Watching Our Water Ways

I used to feel happy for teenagers who got together on a weekend to wash cars and raise money for a good cause. I would often take time to drive in, get my car washed and praise the teens for their efforts. And I would give them a nice tip.

Now, when I see a charity carwash, I just want to know where the water is going. If the water is washing into a storm drain that spills into a stream, I can’t help but wonder if these kids care about fish and wildlife, or if they might not have gotten the message about the harm caused by dirty, soapy water.

You may wish to read the story I wrote on this topic in last Saturday’s Kitsap Sun.

Sometimes, being an environmental reporter causes one to think a little too much about the environment. Sure, carwashes probably are not going to kill everything in sight. But they are just another insult from a human society that has not yet learned how to protect the living Earth.

The federal Clean Water Act of 1972 declared that it was illegal to discharge polluted water into any natural stream or waterway. At the time, industrial discharges were so severe that soap and heavy metals from carwashes were insignificant. But now, after 40 years, those industrial point sources are greatly diminished, and researchers are learning that the greatest threat to water quality today comes from thousands of small sources.

Gov. Jay Inslee has declared this month “Puget Sound Starts Here Month,” according to a press release issued by the Puget Sound Partnership. The idea is for each of us to pay attention to how we affect Puget Sound.

Here’s the message from Marc Daily, the partnership’s interim executive director:

“It’s not just about the pipe coming out of the factory anymore. Today, stormwater runoff is the single largest contributor to our water quality problems. That pollution comes from our cars and how we wash them, from the chemicals we put on our lawns, and from not picking up after our pets. When it rains, bacteria and toxic chemicals from these and other sources end up in our local waterways. That’s a problem.”

From King County Water and Land Resources

One way to keep charity car washes alive is to capture the wash water and direct it into a toilet or sink that connects to a municipal sewer system, not a septic system. King County provides instructions for making and using a carwash kit to handle the water.

People can also sell tickets to commercial carwashes, which is the method being pushed by most water-quality programs across the nation. It’s not just here that carwashes are getting increasing attention.

How much harm do they cause? It varies from place to place, but some students from Central Kitsap High School calculated the amount of various chemicals produced by capturing the water from washing cars and conducting lab tests on some of the pollutants. See “Characterization of Runoff from Charity Carwashes in the Dyes Inlet Watershed” (PDF 475 kb).

Like many people, I feel a tinge of sadness that carwashes will probably die out. Like many harmful traditions, such as burning garbage and smoking, it might be time to give this one up.

Still, if you want to operate a weekend car wash, get yourself a carwash kit to deal with the wash water. Then stand on the corner and wave signs promoting the fact that this is a clean and safe carwash that protects the environment. If I see you, I’ll even stop and donate to the cause.

Share on Facebook

The long-, long-, long-awaited court ruling in the so-called culvert case has finally been issued. The bottom line is that the Washington Department of Transportation has been given 17 years to upgrade all state culverts to accepted standards to allow fish passage.

That’s basically what 21 Western Washington tribes asked for when they proposed a court order three years ago. Actually, the tribes asked for 20 years, but Judge Ricardo Martinez subtracted the three years that they waited for a final decision in the case, first filed in 2001. See my latest story in Saturday’s Kitsap Sun, or review the history in an article published in January.

How much effect this case will have on the state budget is hard to say. The state will likely appeal, because there’s so much at stake — including the tribes’ authority to affect how the state spends its money. As I see it, under Martinez’ ruling, treaty obligations are not much different than the constitutional obligations the state has to provide “basic education.” And we all have seen how the governor and Legislature are looking under rocks to find money for that purpose.

One estimate of the cost of fixing all the culverts is $1.9 billion, but that’s assuming the state has a complete inventory. It could be more. Martinez wants to see a complete inventory within six months. People concerned about salmon will probably make sure their least-favorite state culverts are on the list.

The latest “Fish Passage Barrier Inventory” (PDF 5 mb), completed last July, identifies about 1,500 culverts that block significant upstream habitat. That inventory and other information can be found on WDOT’s website “Fish Passage.”

If you’d like to read Martinez’ ruling — which includes information on the treaties, salmon habitat needs and culvert history — download the decision (PDF 111 kb) here and the injunction (PDF 45 kb) here.

Through all these years, WDOT has not been ignoring the problem. As I have reported, the state has been upgrading culverts while doing major road repairs and also increasing the budget for stand-alone culvert replacement.

