United States v. Washington

Good Law
235 F.3d 438·2000 WL 1818325·31 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20308·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9908·2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 31557
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 13, 2000No. 99-35104California1,912 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hawkins, J.

This case is a tributary, flowing out of the watershed fishing rights case of United States v. Washington, 384 F.Supp. 312 (W.D.Wash.1974) (“the Boldt Decision”), aff'd, 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir.1975). The Boldt Decision sought to divide equitably salmon fishing rights between the State of Washington and various Native American tribes, whose fishing rights are secured by treaty with the United States. Here, the district court dealt with the fishing rights held by the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation (“the Chehalis”), whose reservation was created by Executive Order. The district court reasoned that the rationale underlying Judge Boldt’s decisions — that the off-reservation catch of a non-treaty tribe should be attributed to (i.e., come out of the share of) the State— should apply to the on-reservation catch of a tribe whose reservation was created not by treaty but by Executive Order. We agree with the district court’s interpretation of Judge Boldt’s decisions and affirm.

I. Facts & Procedural Background

The Chehalis River in western Washington is one of the largest rivers in the Grays *440 Harbor watershed. It produces native and hatchery salmon runs, including…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.