Further brain-storming on this issue:

It's interesting that the court held against the state's motion for cross injunction of the U.S. to fix federal culverts. True, the tribe's case is specific to state culverts and not federal ones, and that's for obvious strategic good reason. Hypothetically the tribes can later petition or sue the Feds to fix federal culverts, but that would mean biting the hand that feeds them, given that tribes receive many millions of federal $$.

Governor Stevens promulgated the treaties in behalf of the federal gov't. It would seem to follow that the federal gov't., therefore, is liable to fulfill any promises made to the tribes, specific or implied. (The implication of course, is that there would be salmon in harvestable numbers forever.) Yet the very purpose of the treaties was to release large tracts of land from tribal ownership so that the land could be settled and developed by citizens. By 1854 the federal gov't. knew, or certainly should have known, that the process of settlement and development invariably led to dramatically reduced abundance and frequent extirpation of fish stocks. They had the entire east coast as the obvious example.

Surely it's on the state to fix the culverts it owns. Let's say WA successfully does this. And then when salmon populations increase by the probable measurably miniscule amount, resulting in no significant increase in harvestable fish, then what? I have harped on the issue for many years that for every habitat improvement or restoration project, our local, state, and federal gov't. agencies approve 9 or 10 habitat degradtion projects (although they are certainly not called that, in fact that is what does happen in real life). I would almost place a bet that if all the culverts are fixed in 17 years, salmon abundance will experience a net decrease instead of an increase due to the ongoing incremental systematic degradation of habitat.

I think the feds will stall as long as possible (NOT ON MY WATCH), but will eventually have to acknowledge that society cannot have it both ways, that is, abundant wild salmon in harvestable numbers and unlimited human population growth and development. And in that moment (which will stretch across many years) the feds will have to decide what the purpose and intent of the Stevens treaties was - usual and accustomed fishing as it was in 1854 or incremental systematic settlement and development of the Washington Territory to accommodate the ever expanding human population.

More thoughts?

Sg