Tribal rights must be part of shoreline discussion

The saying goes that if it is too good to be true – it probably is. As promoted by the Tri-City Development Council, the “no-cost” conveyance of 34 miles of Columbia River shoreline from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to the Tri-Cities may well be too good to be true.

This community has a right to know what exactly is being proposed, and what the implications – including costs, responsibilities, and future land use – would be before legislation authorizing the conveyance goes forward.

Missing from the dialogue on shoreline conveyance is the indispensable tribal engagement. The tribes need to be at the table, especially given that the U.S. Constitution recognizes that tribal nations are sovereign nations who, pursuant to treaties with the U.S. Government, retained lands including the Umatilla Indian Reservation.

As part of these treaties, the Umatillas and other tribes have perpetual rights to hunt, gather food, pasture livestock, and to access all tribal fishing sites that may traverse federal, state and local government jurisdictions. Thus, there is a permanent easement, reserved for the tribes, that abuts or cuts across the Columbia River shoreline that is now being proposed for conveyance.

A key question is whether these lands can be conveyed without deference to the existing tribal treaty rights. In our view, there can be no sustainable proposal or legislation without tribal engagement and approval.

The right thing to do is for our three cities and two counties, working with our local tribes and the Corps, to be at the forefront of this process. Working together to insure an integrated plan — and one that considers the river system as a unit — the local jurisdictions must look at the implications of this complex land transfer, the costs and the needed future coordination among the responsible parties.

Texas Rep. Mac Thornberry, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Forces Committee, said as much when he directed Rep. Dan Newhouse to go back to the drawing board before presenting TRIDEC’s conveyance initiative as part of this year’s national defense authorization bill in Congress. This includes the imperative that tribal treaty rights remain a mandatory component of federal law that must be addressed.

The jurisdictions also need to factor in the ongoing U.S.-Canada Columbia River Treaty negotiations, to assess the impact that potential revisions to this treaty will have on shoreline management.

All groups, including tribes, experts, laymen and residents, should be afforded an opportunity to weigh in with their views and contribute to the scoping process. The jurisdictions should appoint a neutral party to host community forums, both to share information and collect public input. To be credible, the forum hosts must be independent and objective.

Closely related to the need for open meetings is that the community does not yet have a draft detailed written proposal or even a draft outline of possible jurisdictional actions that we can review and comment on.

At most, we have a vague concept of a real estate transfer, with an explanation that the details will be provided at a later time by the gaining governmental entities. Our response is NO; show us the details up front first and then we will see if we can support the proposal. Residents should not be expected to sign a blank check.

The stakes are too high to not have a fully invested process.

This story was originally published November 13, 2018 at 2:29 PM.