AP story is here.
An article about the history of the site and its proximity (and potential danger) to the Columbia River is here.
Finally, here is an article from two years ago, which discusses the results of the contamination and the Yakama Nation’s repeated attempts to get the U.S. government to acknowledge the problem.
Link to the story and brief via OPB here.
Trial is set for September in Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd. The News Tribune article about the order denying efforts by Teck Cominco Metals to bring in other parties is here.
The order is here DCT Order 4-4-12
Seven previous posts on this case can be found here.
From CPRBlog, h/t to Seattle Law’s Cases and Controversies Blog:
[An excerpt]
EPA is to be commended for declining to let the polluters call the shots at the Portland Harbor site. Their response to the LWG risk assessment sets an appropriate tone. And it gives reason for hope that the agency will continue to take seriously its responsibilities to oversee this and other cleanups.
There is, however, a long way to go in the process and many issues yet to be addressed. For example, there is the point – not directly addressed in EPA’s comments – that it is not only contemporary tribal consumption rates that are relevant to cleanup at the Portland Harbor site but also historical tribal consumption rates and practices. The fishing tribes in the Columbia River Basin and elsewhere have rights – secured, in many instances, by treaty – to take and eat fish as they did prior to the arrival of European settlers to this region. These rights have not always been honored by the United States and its citizens, however. As a result, contemporary tribal fish consumption rates can be said to be artificially “suppressed” from historical rates – due to denial of access to fishing places; inundation of tribal fishing places; tribal members being arrested and their gear confiscated; and depletion and contamination of the fishery resource, often at the hands of non-Indians. Cleanup at places such as Portland Harbor, where tribes and their rights are affected, ought not be gauged against what tribal members today consume, but by what tribal members would consume, were the fishery resource not depleted and contaminated, and were they able to exercise fully their rights to take and eat fish.
The United States today has an obligation to ensure that tribes’ fishing rights are honored. Among other things, the federal government has the duty to see that these rights are not undermined by environmental degradation. A right to take and eat fish is obviously made hollow if the fish are permitted to be too contaminated for human consumption. As it seeks now to clean up that contamination, the United States, through its EPA, needs to keep its treaty promises in mind. This means that EPA needs to redouble its efforts to work with the tribes, on a government-to-government basis, to determine the relevant measures of risk and goals for remediation at the Portland Harbor site. Ultimately, this means that EPA needs to assure restoration that will support tribes’ rights to fish as they once did – and as they seek to do in the future.
The federal district court held that the two tribes, which had disputed fishing rights over places along the Columbia River, had to share. aug-2008-dct-order
From the opinion:
The dispute is part of a longstanding case brought by the United States to define certain Indian tribes’ treaty rights to take fish at all usual and accustomed places along the Columbia River and its tributaries. Colville sought to intervene in the case on two occasions, once in 1989 and once in 1999, but its requests were denied. See United States v. Oregon, 29 F.3d 481 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Oregon I”). In 2002, instead of moving to intervene yet again, the Colville Wenatchi began fishing at Icicle Creek.
On August 18, 2003, I granted Yakama’s motion for injunctive relief, enjoining Colville and its constituent tribes from fishing at Icicle Creek and holding that Colville was precluded by res judicata from asserting the arguments it raised in opposition to Yakama’s motion. Colville appealed that holding, and the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the case “for trial on the merits.” United States v. State of Oregon, 470 F.3d 809, 818 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Oregon II”). Upon remand from the Ninth Circuit, the matter was tried to the court on May 6, 7 and 8, 2008. Upon conclusion of the trial, Yakama, Colville, the United States, and the State of Washington submitted post-trial briefing.
For the reasons stated below, I find the Wenatchi and Yakama have joint fishing rights to fish at the Wenatshapam Fishery, which is located at the confluence of the Wenatchee River and Icicle Creek. Due to the alteration of this site by white settlement, and the fact that the evidence demonstrates fishing on Icicle Creek, in addition to fishing on the Wenatchee River, the nearest location for the Wenatshapam Fishery is the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery on Icicle Creek.
From AlterNet:
Each spring tribal communities in the Columbia River basin in the Pacific Northwest host a salmon feast honoring the sacrifices the fish make for the welfare of the Yakama, Nez Perce, Umatilla, and Warm Springs tribes. The fishing communities rely on the once-bountiful salmon to support their livelihood. But several years, ago salmon runs were so low that they had to buy the fish in order to have enough for the feast.
Turtle Talk 