A Rare Legislative Opportunity: Join Restore the Delta on February 28th!

Californians will have a rare legislative opportunity to voice opposition to Governor Jerry Brown’s Delta Tunnels project. The California Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee will be holding an important meeting to hear the public’s thoughts on Tuesday, February 28th. 
 
Restore the Delta’s goal is to fill the seats and the halls with the voices of people and friends of the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary. The Delta needs as many people as possible to make a powerful statement with our Californian legislators. This may be one of our last public opportunities at the Capitol to oppose the project.

Informational Hearing:
California WaterFix: Perspectives on the Plan
Tuesday, February 28, 2017

9:30 am ~ State Capitol Room 112
Address: State Capitol, 1315 10th St, Sacramento, CA 95814

Please plan to make a one-sentence comment using this format:

Chair Hertzberg and Committee Members, my name is ________________, and I oppose the Delta Tunnels because ____________________________________________________.

We recommend choosing a reason that reflects both your personal and public interest. Costs, environmental protection, agriculture, water quality, public health, fish, wildlife, and drinking water are a few reasons to oppose this plan. For more details on the Delta Tunnels, click here.

An agenda is not yet posted — we will update with the agenda as the date nears.

If you are attending, please RSVP by e-mailing Cynthia@RestoretheDelta.org, or calling Restore the Delta’s office at 209-475-9550. They would like to know how many people are coming for logistical purposes. If you are willing to provide a carpool from your city, please e-mail Stina@RestoretheDelta.org. You can also RSVP by leaving a comment on this Restore the Delta blog post.

source: http://www.restorethedelta.org/2017/02/01/rare-legislative-opportunity-join-us-february-28th/

Today, Sept. 20, and tomorrow: Two Run4Salmon events

Support the Winnemem Wintu Tribe at the Run4Salmon, “a 300-mile trek that follows the historical journey of the salmon from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to the Winnemem (McCloud River) to raise awareness about the policies threatening our waters, our fish, and indigenous lifeways. It’s a dire time in California for wild chinook salmon (Nur) – climate change, giant dam projects and draining rivers for Big Ag irrigation threaten the survival of the keystone keepers of our waters.”

Join the movement to save the Delta and protect the people who depend on it! Restore the Delta plans to participate in the Communities and Issues forum today and the Benefit Concert Wednesday.

Event: When Salmon Speak | Communities and Issues Forum
Date: Tuesday, September 20, 4:00pm-9:00pm
Location: Washington Neighborhood Ctr, 400 16th St., Sacramento
Admission: Free, donations appreciated
More details/Facebook event page

Event: Run4Salmon Benefit Concert
Date: Wednesday, September 21, 6:00pm-11:00pm
Location: Crest Theater, 1013 K St., Sacramento
Admission: Pre-sale $15, At the door $20
More details/Facebook event page

More about the Run4Salmon, visit their website here.

Run 4 Salmon seeks to protect fish, habitat, and tradition

It’s a dire time for wild Chinook salmon in California. Climate change, dam operations, watershed clear-cuts and the diversion of rivers for irrigation all threaten the survival of this keystone species.

To highlight the peril and demand action, the Winnemem Wintu Tribe and a collective of Indigenous women, activists and allies are embarking on a 300-mile trek from the California Bay Delta to Mt. Shasta, re-creating the upstream swim of the salmon’s return to its native spawning grounds. They are inviting supporters to participate in this historic march.

Join Run 4 Salmon, a series of trek segments and events taking place from September 17 to October 1, 2016. The mission is to raise awareness about the policies threatening Winnemem Wintu waters, fish and indigenous lifeways. The journey will start in the Bay Delta city of Vallejo and continue through Pittsburgh, Sacramento, Colusa, Woodson Bridge, Cow Creek, Shasta Lake and Redding, ending in McCloud, the winter-run Chinook’s historic spawning ground, where they have been missing since the construction of Shasta Dam.

The dam flooded over 90 percent of the Winnemem Wintu village, burial and sacred sites, and the winter-run Chinook salmon have been missing from their spawning grounds ever since. Now their fragile ecosystem is under attack once again, threatened by the $17 billion Delta Twin Tunnels project, designed to funnel water to thirsty agribusiness and fossil fuel corporations conducting fracking.

