United States v. State of Washington
Decision Date | 22 March 1974 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 9213. |
Citation | 384 F. Supp. 312 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, Quinault Tribe of Indians on its own behalf and on behalf of the Queets Band of Indians, et al., Intervenor-Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Defendant, Thor C. Tollefson, Director, Washington State Department of Fisheries, et al., Intervenor-Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Stan Pitkin, U. S. Atty., Stuart F. Pierson, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for the U. S.; George D. Dysart, Asst. Regional Sol., U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Portland, Or., of counsel.
David H. Getches, Native American Rights Fund, Boulder, Colo., and John H. Sennhauser, Legal Services Center, Seattle, Wash., for Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe of Indians, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe; Skokomish Indian Tribe, Stillaguamish Indian Tribe.
Alvin J. Ziontz, Ziontz, Pirtle, Morisset & Ernstoff, Seattle, Wash., for Makah Indian Tribe, Lummi Indian Tribe, Quileute Indian Tribe.
Michael Taylor, Taholah, Wash., for Quinault Tribe of Indians.
James B. Hovis, Hovis, Cockrill & Roy, Yakima, Wash., for Yakima Indian Tribe.
Lester Stritmatter, Stritmatter & Stritmatter, Hoquiam, Wash., for Hoh Tribe of Indians.
William A. Stiles, Jr., Sedro-Woolley, Wash., for Upper Skagit River Tribe.
Slade Gorton, Atty. Gen., Edward B. Mackie, Deputy Atty. Gen., Olympia, Wash., for State of Wash.
Joseph Larry Coniff, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Game, Olympia, Wash., for Game Defendants & Carl Crouse.
Earl R. McGimpsey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Fisheries, Olympia, Wash., for Thor Tollefson.
David E. Rhea, Amundson, Rhea & Atwood, Bellingham, Wash., for Wash. Reef Net Owners Ass'n.
Lawrence C. Smith, Smith, Smith & Smith, Spokane, Wash., for amicus curiae The Ass'n of Northwest Steelheaders, Inc.
William N. Moloney, Davis, Wright, Todd, Riese & Jones, Seattle, Wash., for amicus curiae Wash. State Sportsmen's Council, Inc.
T. J. Jones, III, Sp. Counsel, Jones & Jones, Boise, Idaho, for amicus curiae Idaho Fish and Game Dept.
In September, 1970 the United States, on its own behalf and as trustee for several Western Washington Indian Tribes,1 later joined as intervenor plaintiffs by additional tribes,2 filed the complaint initiating this action against the State of Washington. Shortly later the State Department of Fisheries (Fisheries) and the State Game Commission (Game), their respective directors, and the Washington Reef Net Owners Association (Reef Net Owners) were included as defendants. By state statute Fisheries is charged with exercising regulatory authority over fishing for all anadromous food fish. Regulation of anadromous steelhead trout is vested in Game. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ?? 2201 and 2202 concerning off reservation treaty right fishing within the case area by plaintiff tribes, which long has been and now is in controversy, and for injunctive relief to provide enforcement of those fishing rights as they previously have been or herein may be judicially determined. The case area is that portion of the State of Washington west of the Cascade Mountains and north of the Columbia River drainage area, and includes the American portion of the Puget Sound watershed, the watersheds of the Olympic Peninsula north of the Grays Harbor watershed, and the offshore waters adjacent to those areas.
Plaintiffs also assert claims for relief concerning alleged destruction or impairment of treaty right fishing due to state authorization of, or failure to prevent, logging and other industrial pollution and obstruction of treaty right fishing streams. Separation of those claims for pretrial and trial after trial of the issues determined in this decision was stipulated and approved by the court.
Venue is properly laid in this court under 28 U.S.C. ? 1391(b). Jurisdiction is alleged as to all tribes under one or more of the following provisions: 28 U. S.C. ?? 1345, 1331, 1343(3) and (4) and 1362.3 All of these allegations were conceded by all defendants, subject to their contention that exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine the issues in this case is in the Indian Claims Commission under 25 U.S.C. ?? 70-70v and Game's denial of jurisdiction as to the Puyallup Tribe. This court has previously held and hereby affirms that both of these contentions are without merit and denied. It is hereby found and held that jurisdiction and venue have been established in all particulars as detailed in Part One of the Final Pretrial Order.
