So wouldn't the tribe that's holding a license for a hydroelectric project be in conflict with the Bolt decision?
How can you be responsible for mitigating project damages and at the same time reek back half of the mitigation benefits back to yourself? Wouldn't you be getting into a "monopoly" of some type? You sell a public resource (water) and you pay for project mitigation with the funds that are generated from that resource, and then you get half of the benefits back to yourself. I think the tribe might be biting off more then they can chew on this one.

Lets here from the legal minded folks on this issue.

Cowlitzfisherman,

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????