Earthjustice, representing Restore the Delta in ongoing hearings before California’s State Water Resources Control Board, is submitting detailed testimony from communities such as the Tribe that will be most affected by the project.

Do your part. The Run for Salmon event includes segments that you can walk, run, boat, bike and even ride on horseback. Sacred ceremonies and benefit concerts will be held along the way. Visit Run4Salmon.org for a full list of events open to public participation.

Water, climate, and the military tomorrow on “Corporations and Democracy” radio

Nsecuredisposessedick Buxton is tomorrow’s guest on “Corporations & Democracy” radio, streaming online on KZYX.org starting at 1 p.m. Pacific, 4 p.m. Eastern, and available after that at afdradio.org. Nick is co-editor of The Secure and the Dispossessed – How the military and corporations are seeking to shape a climate-changed world, published last year by Pluto Press. He’ll be talking about how big corporations and the military are already planning to maintain control in the face of the climate crisis. Adaptation to a climate-changed world is desperately needed, but he’ll detail how the powerful opt for militarized responses that provide security for the few, instead of protecting the rights and future of all of us.

Nick has been involved in global justice campaigning for more than two decades. He coordinated communications for Jubilee 2000, the international movement to cancel the debt of the world’s poorest countries. While living in Bolivia he worked with the group Fundación Solón, focusing on trade, water, culture and historical memory, and chronicled national resistance to neoliberal economic policies, including the election of Evo Morales in 2005. He has also worked for the Transnational Institute, a thinktank supporting social movement work against corporate impunity, unjust trade and investment agreements. He has also published articles on debt and globalization.

“Corporations & Democracy” is a long-running, community-based radio show co-produced by Alliance for Democracy members and friends on Mendocino County Public Radio, at KZYX-FM. The show features speakers and specialists on how giant corporations have degraded our democracy, and how citizens around the country are working to reduce corporate power and build a real democracy.

Past guests have included Naomi Klein, Howard Zinn, Frances Moore Lappe, Ralph Nader, Thom Hartmann, Helen Caldicott, David Korten, Medea Benjamin, George Lakoff, Greg Palast and Noam Chomsky. The show also looks at what is going on locally, in Mendocino’s towns and in the county, focusing on government, development, and agriculture.

Corporations & Democracy is broadcast live on the second and fourth Tuesday of every month from 1 to 2 p.m., Pacific Coast time.

Still Time to Register for Delta Tribunal

The “What would the Delta Say? Rights of Nature Tribunal” is coming up at the end of April, but there is still room for participants. The event is free and open to the public. RSVPs are required–you can rsvp and learn more about the event here.

SmeltMemeWhat would the Delta Say? Rights of Nature Tribunal

at the Nick Rodriguez Community Center
213 F St.
in Antioch, California

Saturday, April 30th
9:30am – 3:30pm

The Tribunal will address nature’s, community, and human rights violations specific to reduced flows in the Delta. It will particularly address the harm that the Governor’s proposed Delta Tunnels plan would do to those limited flows, as well as to the fish and Delta communities that depend on a healthy Bay-Delta Estuary.

Tribunal witnesses and experts will also offer solutions to water flow and supply challenges that protect, not injure, nature’s rights and human rights.

Featuring tribunal judges: Joanna Macy, Gary Mulcahy, Shannon Biggs, and Tim Stroshane

Clean Water or Clearcuts for Oregon?

 

 

 

Big decisions are looming for management of 2.8 million acres of Oregon’s public forestlands – an area covering the size of more than eight Crater Lake National Parks. Because legislation concerning management of the so-called O&C lands could end up undermining some of our nation’s bedrock environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and National Environmental Policy Act, Oregonians aren’t the only ones with a stake in the issue.

 

Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) is proposing legislation that would increase clearcut logging closer to streams, on steep slopes and unstable soils, and would allow the use of toxic herbicides, which would compromise clean drinking water for 1.8 million Oregonians.

 

The proposal also threatens several thousand miles of habitat for endangered salmon and steelhead in iconic river systems like the North Umpqua, Illinois, Rogue, McKenzie, and Nestucca.

 

Conservation groups including American Rivers, Pacific Rivers Council, and the Wild Salmon Center are urging Oregon Senator Ron Wyden to craft an O&C lands bill with stronger protections for clean water and salmon.

