U.S. v. State of Wash.

Decision Date25 September 1998
Docket Number96-35142,96-35200,No. CV-89-00003-ER,96-35082,No. 96-35082,96-35223,96-35196,Nos. 96-35014,CV-89-00003-ER,s. 96-35014
Citation157 F.3d 630
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
Parties98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7417, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,299 UNITED STATES of America; Muckleshoot Tribe; Nooksack; Upper Skagit; Squaxin Island; Lummi Indian Tribe; Makah Tribe; Tulalip Tribe; Swinomish Indian Tribal Community; Quileute Indian Tribe; Puyallup Tribe; Hoh Indian Tribe; Suquamish Tribe; Quinault Indian Nation; Confederated Tribes & Bands Of The Yakima Indian Nation; Nisqually Indian Tribe; Jamestown Tribe; Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe; Port Gamble Bands; Skokoish Tribe; Sauk-suiattle Tribe; Stillaguamish Tribe, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America; Muckleshoot Tribe; Nooksack; Upper Skagit; Squaxin Island; Lummi Indian Tribe; Makah Tribe; Tulalip Tribe; Swinomish Indian Tribal Community; Puyallup Tribe; Quileute Indian Tribe; Suquamish Tribe; Hoh Indian Tribe; Quinault Indian Nation; Confederated Tribes & Bands Of The Yakima Indian Nation; Nisqually Indian Tribe; Jamestown Tribe; Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe; Port Gamble Bands; Skokoish Tribe; Sauk-suiattle Tribe; Stillaguamish Tribe, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants, and 26 Upland And Tideland Private Property Owners, (Dan Buehler, Robert L. Davis, Bruce I. Fielding, Arthur J. Gerdes, Joe Hoots, Keith C. Huetson, Commander J.C. James, Richard Sayre Koch, Elaine C. Lefler, Joan Lemonds-Roush, John S. Lewis, Steven L.D.C.Luke, Edward R. McMillan, Robert F. Newman, Mark A. Nysether, Arthur I. Price, Ray D. Randall, Cynthia Ramussen, Robert G. Shanks, Axel Strakeljahn, Leana Tracy, Stuart W. Turner, George B. Usnick, Lee S. Vincent, Joan Walker and William E. Whitney, Jr.), Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants. UNITED STATES of America, et al.,; Muckleshoot Tribe; Nooksack; Upper Skagit; Squaxin Island; Lummi Indian Tribe; Makah Tribe; Tulalip Tribe; Swinomish Indian Tribal Community; Puyallup Tribe; Quileute Indian Tribe; Suquamish Tribe; Hoh Indian Tribe; Quinault Indian Nation; Confederated Tribes & Bands Of The Yakima India

Howard M. Goodfriend (Argued) and Malcolm L. Edwards, Edwards, Sieh, Hathaway, Smith & Goodfriend, Seattle, WA, for Private Owners.

Michael Himes (Argued), Albert Gidari, Jr., Perkins Coie, Seattle, WA, for Puget Sound Shellfish Growers.

Eric Richter, Skeel Henke, Evenson & Roberts, Seattle, WA, for Adkins, et. al.

Mason D. Morisset, Seattle, WA, for Tulalip Tribes.

Riyaz A. Kanji, Williams and Connolly, Washington, DC, for Jamestown, Lower Elwha, Port Gamble Bands of S'Klallams, Nisqually, Nooksack, Sauk-Suiattle, Skokomish, Squaxin Island, Stillaguamish and Upper Skagit Tribes, Indian Tribes.

John Sledd, Mary Linda Pearson, for the Suquamish Tribe.

Daniel A. Raas, Harry L. Johnsen, for the Lummi Tribe.

Richard Berley, John Arum, Mark Slonim, for the Makah Tribe.

Bill Tobin, Christina Berg, for the Nisqually Tribe.

Annette M. Klapstein, John Howard Bell, Debra S. O'Gara, for the Puyallup Tribe.

Kevin R. Lyon, Ronald Whitener, for the Squaxin Island Tribe.

Robert L. Otsea, for the Muckleshoot Tribe.

Kathryn Nelson, Amy C. Lewis, co-counsel for the Port Gamble, Lower Elwha, Jamestown Bands of S'Klallams and the Skokomish Tribe.

Leslie Barnhart, Lori Salzarulo, Ruth Kennedy for the Quileute Tribe.

Nettie Alvarez, Richard Ralston, for the Hoh Tribe.

Jeffrey Jon Bode, co-counsel for the Nooksack Tribe.

Edward G. Maloney, co-counsel for the Upper Skagit Tribe.

Harold Chesnin, co-counsel for the Upper Skagit Tribe.

Allan E. Olson, for the Swinomish Indian Community.

Daniel W. Wyckoff, Olympia, WA, Tom D. Tobin, Winner, SD, for amicus curiae Inner Sound Crab Association and Washington Dungeness Crab Fishermen's Association.

Stephanie L. Striffler, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, OR, for amicus curiae State of Oregon.

Nancie Marzulla, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Defenders of Property Rights.

Robin Rivett, Sacramento CA, John M. Groen, Bellevue, Washington, for amicus curiae Pacific Legal Foundation.

Toby Thaler, Seattle, WA, for amicus curiae Washington Environmental Council.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington; Edward Rafeedie, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-89-00003-ER.

