Lummi and Nooksack tribes are asking the Department of the Interior to file suit against water users of the Nooksack, this includes the diversion dam on the middle fork that replenishes Lake Whatcom. The tribes claim that the taking of water by irrigation users and by the city of Bellingham is affecting the fish habitat.

The Nooksack, for all intents and purposes is a dead system, relying heavily upon hatchery runs to feed the nets of both the tribes and commercials. So where is the case? It is my understanding that the 'sack has been sacrificed in this manner so as to open up fisheries elsewhere in the state.

I'm not against getting the (wild) runs back on the Nooksack...in fact I'm all for it...but I think everyone needs to be realistic here, and face the fact that there are a multitude of reasons why that river system is the way it is...and I don't think this is the biggest reason. I understand starting with low-hanging fruit first...but try to stay away from the rotten fruit on the ground.

Bellingham Herald

It is most likely all about money, they just want another payoff.

Maybe the tribes had better give some thought on how their nets strung bank to bank at the mouth is affecting the returning runs of salmon & steelhead. Without any fish to return, habitat is a moot point.

Damn skippy it's all about $$$

As I understand it, Boldt II (Habitat) holds that the treaty right is to dead fish in the boat. Claiming that the habitat can no longer produce fish (societal decisions to log, develop, divert) or ultimately to close hatchery production because of cost just may not fly. The tribes are, so long as the treaties are in place, owed real fish they can kill.

It is about money, it is about control.

Only thing thats keeping the Columbia from turning into the Sacramento is the Treatys. 50% of this is way better than 50% of a pumped dry irrigation canal.