 

This short video, Forests to Faucets: Clean Water or Clearcuts? provides a great overview of what’s at stake for Oregon’s clean water. I was happy to participate in the creation of the video (I’m the mom at the end) because clean drinking water is so fundamental to our well-being, and I want my kids to be able to swim, float, catch fish, and experience the wild beauty of places like the North Umpqua and the Rogue.

 

Watch the video and learn more about the need to protect clean drinking water on Oregon’s O&C forest lands.

Video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SiUOO3fPF3I

June 6: implementing the human right to water in California

On June 6, 2013, from 12pm to 1pm, in Room 127 of the Capitol Building in Sacramento,  there will be a chance to learn and discuss how Californians can implement  AB 685, which affirmed the Human Right to Water.

The briefing will be based on a report, The Human Right to Water Bill in California: An Implementation Framework for State Agencies, by the UC Berkeley International Human Rights Law Clinic and is sponsored by the Safe Water Alliance.

On September 25, 2012, AB 685, which affirmed the basic human right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking and sanitary purposes was signed into law by Gov. Brown.

It was a historic victory for social movements and the poor, impacted communities across California, who have struggled for decades for clean water for household and personal use.  Governor Brown’s approval came three years after Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed the first bill in 2009.

AB 685  adds Section 106.3 to the existing Water Code, by declaring that this basic human right is the established policy of the state and requiring state agencies to integrate this into their policies and regulations. The bill was authored by Assembly member Mike Eng (D-Alhambra) and co-sponsored by the Safe Water Alliance, which includes the Alliance for Democracy and many water policy, community, social justice and faith-based groups.

After AB 685, sponsored by former Assembly Member Eng was signed, Catarina de Albuquerque, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation said this law “will be an inspiration not only for other states within the USA, but equally for many other countries in the world.”

In August 2010, de Albuquerque reporting on her fact-finding mission to the U.S., had cited a host of alarming drinking water supply and sanitation conditions in California and the failure of the state to meet the human right to water.

According to Eng’s office, 250,000 California residents lack clean groundwater and are forced to purchase bottled water to ensure safe and clean drinking water. With annual median household incomes in some of the most severely contaminated areas reaching only $14,000, some households are devoting approximately 20 per cent of their income to water and sanitation.

—-

For more on the June 6 event, please contact Omar Carrillo (omar.carrillo@communitywatercenter.org) or Vern Goehring (vern@cal.net)

 

Skagit County Suggests Swinomish Indian Tribal Community Dismisses Its [Water]Lawsuit

Sandra Spargo, Defending Water in the Skagit River Basin, Dec. 15, 2012

Please find below an article in the Skagit Valley Herald that is entitled, County suggests Swinomish dismiss its lawsuit. The Swinomish lawsuit (supported by the City of Anacortes without citizen input), if successful, could lead to all rural and agricultural landowners in the Skagit River Basin losing access to well water if they had drilled their well in 2001 or after, Ecology officials have said.

Moreover, if the Wash. State Supreme Court rules in favor of the Swinomish, Skagit River Basin owners of about 5,700 buildable lots–on which at least 400 homeowners have already built homes–could lose access to their well water for residential use.

The link of Skagit County’s letter of Dec. 14, 2012, to Chairman Brian Cladoosby and the Senate of the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community is located at Letter to Swinomish & Anacortes on Dec. 14, 2012.   The link contains the letter’s three supporting documents.

To understand the viewpoint of landowners/homeowners caught up in the contentious water issue over which they have no input, visit the Just Water Alliance website at http://justwateralliance.org.

Do the citizens of Anacortes want the City to support the Swinomish lawsuit against the the Dept. of Ecology that could result in at least 400 homeowners losing their well water for residential use, possibly their homes? For a history of Anacortes’ involvement with Swinomish lawsuits, see the legal section of the City of Anacortes website at http://www.cityofanacortes.org/Legal/WaterRightsSwinomish/index.asp.

In addition, my opinion is that without supporting compromise of the Skagit River Basin water issue while promoting the sale of five million gallons of water per day to Tethys Enterprises for a beverage bottling plant, the City of Anacortes–which represents its citizens–is a lousy neighbor. 

 

All the best,

Sandra Spargo
Anacortes, Wash.