Before: LAY, * BEEZER and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

Order Amending Opinion And Denying Petition For Rehearing And Rejecting Suggestion For Rehearing En Banc And Amended Opinion

ORDER

The Opinion filed January 28, 1998, slip op. 783, and appearing at 135 F.3d 618 (9th Cir.1998), is amended as follows:

1. At slip op. 829, last sentence of the first full paragraph; 135 F.3d at 640, first full sentence on the page beginning with "All Grower beds ..."; delete the sentence and replace it with, "The other Grower beds will be subject to the allocation analysis below."

2. At slip op. 830, first full paragraph; 135 F.3d at 640, third full paragraph beginning with "We therefore apply ... "; delete the entire paragraph and replace it with a new paragraph and revised footnote as follows:

"We therefore apply the following analysis to Grower beds where the Growers, or their predecessors, began their enhancement efforts on a natural bed. For such natural beds, the Growers shall demonstrate what portion of their harvest is due to their labor, as opposed to what portion would exist absent the Growers' enhancement. See Shellfish II., 898 F.Supp. at 1462. For such enhanced natural beds, the Tribes shall be entitled to fifty percent of the pre-enhanced sustainable shellfish production from those beds.12/ Of course, this allocation analysis does not apply to artificial beds, that is, to Grower beds that did not support a sustainable commercial density of shellfish prior to cultivation. As the Tribes have acknowledged, the Tribes have no right to harvest such beds. 898 F.Supp. at 1460-61."

3. At slip op. 834, third full paragraph carrying over to p. 835; 135 F.3d at 642, third full paragraph beginning with "The Tribes argue ..."; delete the paragraph and replace it with five paragraphs as follows:

"Of particular concern to the Tribes is the restriction that allows the Growers to control access to natural clams by choosing not to harvest them in favor of the oysters under which the clams are found." The Tribes describe this restriction as a "gaping loophole" that has the capacity at the Growers' discretion to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
59 cases
  • State v. Buchanan
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • June 17, 1999
    ... ... State v. Buchanan, 87 Wash.App. 189, 196, 941 P.2d 683 (1997), review granted, 134 Wash.2d 1012, 958 P.2d 316 (1998). This court granted the State's petition for review ... -owned property at least 40 miles from the nearest territory ceded to the United States by the Yakamas in their treaty, the issue now before us has not previously been squarely addressed by this court. See also Hicks, 587 F.Supp. at 1164 ...         The Supreme Courts of Idaho and ... ...
  • Quechan Indian Tribe v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • January 10, 2008
    ... ... The Tribe argues section 3.d does not expressly state the right-of-way is not held in trust and, therefore, does not strip Quechan of beneficial title to ... See Clark v. United States, 660 F.Supp. 1164 (W.D.Wash.1987) (Washington State's water pollution laws, which did not provide private causes of action), ... ...
  • Skokomish Indian Tribe v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • June 3, 2005
    ... ... Part II Section C, labeled "State-Law Claims", becomes Part II Section B. Part II Section D, labeled "16 U.S.C. § 803(c)", becomes ... Wash. State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, 443 U.S. 658, 675, 99 S.Ct. 3055, 61 L.Ed.2d 823 ... The Tribe here would have us go further and hold that it may recover monetary damages against the City and TPU for alleged ... ...
  • Skokomish Indian Tribe v. U.S., 01-35028.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • March 9, 2005
    ... ... for damages resulting from the Project's impact on tribal lands and fisheries, alleging both state and federal causes of action, including claims arising under the Treaty of Point No Point ... Wash. State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, 443 U.S. 658, 675, 99 S.Ct. 3055, 61 L.Ed.2d 823 ... The Tribe here would have us go further and hold that it may recover monetary damages against the City and TPU for alleged ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council: the categorical and other "exceptions' to liability for Fifth Amendment takings of private property far outweigh the "rule".
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 29 No. 4, December 1999
    • December 22, 1999
    ...Order, an 1855 treaty, or Minnesota's entry into the Union on "equal footing" with other states); see also United States v. Washington, 157 F.3d 630, 647 (9th Cir. 1998) (affirming the treaty right of Washington State Indian tribes to gather shellfish from privately owned beaches), cert. de......
  • Case summaries.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 32 No. 3, June 2002
    • June 22, 2002
    ...by name and the tribes that were party to each). (286) United States v. Washington 135 F.3d 618 (9th Cir. 1998), amended and superceded by 157 F.3d 630, 639 (9th Cir. (287) 16 U.S.C. [subsection] 1801-1883 (2000). (288) H.R. REP. No. 94-445, at 21 (1975), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 593,......
  • United States v. Washington: the Boldt decision reincarnated.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 29 No. 3, September 1999
    • September 22, 1999
    ...787 (W.D. Wash. 1998) (Shellfish III), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 135 F.3d 618 (9th Cir.), amended and superseded on denial of reh'g, 157 F.3d 630 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1376 (5) Shellfish I, 873 F. Supp. at 1439. (6) Shellfish II, 898 F. Supp. at 1457. (7) Id. (8) She......
  • Case summaries.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 29 No. 3, September 1999
    • September 22, 1999
    ...of Dr. Lane had been properly considered by the district court. United States v. Washington, 135 F.3d 618 (9th Cir. 1998), amended by 157 F.3d 630 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1376 This case involved a dispute between the State of Washington (the State), Washington Indian Tribe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT