher
    PenCon

    Mike
    Cini
    Century Link
    Area Operations Manager

    Sara
    Crumb
    Sen. Cantwell
    State Director

    Mike
    Doherty
    Clallam County
    Commissioner

    Debbie
    Earley
    Clallam County
    IT Director

    Alex
    Fastle
    US Senator Murray
    Kitsap and Olympic Peninsula Director

    Rod
    Fleck
    City of Forks
    City Attorney/planner

    David
    Hanna
    Hoh Tribe
    Public Works Director

    James
    Jamie
    Hoh Indian Tribe
    Executive Director

    Paul
    Johnson
    USDA Rural Development
    Special Projects Representative

    Laura
    Lewis
    WSU Jefferson County Extension
    Director

    Peter
    McMillan
    USDA
    Tel Com

    ??? Susie
    Michels

    Judith
    Morris
    Office of Congressman Derek Kilmer
    Constituent Services Representative

    Ben
    Neff
    Jamestown Sklallam

    Paul
    Pacelli
    Makah Tribe
    IT Specialist for Health clinic

    Lois
    Peterson
    Makah Tribe
    citizen

    Freida
    Ray
    State Broadband Office
    Broadband Outreach and Communications Coordinator

    Patti
    Robinson
    Makah Tribe
    citizen

    Clea
    Rome
    WSU Clallam County Extension
    Director

    Bill
    Schrier
    Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO)

    Doug
    Sellon
    Jamestown Sklallam
    Executive Director, EDA

    ??? Ross
    Skinner

    Scott
    Stevens
    Keenwire
    VP

    Ray “Chic”
    Stout
    Jefferson County 911

    ??? Dave
    Zehrung (OPSCAN?)

    ??? Leonard A.
    Denney (Mgr.Makah Tribe / Neah Bay, WA?)

    Sudha
    Maheshwari
    Sanborn
    General Manager

    Crystal
    Hottome (sp?)
    Makah Tribe

    Michelle
    Parkin
    Makah Tribe

    ??? Brian
    King

    ??? Shawn
    Delphin


  • The DOE Water Mess

    From: Attorney at Law & Government Affairs Bill Clarke
    In short, this is a real mess for Skagit County.
    Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 10:47 AM

    Attached is the Supreme Court’s opinion in the Swinomish v. Ecology case. In this case, Ecology amended the 2001 Skagit Instream Flow Rule in 2006 to create specific reservations of water for exempt-well based development in rural parts of Skagit County. Within this 2006, the original 2001 had no water available for development anywhere in Skagit County that was not served by a public water system. To do so, Ecology relied on its authority under RCW 90.54 to make appropriations of water that conflict with instream flows if such water uses served “overriding considerations of public interest.”

    The Supreme Court ruled that Ecology’s use of its “OCPI” authority was too broad, and thus invalidated the 2006 rule. As usual, the decision has pages of discussion that will be fodder for future water rights issue to come, but the immediate question is how this decision impacts all the homes that were built since 2001 in reliance on the water provided in the 2006 rule amendment. In short, this is a real mess for Skagit County.

    More to come.

    Bill Clarke

    Attorney at Law & Government Affairs

    120 Union Avenue, Suite 225

    Olympia, WA 98501

    (P) 360.943.3301

    www.clarke-law.net