County suggests Swinomish dismiss its lawsuit

By Kate Martin | Posted: Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:00 am

MOUNT VERNON — Skagit County commissioners say they will rejoin a 1996 water agreement if the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community drops its lawsuit against the state Department of Ecology.

The tribe’s lawsuit is currently being reviewed by the state Supreme Court. If the tribe is successful, it could lead to all rural and agricultural landowners in the Skagit River basin losing access to well water if they drilled their well in 2001 or after, Ecology officials have said.

The letter, sent Friday, is in response to those sent last week by Anacortes and the Swinomish. Those letters in turn were in response to a November letter by commissioners, which announced the county had left the 1996 Memorandum of Agreement, which outlined a historic water agreement in the valley.

Commissioners also asserted that they had left the agreement because the Swinomish and Anacortes broke that agreement by suing Ecology to invalidate a 2006 state rule amendment that allows more water for rural and agricultural users. The original rule amendment, from 2001, provided no new water at all for rural landowners or for agricultural uses, the county states.

The commissioners’ letter outlined a path to where the county could rejoin the agreement: “You can remedy your ongoing breach by dismissing your pending lawsuit. Until that happens, Skagit County is not a party to the 1996 MOA, and has no further obligations under the 1996 MOA.”

Anacortes Mayor Dean Maxwell said he had not had a chance to read the letter, which was sent at 2 p.m. Commissioners Ken Dahlstedt and Sharon Dillon could not immediately be reached for comment.

Larry Wasserman, environmental services director for the tribe, had little to say about the commissioners’ response.

“The tribe doesn’t believe it is productive to continue to have these debates in the newspaper,” Wasserman said. “Our previous letter speaks for itself, as do the facts on our website. People can look there to find out what the real history has been.”

The commissioners’ letter also says the tribe and city’s ongoing lawsuit “completely undermines the stated purpose of the 1996 MOA” by seeking to eliminate all water for rural landowners and farmers.

The city and tribe both said in their letters that the county was using the same legal process for challenging Ecology’s rule when it sued the agency in 2003 as the tribe used to challenge the rule amendment in 2008.

Skagit County Commissioner Ron Wesen said it’s not the same.

Wesen said the 2003 disagreement the county had with Ecology involved the 2001 instream flow rule because that rule did not include any water for rural agriculture or residences requiring a well.

“What the tribe and Anacortes are saying, ‘We don’t agree with Ecology’s authority to make this change.’ If they don’t have authority to do that, then all exempt wells since 2001” are gone, Wesen said.

The Swinomish contend in their lawsuit that Ecology is using an overly broad definition of a narrowly defined exception to provide water in exceptional circumstances. The Swinomish lost an earlier round in the Thurston County Superior Court in 2010. The state Supreme Court’s ruling could be months from now.

“It’s complicated, but we’ll find out when the Supreme Court makes its ruling who is right,” Wesen said.

Wesen said the MOA and the instream flow rule don’t take into account the fact that water use changes over time. “To say this is the rule we have for 50 years and have no flexibility, it doesn’t make any sense to me.”

Skagit County Suggests Swinomish Indian Tribal Community Dismisses Its [Water]Lawsuit

Sandra Spargo, Defending Water in the Skagit River Basin, Dec. 15, 2012

Please find below an article in the Skagit Valley Herald that is entitled, County suggests Swinomish dismiss its lawsuit. The Swinomish lawsuit (supported by the City of Anacortes without citizen input), if successful, could lead to all rural and agricultural landowners in the Skagit River Basin losing access to well water if they had drilled their well in 2001 or after, Ecology officials have said.

Moreover, if the Wash. State Supreme Court rules in favor of the Swinomish, Skagit River Basin owners of about 5,700 buildable lots–on which at least 400 homeowners have already built homes–could lose access to their well water for residential use.

The link of Skagit County’s letter of Dec. 14, 2012, to Chairman Brian Cladoosby and the Senate of the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community is located at Letter to Swinomish & Anacortes on Dec. 14, 2012.   The link contains the letter’s three supporting documents.

To understand the viewpoint of landowners/homeowners caught up in the contentious water issue over which they have no input, visit the Just Water Alliance website at http://justwateralliance.org.

Do the citizens of Anacortes want the City to support the Swinomish lawsuit against the the Dept. of Ecology that could result in at least 400 homeowners losing their well water for residential use, possibly their homes? For a history of Anacortes’ involvement with Swinomish lawsuits, see the legal section of the City of Anacortes website at http://www.cityofanacortes.org/Legal/WaterRightsSwinomish/index.asp.

In addition, my opinion is that without supporting compromise of the Skagit River Basin water issue while promoting the sale of five million gallons of water per day to Tethys Enterprises for a beverage bottling plant, the City of Anacortes–which represents its citizens–is a lousy neighbor. 

 

All the best,

Sandra Spargo
Anacortes, Wash.

County suggests Swinomish dismiss its lawsuit

By Kate Martin | Posted: Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:00 am

MOUNT VERNON — Skagit County commissioners say they will rejoin a 1996 water agreement if the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community drops its lawsuit against the state Department of Ecology.

The tribe’s lawsuit is currently being reviewed by the state Supreme Court. If the tribe is successful, it could lead to all rural and agricultural landowners in the Skagit River basin losing access to well water if they drilled their well in 2001 or after, Ecology officials have said.

The letter, sent Friday, is in response to those sent last week by Anacortes and the Swinomish. Those letters in turn were in response to a November letter by commissioners, which announced the county had left the 1996 Memorandum of Agreement, which outlined a historic water agreement in the valley.

Commissioners also asserted that they had left the agreement because the Swinomish and Anacortes broke that agreement by suing Ecology to invalidate a 2006 state rule amendment that allows more water for rural and agricultural users. The original rule amendment, from 2001, provided no new water at all for rural landowners or for agricultural uses, the county states.

The commissioners’ letter outlined a path to where the county could rejoin the agreement: “You can remedy your ongoing breach by dismissing your pending lawsuit. Until that happens, Skagit County is not a party to the 1996 MOA, and has no further obligations under the 1996 MOA.”

Anacortes Mayor Dean Maxwell said he had not had a chance to read the letter, which was sent at 2 p.m. Commissioners Ken Dahlstedt and Sharon Dillon could not immediately be reached for comment.

Larry Wasserman, environmental services director for the tribe, had little to say about the commissioners’ response.

“The tribe doesn’t believe it is productive to continue to have these debates in the newspaper,” Wasserman said. “Our previous letter speaks for itself, as do the facts on our website. People can look there to find out what the real history has been.”

The commissioners’ letter also says the tribe and city’s ongoing lawsuit “completely undermines the stated purpose of the 1996 MOA” by seeking to eliminate all water for rural landowners and farmers.

The city and tribe both said in their letters that the county was using the same legal process for challenging Ecology’s rule when it sued the agency in 2003 as the tribe used to challenge the rule amendment in 2008.

Skagit County Commissioner Ron Wesen said it’s not the same.

Wesen said the 2003 disagreement the county had with Ecology involved the 2001 instream flow rule because that rule did not include any water for rural agriculture or residences requiring a well.

“What the tribe and Anacortes are saying, ‘We don’t agree with Ecology’s authority to make this change.’ If they don’t have authority to do that, then all exempt wells since 2001” are gone, Wesen said.

The Swinomish contend in their lawsuit that Ecology is using an overly broad definition of a narrowly defined exception to provide water in exceptional circumstances. The Swinomish lost an earlier round in the Thurston County Superior Court in 2010. The state Supreme Court’s ruling could be months from now.

“It’s complicated, but we’ll find out when the Supreme Court makes its ruling who is right,” Wesen said.

Wesen said the MOA and the instream flow rule don’t take into account the fact that water use changes over time. “To say this is the rule we have for 50 years and have no flexibility, it doesn’t make any sense to me.”

Skagit County Suggests Swinomish Indian Tribal Community Dismisses Its [Water]Lawsuit

Sandra Spargo, Defending Water in the Skagit River Basin, Dec. 15, 2012

Please find below an article in the Skagit Valley Herald that is entitled, County suggests Swinomish dismiss its lawsuit. The Swinomish lawsuit (supported by the City of Anacortes without citizen input), if successful, could lead to all rural and agricultural landowners in the Skagit River Basin losing access to well water if they had drilled their well in 2001 or after, Ecology officials have said.