But at the current pace, it could take between 50 and 75 years to get all the work done, maybe more. These are just guesses provided to me, based on the average cost of repairs, but every culvert is different.

Near the upper end of the scale, replacement of a culvert that carries Chico Creek under Highway 3 is estimated to cost between $20 million and $30 million alone. The project will require several bridges for the four-lane freeway north of Bremerton plus on- and off- ramps in that location.

State officials are very aware of this Chico Creek culvert, which lies at the mouth of what has been called the Kitsap Peninsula’s most productive salmon stream. Salmon are getting through the culvert, but it’s a struggle. The culvert is considered a high priority by all, but replacement will probably take a special appropriation from Congress or the Legislature, or both.

As I watch our state highways deteriorate, I keep thinking back to the 1960s and early ‘70s when Washington had some of the best roads in the country. It was a pleasure to drive back then, if my memory isn’t faulty. Although money is needed to repair roads today, I think a good argument can be made that salmon were here first and should have been considered when the roads were built. Failing that, many people consider it essential to make things right now.

I should point out that the ruling does not immediately affect county roads or other projects that block the passage of salmon or affect salmon habitat. However, for better or worse, the legal principles established by the 1974 Boldt decision and reinforced by this culvert case could open the door to other types of court-ordered repairs to salmon habitat.

Share on Facebook

UPDATE, March 13, 2013, 8 p.m.
Some people have asked me about spending for salmon in Nevada, as Sen. McCain mentions in his news release about wasteful spending. While it is true that Nevada became eligible for funding in 2009 (based on the understanding that salmon once migrated to the area in pre-settlement times), I can’t find anything that says Nevada has ever gotten any salmon money. Check out the graph I’ve posted at the bottom of this page, or download “Report to Congress: Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, 2000-2010.”
—–

U.S. Sen. John McCain has thrown together a list of “egregious pork-barrel projects” found in the Democrats’ proposed spending bill to avoid a government shutdown. To my surprise, his list is topped by funding to restore Northwest salmon runs.

In a news release, McCain said he couldn’t understand why such funding wasn’t cut from the proposed continuing resolution to fund the government until the end of the fiscal year.

The news release says salmon restoration was a program “that even President Obama mocked in his 2011 State of the Union address.”

Of course, those of us who live in salmon country know that Obama has always supported salmon restoration. The president’s budgets always include dollars for salmon, though the levels of funding were often bolstered by former Rep. Norm Dicks of Belfair with the support of other Northwest delegates to Congress.

It is true that Obama joked about redundancies in the administration of natural resources. He found it funny that one agency administers salmon when they are in freshwater and another administers salmon when they are in saltwater. His joke was a little off-base, as I pointed out at the time, but he was making a serious point about duplication in government. See Water Ways, Jan. 25, 2011. He was not, however, speaking about the value of salmon restoration.

While listening to the radio this morning, I was kind of shocked to hear McCain scoffing about spending money for salmon recovery. I understand the desire to cut the federal budget, but I’m more accustomed to hearing people talk about the need to find more money for ecosystem restoration in the face of severe budget problems.

If you recall, one of the greatest disappointments of former Gov. Chris Gregoire was that she couldn’t find more money to fund Puget Sound recovery during the ongoing budget crisis. Here’s what she told me before she left office:

“I think we have held our own and made some improvement, but not the improvement we should have. We have to kick it up. The population continues to grow. We’re going to have to kick it up or we are going to lose ground. I’m not proud of the fact that we are kind of treading water right now.” (See Water Ways Jan. 30, 2013.)

Gregoire and others have talked about some kind of permanent funding source, something they call a “flush tax” in the Chesapeake Bay area. And we know that funding to restore salmon is coordinated with the effort to avoid ecological collapse in Puget Sound and throughout the Northwest.

I understand that McCain has no stake in what happens to our Northwest salmon, and I would not be surprised if he wanted to cut this money. But how can he consider the effort to save salmon from extinction to be a total waste, worse than military projects that even the military does not want?

John Bennett of “Defense News” has more to say about this topic (along with an overload of puns) in his blog “Intercepts.”

Share on Facebook

Changes are coming rapidly to the Elwha River, as massive amounts of sediment shift around in the river channel and flow out into the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

Phoebe Tyson, a Student Conservation Association intern, joins in planting efforts in the former Lake Mills to help restore a natural forest. / Photo courtesy of Olympic National Park

Over the past few months, researchers have documented the formation of new beaches and the growth of the delta at the mouth of the Elwha. I described these latest changes in a story in Sunday’s Kitsap Sun.

