Cantwell Confused

Ignoring the real problem

Ignoring the real problem

By
• Topics:

What's Maria Cantwell been smoking? Who's been keeping her in the dark and feeding her what? Why does she show such consistent disregard for her Lummi Island constituency? Does she have no competent staff for policy analysis?

At http://cantwell.senate.gov/services/thud.cfm, she has listed a $16m funding request under Transportation Safety Improvements for "Lummi Nation and Whatcom County." Notice who comes first on that list. That's always a sure sign of who's really being served.

I appreciate the sentiment, and no one wants to sneeze at $16m, but it looks to me like she's decided it's going to be easier to throw money at this problem than try to understand it. The problem is that the request doesn't address the issue, this money won't solve the problem. It does nothing to answer how Lummi Islanders will come and go. The Lummi Nation will still be able to hold Lummi Islanders hostage and put the screws to the County. If Cantwell thinks this money will break that pattern, then she's definitely been smoking something.

The project description states, "The lease for operating the (Lummi Island) ferry has now expired." Well, that's not even a little bit true, Maria. What is true is that the Lummi Nation unilaterally abrogated the existing lease because they wanted more money than it was going to provide. Since you obviously don't know any better, you can read all about it here. Another truth is that leasing has not worked, will not work and should be unneccessary. The road to Lummi Island was approved in 1920.

Her description further explains that "...in order to obtain a new lease...mitigation of the ferry impacts is essential." Everyone wants to mitigate the ferry's impacts, but please explain how a new lease is going to help.  None of the earlier leases has proved workable.

Cantwell's funding pitch becomes misleading when she goes on to state that "Whatcom County and the Lummi Nation participated in a traffic safety study that identified the causes of deaths and injuries and identified mitigation measures" and that "Based on the findings of that study, this funding would be used to increase safety by constructing pedestrian improvements, primarily sidewalks, within the immediate vicinity of the ferry."

This is misleading because, while injury and deaths on Haxton are definitely a problem, they demonstrably have little or nothing to do with ferry traffic. In any case, the recorded injuries and deaths are not occurring in the "immediate vicinity of the ferry." Only one event is related to ferry traffic and other circumstances made it unavoidable. Maria, did you bother to read the study? Is it easier to apply for $16m than to read a document?  What good will the sidewalks do Lummi Islanders?  They can mill around waiting to see if the ferry will be blockaded again.

The upshot is that the request will put sidewalks on the reservation. That's fine, sidewalks are an important social amenity and could help improve safety - if people use them. But why is there nothing in this request for the ferry? Why is there nothing addressing the real problem?  Why is everyone in authority so categorically averse to rolling up their sleeves and getting to work?

Instead, "funding would go towards the Slater Road Elevation Project. This flood risk management project would elevate a frequently flooded section of road in Whatcom County that provides access to the Lummi Indian Reservation, the Cherry Point Heavy Impact Industrial Area, unincorporated areas of Whatcom County west of Ferndale, and the Lummi Island community." Wow! Notice who comes first, again. Notice who comes last! That's some pungent herb!

Come on, Maria! Lummi Islanders must be able to reliably get on and off the island before Slater Road is any use to them at all. The Elevation Project will benefit Lummi Indians getting to town and help refinery workers get to their jobs but, because the request does nothing to address the root problem with the ferry, it does nothing for Lummi Islanders. Cantwell is putting everyone -  the Lummi Nation and the refineries - ahead of Lummi Islanders, a rare Democratic stronghold in rural Whatcom County.

For some reason, no one in authority will step up to their responsibility, dig into this issue and find a permanent solution. It's easy. Do what was already done in 1920: Approve a functional right-of-way to Lummi Island and end the bickering. Then we can solve the other problems openly and fairly.

Related Links

About Tip Johnson

Citizen Journalist and Editor • Member since Jan 11, 2008

Tip Johnson is a longtime citizen interest advocate with a record of public achievement projects for good government and the environment. A lifelong student of government, Tip served two terms [...]

Comments by Readers

Ham Hayes

Aug 18, 2010

Interestingly, Maria admits in the second paragraph of her letter that she isn’t doing the job we hired her to do. 

“At the federal level, part of that process includes making sure our state gets a fair share of federal funding.  Washington consistently pays more in federal tax dollars than we receive back in federal investment and services.”

If she and our other representatives were doing their job, wouldn’t we be getting our fair share?

Perhaps she should use some of those earmarks to hire some better research staff, and maybe even come visit us and talk to the local folks.

Read More...

Tip Johnson

Aug 19, 2010

I should add that the Elevation Project on Slater Road will make it possible for customers to visit the Lummi’s casino even during flood events.  It might be interesting to find out what kind of campaign contributions are being generated from that revenue stream.  It could go a long way toward explaining why none of our elected representatives will follow recommended federal policy for resolving these historic disputes.

Read More...

Tip Johnson

Aug 19, 2010

BTW, for reference, from my unanswered letter to representatives Larsen, Murray and Cantwell:

25 U.S.C. Chapter 19, Subchapter 7, ? 1773, states “It is the policy of the United States?to support the resolution of disputes over historical claims through settlements mutually agreed to by Indian and non-Indian parties” including “jurisdiction over…navigation, and authority and control in the areas of land use.” It further recognizes that ??any final resolution of pending disputes through a process of litigation would take many years and entail great expense to all parties; continue economically and socially damaging controversies; prolong uncertainty as to the access, ownership, and jurisdictional status of issues in question; and seriously impair long-term economic planning and development for all parties.? The Lummi Island ferry dispute could not be described more accurately.

Read More...
To comment, Log In or Register