Moreover, if the Wash. State Supreme Court rules in favor of the Swinomish, Skagit River Basin owners of about 5,700 buildable lots–on which at least 400 homeowners have already built homes–could lose access to their well water for residential use.

The link of Skagit County’s letter of Dec. 14, 2012, to Chairman Brian Cladoosby and the Senate of the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community is located at Letter to Swinomish & Anacortes on Dec. 14, 2012.   The link contains the letter’s three supporting documents.

To understand the viewpoint of landowners/homeowners caught up in the contentious water issue over which they have no input, visit the Just Water Alliance website at http://justwateralliance.org.

Do the citizens of Anacortes want the City to support the Swinomish lawsuit against the the Dept. of Ecology that could result in at least 400 homeowners losing their well water for residential use, possibly their homes? For a history of Anacortes’ involvement with Swinomish lawsuits, see the legal section of the City of Anacortes website at http://www.cityofanacortes.org/Legal/WaterRightsSwinomish/index.asp.

In addition, my opinion is that without supporting compromise of the Skagit River Basin water issue while promoting the sale of five million gallons of water per day to Tethys Enterprises for a beverage bottling plant, the City of Anacortes–which represents its citizens–is a lousy neighbor. 

County suggests Swinomish dismiss its lawsuit

By Kate Martin | Posted: Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:00 am

MOUNT VERNON — Skagit County commissioners say they will rejoin a 1996 water agreement if the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community drops its lawsuit against the state Department of Ecology.

The tribe’s lawsuit is currently being reviewed by the state Supreme Court. If the tribe is successful, it could lead to all rural and agricultural landowners in the Skagit River basin losing access to well water if they drilled their well in 2001 or after, Ecology officials have said.

The letter, sent Friday, is in response to those sent last week by Anacortes and the Swinomish. Those letters in turn were in response to a November letter by commissioners, which announced the county had left the 1996 Memorandum of Agreement, which outlined a historic water agreement in the valley.

Commissioners also asserted that they had left the agreement because the Swinomish and Anacortes broke that agreement by suing Ecology to invalidate a 2006 state rule amendment that allows more water for rural and agricultural users. The original rule amendment, from 2001, provided no new water at all for rural landowners or for agricultural uses, the county states.

The commissioners’ letter outlined a path to where the county could rejoin the agreement: “You can remedy your ongoing breach by dismissing your pending lawsuit. Until that happens, Skagit County is not a party to the 1996 MOA, and has no further obligations under the 1996 MOA.”

Anacortes Mayor Dean Maxwell said he had not had a chance to read the letter, which was sent at 2 p.m. Commissioners Ken Dahlstedt and Sharon Dillon could not immediately be reached for comment.

Larry Wasserman, environmental services director for the tribe, had little to say about the commissioners’ response.

“The tribe doesn’t believe it is productive to continue to have these debates in the newspaper,” Wasserman said. “Our previous letter speaks for itself, as do the facts on our website. People can look there to find out what the real history has been.”

The commissioners’ letter also says the tribe and city’s ongoing lawsuit “completely undermines the stated purpose of the 1996 MOA” by seeking to eliminate all water for rural landowners and farmers.

The city and tribe both said in their letters that the county was using the same legal process for challenging Ecology’s rule when it sued the agency in 2003 as the tribe used to challenge the rule amendment in 2008.

Skagit County Commissioner Ron Wesen said it’s not the same.

Wesen said the 2003 disagreement the county had with Ecology involved the 2001 instream flow rule because that rule did not include any water for rural agriculture or residences requiring a well.

“What the tribe and Anacortes are saying, ‘We don’t agree with Ecology’s authority to make this change.’ If they don’t have authority to do that, then all exempt wells since 2001” are gone, Wesen said.

The Swinomish contend in their lawsuit that Ecology is using an overly broad definition of a narrowly defined exception to provide water in exceptional circumstances. The Swinomish lost an earlier round in the Thurston County Superior Court in 2010. The state Supreme Court’s ruling could be months from now.

“It’s complicated, but we’ll find out when the Supreme Court makes its ruling who is right,” Wesen said.

Wesen said the MOA and the instream flow rule don’t take into account the fact that water use changes over time. “To say this is the rule we have for 50 years and have no flexibility, it doesn’t make any sense to me.”