The new information came out of an annual workshop of the Elwha Nearshore Consortium, which has a special interest in the river, especially its effects on the coastal reaches along the strait.

It’s exciting to hear about the transformation of the river, and I would like to congratulate the scientists for the monitoring work that allows us to talk about “before” and “after” dam removal — although the “after” part will be an ongoing story for decades. Many research organizations are involved in the Elwha, and I hope their funding holds out to tell a more complete story from a scientific perspective.

Meanwhile, many writers, photographers and videographers are telling their own stories about the restoration in various ways, and new books and documentaries are on the way. I’ve talked about some of these in the past and will continue to do so as new works are released.

The human connections to the river, particularly those of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, have been widely recognized as an integral part of the restoration story. Many Klallam elders have been gracious in sharing their culture and traditions.

Although the Elwha Dam removal is far from the only restoration effort taking place in Western Washington, it may be the one place where nature is working at an extraordinary pace to put things back the way they were.

Share on Facebook

UPDATE, Feb. 11, 2013

It appears K pod made it back to California, reaching as far south as Cape Mendocino before turning around yesterday. The map posted on Orca Network’s Facebook page by Robin Baird is from yesterday. Recall that the transmitter is now sending data every other day.
—–

K pod has been moving up and down the Washington and Oregon coasts — and once ventured into California waters — since K-25 was tagged with a satellite transmitter on Dec. 29. The transmitter is still sending out data, though the transmissions have been reduced to every other day to extend the battery life.

The latest movement of K pod was a quick trip from the Ozette area on the North Olympic Coast on Monday to an area near Coos Bay, Ore., this morning.

“They kind of bolted,” Brad Hanson, a researcher with the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, told me, as he considered how quickly the whales have been moving on occasion.

K pod has moved quickly down the Washington coast into Oregon over the past few days. (Click to enlarge.) / NOAA map

Brad said he and other researchers are learning a great deal from the tagging study, and more will be known when the data can be studied and compared with acoustic recordings of whale calls picked up on hydrophones up and down the coast.

“We are really excited about it,” Brad said of the tracking study. “It cracks the door open on what these guys are up to.”

While traveling from Washington to Oregon and sometimes into California, K pod has been slowing and even pausing at times.

It may be too early to call out any patterns, he said, but it is interesting to compare the travels of K pod — a resident, fish-eating group — with the travels of transient orcas, which hunt marine mammals.

“When the whales (K pod) came up the Oregon Coast, they went to the south side of the Astoria canyon and stayed along the canyon contour,” Hanson said. “That’s much like what we have observed with transients.”

For the tracks of K pod, as shown by satellite data, go to a special webpage set up by the Northwest Fisheries Science Center.

So far, K pod has not left the continental shelf for the deeper ocean since the study started at the end of December. That’s consistent with what researchers have suspected for the resident pods. While recent data on the movement of adult chinook salmon are sparse, it is believed that many, if not most, of the stocks stay on the continental shelf, he said.

It’s often said that the only thing predictable about killer whales is that they will surprise you with their unpredictability. The K pod orcas have been living up to that reputation during their recent travels.

Brad says facetiously that if he could talk to the whales for just 10 minutes he would ask them two simple questions: 1) Who decides when you turn around, and 2) What factors go into that decision.

Here’s a recap of their movements since the tracking experiment began with the tagging of K-25 on Dec. 29:

In the first 10 days, the whales traveled from South Kitsap down to Eureka, Calif., where they stayed a short time before moving on south to an area just north of Point Reyes National Seashore north of San Francisco on Jan. 11.

The pod turned around at Point Reyes and continued rapidly north to a coastal area near Port Orford, Ore., where they lingered a bit, making several passes north and south.

The whales moved on north to the Columbia River and veered offshore, following the edge of the continental shelf until they were offshore of Queets, where they moved back toward shore. On Jan. 22, as the whales approached the Strait of Juan de Fuca, they headed offshore before turning around and heading into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. They made it to the end of the Juan de Fuca canyon, short of Port Angeles, on Jan. 23 and then turned around again.

Three days later, the whales were back down around the Columbia River, where they slowed their travels, moving north and south, and then headed farther south. They may have reached Newport, Ore., last Thursday, Jan. 31, when they turned and headed north again.

On Monday, the whales traveled along the edge of the continental shelf before heading closer to shore in the Ozette area of the Washington Coast. Since then, they have traveled back down the coast, where they were last reported about 15 miles southwest of the Columbia River on Wednesday morning and near Coos Bay this morning.

