Two bills place Lake Roosevelt in open waters

Anglers and recreational boaters who use Lake Roosevelt haven’t been getting equal representation from Rep. Cathy McMorris and Sen. Maria Cantwell.

A McMorris- sponsored bill that shot through the U.S. House of Representatives this fall, HR 1797, has a provision that could leave sportsmen the victims of regulatory chaos on the Spokane River Arm.

A similar Cantwell-sponsored bill, SB881, is in a Senate committee.

The legislation has the good intentions of finally compensating the Spokane Tribe for the property inundated after the 1940 completion of Grand Coulee Dam. The Colville Tribe reached a settlement in 1994.

Rep. Tom Foley worked on solving the issue for the Spokane Tribe, and so did Rep. George Nethercutt. McMorris and Cantwell, to their credit, vowed to pick up where Nethercutt left off and get the compensation issue resolved.

When it seemed clear that they couldn’t get enough money to fully compensate the tribes, however, they added to the legislation a new “Section 9” that would sweeten the settlement by transferring jurisdiction of the water and land up to the high water mark from the Bureau of Recreation and National Park Service to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Spokane Tribe.

That ought to send a shudder down the spine of any fisherman who remembers the 1980s, when the Spokane Tribe and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife each claimed to have jurisdiction over anglers in the Spokane Arm.

The standoff was finally resolved in 1994, when a sportsman, Joe Cassidy of Davenport, had the courage and made the sacrifice to take the U.S. Government to court. Federal attorneys defended the tribal policy and tribal police after they gave him a ticket for fishing without a tribal license in what they considered to be tribal waters.

Cassidy won, and so did non-tribal sportsmen and boaters throughout the region. The federal district court ruled that non-tribal members were not subject to tribal rules on Lake Roosevelt.

It’s not clear whether McMorris or Cantwell understood that their legislation would transfer the regulatory authority over non-tribal members to the tribe and undo what the Cassidy case clarified .

It’s not clear to me because McMorris’ Washington, D.C., office did not return my call over three business days.

Lincoln County commissioners and property owners made it clear to McMorris and Cantwell aides that they were concerned about the legislation at a September meeting in Davenport. They also emphasized they were disappointed at not being consulted before the bills were introduced.

Similarly, Fish and Wildlife Department managers and state attorney general office staffers who have worked on Lake Roosevelt issues were not consulted.

“The congressional legal staffs apparently said the bills would have no impact on the state, but the state attorney general office staffers who know this issue say the bills could overturn the Cassidy decision,” said Tom Davis, Fish and Wildlife Department legislative liaison in Olympia.

“We’re trying to work as carefully and as sensitively as we can to make sure everyone understands the details of the bills.”

Since the Cassidy decision, the state of Washington has continued to work in cooperation with the tribes especially in fisheries management to benefit everybody who drops a hook in Roosevelt waters.

But life is much easier for anglers now that it’s clear that the state manages non-tribal members and the tribes regulate the tribal members.

Jack Silzel has retired as McMorris’ legislative director since meeting with citizens in Lincoln County. After hearing their concerns, he assured them that any issues in the legislation could be worked out after they are passed. That could be done in a memorandum of understanding among the Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs, he said.

“We’ve suggested those issues be fully explored and worked out in the legislation rather than leaving them to be addressed afterward,” said John Andrews, Fish and Wildlife Department regional manger in Spokane.

Sportsmen, too, are beginning to stand up and demand explanations for what this all could mean. The Inland NW Wildlife Council is formulating a position this week.

“We support compensation for the tribe,” said Lloran Johnson, council executive director. “One of our concerns is that, granted, the tribal government may be fairly amenable to sharing the use of Lake Roosevelt over the lands and water they’d be granted control over, but what happens five years down the road if another tribal council isn’t so amenable?

“The state and the Department of Wildlife could lose their entire investment in the fish and wildlife.”

He said the council has indicated it would rather see the Department of Wildlife maintain authority over fish and wildlife in all of Lake Roosevelt “for all Washington citizens, which includes the tribes, too, of course.”

The bottom line is that Section 9 in these bills would extend the Spokane Tribe’s reservation boundary.

Boaters would then have to wonder whether they will eventually need a tribal permit to be on the water, and anglers could eventually be in the middle of another state and tribal twit over which license they would need.