If my understanding of the board is correct, this would be the best way to go after the tribes and possible the only real way. The court laid out a plan (the board) that could be used when there were disputes. Both sides got along and decided not to use it the plan. Unless both sides agreed to abolish the board, and petitioned the court to abolish the board, the lack of usage of it does not (in my opinion) mean that the plan ceased to exist. It simply means that it was not needed. It seems to me that if the State did sue the tribes for not negotiating, the courts could easily tell the state that they have not exhausted all the legal means available to get a resolution and send them back to the original plan of the Advisory Board. I am assuming that no formal sitting board exists now, so wouldn't it be smartest for the State to ask the courts to re-establish it after the problems last year? I could be 100% wrong, but this seems to be the quickest and easiest solution. Even if the board comes back with allocations we don't like, isn't that better, in the short term, then being hostage to the tribes.