Share on Facebook

It was great to see more than 100 people turn out Satuday to remove weeds at Salmon Viewing Park on Chico Way. Check out my story in Sunday’s Kitsap Sun.

Dan Mullen and his daughter Hailey, 7, remove brush last Saturday along Chico Creek in Salmon Viewing Park.
Kitsap Sun photo by Larry Steagall

Some people came out to do a little volunteer work and get some exercise. Others had a special connection to this undeveloped park property on Chico Creek. And others wanted to get in on the ground floor of an effort to transform this overgrown property into a splendid park.

It is too early to say how this park will look a few years from now, but most everyone wants to keep it natural. Trails, interpretive signs, a couple viewing platforms and some picnic tables are being considered. I discussed the plans briefly in a story on Jan. 27.

Did I mention that this park is one of the best places to view salmon on the Kitsap Peninsula? I list it prominently on my salmon-viewing map and encourage people to visit this spot throughout the salmon-spawning season.

The old culvert under Golf Club Road.

One thing being discussed at Saturday’s outing was the likelihood that a corner of this park would be needed for a new bridge to replace a culvert under Golf Club Road. The culvert, which impedes the migration of adult salmon, serves the only road that goes up to Kitsap Golf and Country Club. The county will save money by building the new bridge before taking out the old culvert.

Planners tried hard to avoid construction of a bridge altogether. One idea was to build a road that connects with Chico Way on the south side of the Chico Way bridge. Such a road would eliminate the need for Golf Club Road and allow the culvert to be removed. But planners could not find a route for a new road that would work for local residents and not do extensive damage to wetlands in the creek’s floodplain.

The new bridge will cut off a corner of Salmon Viewing Park.

Losing a portion of the park to build a new bridge sounded like a bad thing until I talked to Steve Heacock of the Kitsap County Department of Community Development. Steve told me that planners are working on a design that would allow a trail to be built from Salmon Viewing Park under the new bridge, providing access to a salmon viewing area on the north side.

Furthermore, the bridge itself could include a viewing platform to watch salmon from above.

To span the creek, designers have proposed an arch design using precast concrete pieces that span the creek with extra room for the stream to alter its channel and overflow into its floodplain, Steve told me. The arch design, called BEBO by the company that holds the trademark, is expected to keep the cost of the new bridge within reason. County officials are seeking grants to complete the design of the bridge and move on to construction.

The artist rendering below is just one idea provided by the engineers who did the preliminary design. The plan could be altered for a more natural look.

One possibility for the new bridge over Chico Creek on Golf Club Road.

Share on Facebook

If you missed Orca Network’s “Ways of Whales Workshop” on Jan. 26, you can still learn a lot from the videos recorded at the workshop on Whidbey Island.

Toxic chemicals in the environment constitute one of the great threats to killer whales, which are among the most polluted animals in the world. Toxicologist Peter Ross of Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans always does a great job in explaining the problem in simple terms and putting the issue into its full context.

Peter’s talk, shown in the video on this page, includes current topics, such as oil transport into the Salish Sea and other potential toxic threats. He provides a good history and background on the topic up until 30 minutes into his talk, when he begins to focus strongly on the issue of toxic chemicals and ways to address the problem.

The video cuts off at about 52 minutes, but Peter’s talk continues in a second video. Here’s the YouTube link to Part 2.

The other presentations at the “Ways of Whales Workshop” contain a ton of interesting information. Orca Network has been generous to post links to each of the talks on a single page on the Orca Network website.

Share on Facebook

Stormwater runoff from highways has been found to contain one or more toxic compounds that can bring on sudden death in coho and possibly other salmon as well.

Researchers Kate Macneale (left) and Julann Spromberg place a coho salmon into a tub of stormwater at Grover’s Creek Hatchery. Their studies have revealed that urban stormwater can kill coho before they are able to spawn.
Photo: Tiffany Royal/Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

Researchers from NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center first noticed the problem in Seattle’s Longfellow Creek, which gets a high volume of stormwater when it rains. Returning adult coho were dying in the stream before they could spawn.

The problem was confirmed last fall at Grover’s Creek Hatchery in North Kitsap, where coho were placed into tanks containing highway runoff. Even after days of rain, the runoff was deadly, causing the fish to become disoriented and die within hours. This was not a disease process but a severe physiological disruption of the salmon’s metabolism.

