The WRIA-1 water adjudication lawsuit has generated reaction from many well owners who live in the Water Resource Inventory Area-1 (WRIA-1) within Whatcom County and part of northern Skagit County. POWWRA (Property Owners Well Water Rights Alliance) has been formed to defend and seek a permanent resolution to the State Department of Ecology’s (DOE) lawsuit which seeks to restrict/meter the use of water by well owners. Whatcom County Superior Court Case 24-2-80000-37 (q.v.) by sccustomer_service@co.whatcom.wa.us establishes the position that to control the use of water by the well owners requires them to submit claims to document the amount of water used in order to determine water use standards by them. The case clearly indicates that it is a matter of fact that local tribes seek to claim their senior water rights based on the interpretation of various treaties, the Point Elliott Treaty (1855), the Boldt Decision, while ignoring several Supreme Court cases to base their senior water rights. The fact is they have ceded their land, and were compensated for it. The local tribes do not have unceded land. Neither the Lummis or Nooksack Indian groups can claim senior water rights.
POWWRA seeks to defend their position against the DOE based upon the use of their expert passionate and experienced legal counsel, Mr. Lawrence Kogan of the New York Kogan law firm. He is ready to go!
Goals of POWWRA. In defense of their case against the tax paying well owners defendants of WRIA-1 and whose taxes are used to fund the lawsuit, the following goals are summarized:
- Clarify local tribal claims of senior water rights. Disclose if federal trust claims remain in place for local tribes after a thorough review of treaties and court precedents involving tribal senior water rights.
- Clarify the court’s application of due process and rule of law. Disclose if due process was consistently applied throughout the process of the adjudication suit initiated by the Department of Ecology and local tribes
Clarify how the Chevron Doctrine applies. Chevron Doctrine, there are no acceptable substitutes for Congressional authority for Indian Policy. Review how the Chevron Doctrine applies to this lawsuit; that the Department of Ecology presupposes “expert” authority to control the water resources.
- Clarify jurisdictional issues. Whether the lawsuit includes all defendants of WRIA-1 regardless of the source of their water or if those only the defendants who obtain their water within the Nooksack Basin are involved. If the latter is applied, (discluding areas of Sumas, Blaine, northern Skagit County not served by the Nooksack watershed, Custer, and Pt. Roberts) , these defendants should not have standing.
In addition to the tribal jurisdictional issue, POWWRA seeks to determine why (2) due process was not followed in the development of the procedure of the lawsuit by the Whatcom County Superior Court. What charges were made against the defendants? Why was there no opportunity to respond to these charges? Who are the experts that are used to evaluate the DOE’s scientific research into their claims?
Other questions arise. What remedies does the DOE seek when/if they prevail against the well owners? What fees will be assessed to the well owners when they are metered? Where will these fees pay for? What accountability will there be? What are the constitutional rights of the well owners which will be affected by this decision? Will the decision made encompass the Nooksack Basin or will it include other areas not served by the Nooksack River? Will the result of this lawsuit serve as a precedent for other WRIAs within the State of Washington? Will the remedy ensure that it will provide for positive economic development for agriculture and other industries in WRIA-1? Finally, those shareholders on water associations may not themselves be subject directly to justifying their use of water, but will the DOE assess these associations themselves with “extra” fees that may be passed on to their shareholders?
POWWRA seeks to clarify whether this lawsuit legally establishes (1) standing for local tribes, (2) whether the courts are following due process throughout the development of the case, (3) who are the experts in this case (not DOE), and (4) whether the court will ever determine the jurisdiction that pertains to this lawsuit. Clarification of these issues may very well lead to (hopefully) the dismissal of this case against the WRIA-1 well owners.
Gerald Hulbert
Sumas, WA
360-988-0144
February 12, 2026