Lummi Nation asks for meaningful action on Nooksack water rights issues
Though I welcome this opportunity to reply to the recent op-ed opposing the adjudication of water rights in the Nooksack, it is with great frustration and disappointment that I do so. We need rapid, meaningful action in the Nooksack River basin to protect and restore the natural resources upon which the Lummi People and all members of our community rely. We need to ensure there is enough cold, clean water in streams for salmon to survive and thrive. We need to keep illness-causing bacteria out of our waterways, so shellfish are safe to eat. We are failing on both fronts.
There is a solution in sight: adjudication. A general stream adjudication is an inventory of water rights. Can you imagine managing your household budget when you don’t know how much money you have in the bank? It sounds chaotic and irresponsible, but that is the state of water rights in the Nooksack River basin. We do not know how much water is being used, how much is available, and we do not know who has a legal right to the water that is being used. We cannot manage our shared water resources without this critical information.
The Lummi Nation and the Nooksack Indian Tribe petitioned the state Department of Ecology for an adjudication of the Nooksack. This comes after years of asking Ecology to enforce water law, but to little avail. A major reason Ecology can’t enforce the law is because there is no inventory of water rights. For years, we’ve watched a small number of farmers without water rights use water during the dry summer months, when fish need it most. For years, we’ve stood by while salmon stocks decline. For years, we have attempted to solve water resources problems through negotiations alone — and it’s not working. We have reached the point where we cannot standby any longer, we need action.
It is true that in January of 2017 several farmers and Lummi Nation entered the Portage Bay Partnership. Regrettably, this partnership is not a model of cooperation or a viable approach to addressing water rights conflict in the Nooksack basin. The partnership is an example of failed negotiations to the detriment of the Lummi people and our treaty-protected resources. The partnership envisioned a process whereby experts retained by the Lummi Nation and experts hired by the dairy farmers would visit dairy operations and collaboratively identify improvements to manure management that would result in improvements to water quality. Put simply, the partnership aimed to keep more of the manure out of the water, thereby lowering the amount of fecal coliform polluting our shellfish beds located in Portage Bay. To this day, the dairy farmers have not allowed our experts onto their fields. To this day, we are not aware of any on-the-ground changes to the ways in which they manage the mountains of manure generated by their cows. To this day, the Lummi people are seasonally unable to harvest shellfish in 820-acres of Portage Bay. Today, as I write this, our shellfish beds are closed.
To be clear, the Lummi Nation supports negotiated settlement options, but these negotiations must occur within the context of the adjudication. Without the legal framework provided by the adjudication, those who benefit from maintenance of the status quo will walk away from the negotiations once discussions turns toward action. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised, those who are most opposed to the adjudication are the ones that benefit most by not following the law; those supporting the adjudication are the ones suffering the most. It is unconscionable to allow those that benefit from taking what does not belong to them to continue to do so simply because they prefer to get something for nothing. We need action now that is lawful, that is fair, and that is right — that is why we need an adjudication.