The Supreme Court of the United States on Friday agreed to consider the culvert case appealed by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, heating up the 17-year, high-stakes dispute.
The U.S. Supreme Court has stepped into Washington’s culvert case, accepting it for review and heating up a 17-year legal battle over the state’s duty to protect and restore salmon habitat as part of its obligation to respect tribes’ treaty fishing rights.
The case, Washington v. U.S. et al., initially was filed by 21 Washington tribes with treaty-protected fishing rights in 2001. At issue is the state’s obligation to repair road culverts that block salmon from their spawning habitat.
Culverts that are too small, or pitched too high above the stream bed, or in other ways are unsuitable for fish passage destroy miles of habitat above the culvert. That depletes fish runs that tribes rely on and are entitled to by treaties.
In signing treaties with the U.S. government that in the 1850s ceded millions of acres of tribal lands for non-Indian settlement, tribes reserved their right to fish at their usual and accustomed places. That right to fish was affirmed in 1974 by U.S. District Court Judge for the Western District George Boldt. That decision, later upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, also divided the catch between tribal and nontribal fishers and established tribes as co-managers of salmon with the state of Washington.
Most Read Local Stories
- It's austere and uncomfortable. That's precisely the reason the 'Portland Loo' is finding a home in King County VIEW
- Bellevue High student sues district after he was disciplined for questioning debate club election
- Northwest-based ATF supervisor with Nazi tattoo discriminated against black agent, lawsuit claims
- Life after deportation: A family with roots in the Seattle region starts over in Mexico VIEW
- Fall is here — and this week's Seattle weather will certainly feel like it
The culvert case is an extension of that decision, in which tribes have argued that their reserved treaty right is meaningless if habitat that sustains fish runs is allowed to degrade until there are no fish to catch. Courts have agreed.
In 2007, U.S. District Court Judge for the Western District Ricardo Martinez ruled the tribal treaty right to harvest salmon includes the right to have salmon protected so there are enough to harvest, and in 2013 the judge issued an injunction establishing a repair schedule.
The court gave the state 17 years to reopen about 450 of its 800 culverts that pose the biggest barrier to fish in Western Washington.
Meanwhile, culvert repair has continued under the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Natural Resources, and state parks.
The Washington Department of Transportation, with the most culverts to repair, has committed additional funding to the repairs, which it has continued to make as it does road projects all over the region.
Tribes and the state have been in negotiations to settle the case but in a news release issued Friday, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said discussion so far did not resolve his concern that the 9th Circuit decision is overbroad and could be used by tribes to insist on other steps, such as dam removal or curtailment of logging, farming or construction that affects fish habitat.
“We have worked hard to reach a resolution in this case outside of court,” Ferguson said. “To that end, I have personally met with tribal leaders three times in an effort to reach agreement. While we made progress, we have not reached a mutually acceptable resolution.
“Now that the Supreme Court has accepted review of the case, I hope that all 21 tribal governments will agree on a proposal that recognizes the State’s serious concerns with the 9th Circuit ruling and allows us to continue our conversations.
“If we cannot reach a resolution, I have a duty on behalf of the taxpayers of Washington state to present our case to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Tribes stated in a news release Friday they are confident their treaty fishing rights will once again be upheld.
“The culvert case brings a rare opportunity to achieve a net gain in habitat that salmon desperately need,” Lorraine Loomis, chair of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, said in a prepared statement.
The tribes criticized the state’s decision to continue to fight the mandates of multiple courts.
“Instead of continuing to appeal the culvert case, tribes believe the state should use the momentum it has gained over the past four years to finish the job of fixing fish-blocking culverts and focus on our shared goal of salmon recovery,” Loomis said in a news release issued by the commission Friday.
The Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribal Council on Friday also issued a statement calling for the state to cooperatively resolve the issues of the case in a settlement, rather than placing the decision in the hands of the Supreme Court.
Allowing the case to stand as precedent provides the assurance of the treaties as an enduring environmental safeguard as more and more people flood the region, the council said.
“As we all contemplate the future of this state please bear in mind that the need may arise in the future to call upon the tribes of this state to invoke their treaties as the last and greatest protection of the unique character of this region against degradation.”