Fisheries contends the Muckleshoot, Stillaguamish and Upper Skagit tribes do not hold a special treaty status to harvest anadromous fish. Game joins in this contention and makes the same contention regarding the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe. These contentions are considered and denied in the written Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Shortly after appearance in the action by all defendants the first of a considerable number of pretrial conferences was held. Among many preliminary matters considered at that time were the court's suggestions that so far as possible all tribes, agencies or organizations having or claiming direct or indirect justiciable interest in treaty fishing rights in this judicial district be brought into the case either as parties or as amicus curiae; and that every issue of substantial direct or indirect significance to the contentions of any party be raised and adjudicated in this case. Both suggestions were acceptable to all parties and to a great extent they have been put into effect. Thus every interested agency and organization not joined as a party has had an opportunity to present its views on any of the issues in the case.4
For more than three years, at the expenditure by many people of great time, effort and expense, plaintiffs and defendants have conducted exhaustive research in anthropology, biology, fishery management and other fields of expertise, and also have made extreme efforts to find and present by witnesses and exhibits as much information as possible that pertains directly or indirectly to each issue in the case. As a consequence of this extensive pretrial preparation, all parties joined in stipulating to a great many agreed facts which are stated in exhibits or included in the Final Pretrial Order. The Joint Biological Statement, Exhibit JX-2a, jointly proposed and admitted...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pacific Northwest Generating Co-op. v. Brown, Civ. No. 92-973-MA
...Judge Belloni held that the Columbia River Tribes were entitled to a "fair share" of the salmon harvest and in United States v. Washington, 384 F.Supp. 312 (W.D.Wash.1974), Judge Boldt held that the tribes were entitled to 50% of the harvest. Application of these equitable principles howeve......
-
Apache Stronghold v. United States
...that Treaty secures rights for ‘tribes and bands of Indians’ rather than individuals") with, e.g. , United States v. State of Wash. , 384 F. Supp. 312, 399 (W.D. Wash. 1974), aff'd and remanded , 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975) (individual Indians had standing to enforce treaty rights because ......
-
United States v. Washington
...of Indians, and other fish-eating Indians of the Olympic Peninsula who were allotted on the Quinault Reservation.” United States v. Washington, 384 F.Supp. 312 at 374, FF. 119 (W.D.Wash.1974).7. The Quinault Nation is a political successor in interest of some of the tribes or bands which we......
-
Bonnichsen v. U.S.
...languages, Sahaptin, Salish and Chinookan and had many dialects within the two principal language groups." United States v. Washington, 384 F.Supp. 312, 381 (W.D.Wash.1974). See also, DOI 0708. Many of the groups on the Colville Reservation speak Interior Salish. DOI 0706-08, 5042. "The Sah......
-
2019 NINTH CIRCUIT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
...Boldt Decision is the binding legal scheme for adjudicating fishing disputes between Washington's tribes. United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312, 404 (W.D. Wash. (145) Washington v. Wash. State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n et al., 443 U.S. 658, 666 (1979). (146) See, e.g......
-
Fulfilling the executive's trust responsibility toward the native nations on environmental issues: a partial critique of the Clinton administration's promises and performances.
...see also Clinton Forest Plan, supra note 282, at 54-55 (recognizing trust responsibility). (286) See, e.g., United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (D. Wash. 1974), affd, 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1086 (1976); Urdted States v. Washington, 520 F.2d 676, 686 (......
-
Protecting habitat for off-reservation tribal hunting and fishing rights: tribal comanagement as a reserved right.
...(9th Cir. 1974) (affirming Klamath Tribes' hunting and fishing rights on lands lost through termination); United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312, 339 (W.D. Wash. 1974) (affirming fishing rights of western Washington tribes on water ways ceded through treaty); Sohappy v. Smith, 302 F.......
-
Native Treaties and Conditional Rights After Herrera.
...Miller, 689 P.2d 81, 84 (Wash. 1984) (en banc). For one explanation of the rationale behind the canon, see United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312, 330-31 (W.D. Wash. 1974), affd, 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. The treaties were written in English, a language unknown to most of the tribal rep......
-
Chapter 46, SB 5333 – Uniform parentage act
...the statute or rule to the extent that it interferes with a treaty Indian fishing right as determined under United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974), or Sohappy v. Smith, 302 F. Supp. 899 (D. Oregon 1969), and any posttrial orders of those courts, or any other state s......
-
Chapter 215, HB 1320 – Civil protection orders
...the statute or rule to the extent that it interferes with a treaty Indian fishing right as determined under United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974), or Sohappy v. Smith, 302 F. Supp. 899 (D. Oregon 1969), and any posttrial orders of those courts, or any other state s......
-
Chapter 29, HB 2473 – Domestic violence
...the statute or rule to the extent that it interferes with a treaty Indian fishing right as determined under United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974), or Sohappy v. Smith, 302 F. Supp. 899 (D. Oregon 1969), and any posttrial orders of those courts, or any other state s......
-
Chapter 16, HB 1210 – Cannabis terminology
...the statute or rule to the extent that it interferes with a treaty Indian fishing right as determined under United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974), or Sohappy v. Smith, 302 F. Supp. 899 (D. Oregon 1969), and any posttrial orders of those courts, or any other state s......