On Monday, I reported on these dramatic new findings made by Nat Scholz and his colleagues at NOAA. Since then, the story was picked up by the Associated Press and has appeared in dozens of publications and news digests across the country.

I won’t go into detail about the study here, because most of what I know is the story. See Kitsap Sun, Jan. 21. Toward the end, I describe some actions that Kitsap County officials are taking to keep highway dirt and debris from getting into local streams, even before the deadly compounds are identified.

I’ll continue to follow this story as scientists try to narrow down the list of possible toxic compounds that are causing the problem. The next step will be to take clues from tissues removed from the dying salmon at Grover’s Creek Hatchery.

Naturally, these new findings raise many questions about how the unknown chemicals affect the fish so rapidly and where these compounds come from. Could it be from automobile tires or exhaust, or could it be something in the road material itself? Are certain chemicals acting synergistically to heighten the problem? Answering these questions could make a significant difference for urban streams and possibly for rural streams as well.

Personally, I can’t help wondering about the salmon that survive. It’s not easy to find a coho stream where highway runoff does not contribute something to the flow. If these compounds can kill a fish in concentrations found in stormwater, what are they doing to fish exposed to lower concentrations? Are the salmon that survive as successful in finding a mate and conducting their spawning rituals as salmon not exposed at all?

I’m not sure where this line of research will lead, but the early implications appear to be quite serious. On an optimistic note, if the compounds can be identified, Washington state has a reputation for reducing or eliminating toxic chemicals at the source.

Share on Facebook

The little streams and tributaries on the Kitsap Peninsula and elsewhere in Puget Sound are destined for special attention under a proposal to designate critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead. See my story in today’s Kitsap Sun.

Acoustic tags help researchers track the movement of steelhead in Puget Sound.
Kitsap Sun file photo

When it comes to endangered and threatened species, most of the attention has been given to Puget Sound chinook, which migrate to the larger rivers and often spawn in mainstem waters and larger tributaries.

As a reporter, I’ve also paid attention through the years to Hood Canal summer chum, which come into the streams along Hood Canal in the late summer and early fall. They generally spawn in the lower part of the streams, because water has not yet arrived to fill upstream tributaries.

Steelhead are an entirely different kind of fish, coming into our local streams in the winter months and swimming upstream as far as they can go. Steelhead may not die after spawning, so they can repeatedly return to spawn again and again.

With adequate rains, there is almost no place on the Kitsap Peninsula where steelhead cannot go. In that respect, they are similar to coho salmon, a fall spawner that remains on the borderline for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Many biologists tell me that protections for steelhead will go a long way to protecting our depressed coho runs as well.

What is needed more than anything is more research on the ecological values of the smaller streams on the Kitsap Peninsula and South Sound region. Where have steelhead been found historically, and what can we do to improve the habitat for them?

On the positive side, it is often easier to fix the smaller streams. Culverts can be replaced, side channels created and streamside vegetation planted, all at less cost than on our major rivers.

On the other hand, given our tight state and federal budgets, we are not likely to see more money for salmon and steelhead restoration. We’ll probably have to spread the existing dollars further. In fact, I’ve been told that some people in chinook territory have tried to slow down the steelhead-recovery effort, because it will mean less money for chinook recovery. And they may have been successful.

Puget Sound steelhead were listed as “threatened” nearly five years ago. The Endangered Species Act calls for designating critical habitat within one year of the listing, but NOAA concluded that the designation was “not determinable” at that time. Now, more information is available, the agency says.

Elsewhere, five populations of West Coast steelhead were listed as “threatened” in August 1997, and four others were listed in March 1998. Critical habitat for all nine listed species of steelhead was proposed in February 1999 and completed a year later. (Their status was later reconsidered, which led to the official listing date actually coming after designation of critical habitat.) As a result of a lawsuit, the court scheduled the deadlines for those steelhead.

Biologists are now working on a recovery plan for Puget Sound steelhead in consultation with local governments throughout the region. The ESA does not provide a firm deadline for approving a recovery plan, although federal agencies attempt to get them done within a few years after listing.

More information can be found on the website “Critical Habitat for Lower Columbia River Coho & Puget Sound Steelhead.”

Share on Facebook

It’s been 12 years since we started talking about highway culverts and the potential for Indian treaties to significantly affect the state’s budget. It’s possible that the Legislature could soon face a new budget problem.

