Upper Columbia adjudication pilot draws tribal support and tribal concern over exclusions
Loading...
Summary
HB 25‑44 would create a phased pilot adjudication for the Upper Columbia, prioritizing early tribal and federal settlement talks and delaying wider summonses until a later phase; tribal leaders and Ecology supported streamlining while the Yakama Nation expressed concern that the proposal could exclude relevant treaty claims and create legal risk.
Committee members heard testimony on House Bill 25‑44, a pilot approach to the Upper Columbia River general water adjudication that would phase summonses and prioritize tribal and federal claimants in early settlement discussions.
Lily Smith, committee staff, summarized the bill as authorizing a two‑phase adjudication: a first phase to bring forward tribal and federal claimants (with that phase potentially lasting until 2033 or settlement) and a second phase to bring in all remaining claimants; the Department of Ecology would submit a report with recommendations by June 2035.
Conveying tribal support, Jared Michael Erickson, chairman of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, said the phased approach could make settlement negotiations more efficient and reduce lengthy litigation. Mel Tenaskett of the Colville Confederated Tribes described long‑standing tribal water claims and urged a process that ensures federal participation and settlement opportunities early in the adjudication.
Ecology’s Ria Burns supported the pilot and said it would preserve due process while allowing federal/tribal settlement talks to proceed without requiring all water users to immediately commit resources to court proceedings.
The Yakama Nation’s Danielle Squiox opposed the bill as drafted, saying the proposal’s geographic scope and tribe‑selection approach risk excluding tribes with treaty‑based instream flow interests and creating avoidable legal challenges. Squiox said the pilot’s boundary ends upstream of parts of Yakama Nation treaty territory and that excluding affected tribes would not meaningfully streamline the process.
The committee did not vote; staff and stakeholders signaled additional negotiation and suggested amendments to address federal participation, irrigation district concerns and tribal inclusion.