An old culvert on Johnson Creek carries water under Viking Way, a former state highway near Poulsbo.
Kitsap Sun file photo

I revived the long-running court story in Sunday’s Kitsap Sun, where I reported that a legal assistant in U.S. District Court suggested that the presiding judge could issue a ruling in the early part of this year.

If you’ve been around the Northwest for long, you probably know that the landmark Boldt decision upheld the right of tribal members to fish “in common with” other citizens of the region. Boldt’s decision, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, held that the fairest way to share the limited fishery resource was to apportion the harvest equally between tribal and nontribal fishers.

The ruling was later extended to shellfish, so now state and tribal managers work in concert to establish seasons for fish and shellfish, as they have for years.

But Boldt said something else in his ruling that has far greater implications in today’s modern world. The federal judge said the state has a duty to protect the natural resources within its borders, so that fishing rights protected by the treaties would have true value for the future.

The extent to which treaties may be used to protect the environment has never been tested. But the so-called culvert case, filed in 2001, was a first step in this direction.

From the beginning, the importance of the culvert case was recognized by both sides. In a joint statement issued at the time of the legal filing, Gov. Gary Locke and Attorney General Chris Gregoire said the case could have impacts far beyond the issue of culverts:

“A favorable ruling for the tribes could impose a duty that may affect other public roadways, public facilities and lands, and even the regulation of land-use and water. We don’t believe the treaties were intended to displace the state’s authority to plan, schedule and carry out culvert repairs and replacements or any other such natural resource management or regulatory action.”

It’s interesting now to read a story I wrote in January of 2001 to see the fears expressed by state officials at that time.

The state eventually lost the case, and the feared “duty” was confirmed by U.S. District Judge Ricardo Martinez. He ruled that the treaties require the state to “refrain from building or operating culverts under state-maintained roads that hinder fish passage and thereby diminish the number of fish that would otherwise be available for tribal harvest.”

The state and tribes entered into negotiations, but they were unable to come to terms on a time schedule for fixing the culverts. Other issues surrounded construction standards to ensure that the culverts were of adequate size and design for the affected streams.

After two years, the tribes decided to give up on negotiations and go back to court so that the judge could impose deadlines for culvert replacement.

At that time, Jeff Koenings, former director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, testified that spending much more money on culverts could take away from more important restoration efforts. (Tim Klass, reporter for the Associated Press, covered the hearing while I was on vacation.)

The last oral arguments were heard in June of 2010, and no ruling has ever been issued.

I’ll post links to past stories and blog entries below if you’d like to review the history of the culvert case. But it’s important to consider that if the duty on the state is upheld, federal courts could order the state to spend millions of dollars more to address the culvert problem.

But why would things end there? The same duty would apply to culverts owned by city and county governments and probably private property owners. The same duty could have implications for all forms of development throughout salmon country.

I know that treaty rights do not sit well with some people. Every time I write anything about rights retained by the tribes for more than 150 years, my stories collect reader comments about how this treaty thing is unfair and does not comport with the American Way. I get the feeling that some people wish treaty rights would just go away or that somehow our state and local officials would simply ignore the tribes.

Well, I can’t say that such change is likely, given the position of our legal institutions, but there are two ways to make the issue go away. First, the courts could reverse their stance by placing certain limits on treaty rights.

Second, Congress could abrogate the treaties or simply pass new laws ignoring them. But throughout history such attempts have rarely been successful, because lawmakers are reminded that the treaties were signed with the full faith and obligation of the United States. Though the treaties were signed in another era, Congress has maintained its obligation to a greater or lesser extent through all these years.

Personally, I wish people would keep these issues in mind when they write their comments, for their words can be hurtful. After all, Native American people alive today are no more responsible for the agreements made long-ago than any of us. As with any group, some members have abused their rights and privileges — and we can discuss those issues. But tribal members as a whole should never be blamed for simply exercising their rights.

Previous stories regarding the culvert case:

Culvert case remains unresolved after three years, Jan. 5, 2013

Tribes Ask Judge to Speed Up Repair of State’s Culverts, AP, Oct. 13, 2009

Salmon and Culverts at Heart of Legal Battle Between Tribes, Washington State, March 21,2009

Salmon Ruling Has State Pondering Highway Culverts, Aug. 27, 2007

Tribes file lawsuit to force a culvert operation, Jan. 18, 2001

Watching Our Water Ways entries

Culvert case about treaty rights could be a new landmark, Oct. 20, 2009

Fixing culverts is the next state-tribal legal battle, March 23, 2009

Share on Facebook