Interview Transcript
Allen Pinkham
Q: A lot of water rights issues are now in the legal arena, but what it really comes back to is also a bio-cultural claim, not just a claim to needing water for what we traditionally think of farmers claiming water for, which is irrigation and use. But there is a bio-cultural claim to that water on the behalf of the Nez Perce tribe, isn't there?
A: What it really comes down to, we need the instream flow requirements for fish and the other aquatic insects and other animals. So we need the instream flow requirement to meet the needs of the salmon, steelhead, trout, and all those living things in the water.
Q: And why is that important to the tribe, why is the tribe fighting so hard?
A: We've lost so many species already, you know, the buffalo, the passenger pigeon, the list goes on and on. Why should the salmon be another one that we need to sacrifice and let go extinct? I don't think we should. We should try everything in our power to bring the salmon back so that all his relatives come back in the same water that he uses too. We need to do that, and that's what the tribe is very interested in.
Q: When the judge looked at the claim and dismissed part of the claim for the instream flows off the reservation, he said that the tribe has a right to take fish in the same numbers as non-tribal members, but it doesn't have a right to have the water the way it was, from time immemorial.
A: I think it does. If you go back 200 years, you had a free flowing stream, good water quality throughout the system. Now as you go through the system, there's erosion, there's chemicals, biochemicals, many things go into the water now. Even sewage goes into the water. So the obstacles are great, but then why not correct some of these obstacles for the salmon and other species to bring the system back to near what it was 200 years ago? There's a need for it, and it's a tribal need. But we do have other people that empathize with us also.
Q: You have people such as the Idaho Water Users Association, a Committee of Nine in the state of Idaho, that are objecting to these claims, saying that there are far too many and that they would set your rights as senior and adversely affect so many other interests on the water.
A: We were here first. Archaeologists may tell us different, but we were here. We've always been here. Since time immemorial. Since time began. That's when we started and this is where we lived. We were given this area to live and now some other strange people come and say we don't have these rights. That is not correct. We were here first and we used the water. We don't use it like these newcomers do. But we still use the water for, as you say, those bio-cultural reasons and that's very important to us.
Q: Why has the tribe filed claims for water rights off the reservation?
A: When we negotiated the treaty of 1855 with Isaac Stevens we said we want to fish here, here and here, not only in our homelands but as we travel. Downriver, upriver, we want to fish these areas too. Because fish is very important to us. It gives us nourishment, just the deer and elk and buffalo have. So it's important for us to go off reservation when we travel or to go where the resource is. It may be off the reservation, other waters, but we also did this traditionally.
Q: I think there is a fear among the state, and of course the irrigation users, that if the Nez Perce are able to have this many rights, that agriculture would be severely hurt, that power would be severely hurt, that other uses of the water would be hurt.
A: So be it. You know, we as Indian people have been hurt many times over because of the encroachment of so-called civilization. So when do we quit feeling pain? I think now is the time for us to quit making sacrifices for progress. Why doesn't somebody else suffer some economic pain, like we have for the last 200 years?
Q: Do you feel more confident about your prospects now? Looking back, it's only been the last 15 or 20 years that the tribes have had the power to hire attorneys to litigate or negotiate these types of settlements.
A: We were never given that opportunity before. Every time we spoke up for our human rights or our civil rights, something else was taken away from us. That's how we viewed it. Every time we spoke for ourselves we said, This can't keep going on; they're going to take everything from us. But we went back and looked at the treaty of 1855 and looked at those reserved rights. It said we're reserving water. Reserving the right to go hunt and fish. Reserving the right to travel anywhere we want. Reserving the right to be educated and the right to choose our teachers. But we agreed that we would live under the law, as long as it was a fair and just law and everyone was treated equal. That's what we agreed to.
Q: Talk a little about the Nez Perce relationship with the fish and why, in claiming these water rights, you are working for a brother.
A: Salmon and all other fishes and other insects and birds and all other animals are our relatives. They're like brothers and sisters to us, in a spiritual sense. But they make sacrifices for our wellbeing. And so we need to take care of them. Way before the human being came, all the animals and birds and insects were silent; rather, they could talk among themselves. But when the human being came on this earth, then all these animals became mute. So now who talks for those animals and those fish and birds and insects? It has to be the human being who talks for them. Because they cannot convey their desires to us anymore. Because the law, when it was applied many generations ago, since time immemorial, said that's the way it was going to be when the human being came. So now we have to talk for them.
Q: As you know this case is in negotiation, it's in mediation, and the state is spending quite a bit of money to challenge these water rights.
A: I think it's unfortunate that this society has to choose the way of litigation or negotiation over a long term to settle disputes. We could agree among ourselves if we wanted to that we would agree to share all these resources and also bring back the species and the water quality as it once was. And work towards that goal. As a community, as a state, as a tribe, as a United States, however you want to put it, we could do that. But no, everybody has their own little thing, their own little world that they want to protect. And so they make a stance, No, I'm not going to give this up. But we were never given that option 200 years ago or 150 years ago, even 100 years ago, even a few years ago. We were never given a choice. But now since we have the law, what you people call the law of the land, we are using that law of the land to protect our interests. And water issues are our interest.
Q: Some people worry that the ultimate objective of the Nez Perce water rights claims is to take down dams.
A: If you look at the economics of dams, after World War II there was a great push to control the flood plains, so we put in flood control dams and we'll generate electricity. The real salmon killers are Hells Canyon Dam, Dworshak Dam, and Grand Coulee Dam. Those are the real salmon killers. And we were given very little opportunity to object to those, because that was in the name of progress. Now we are objecting to too many dams that kill salmon. And those on the lower Snake River are a very good case in point. Why should we support these dams that only bring back less than 4% or 5% of the total electronic grid in the Northwest? So they were built in excess to begin with. And right now I think that this community in the northwest could very well conserve 15% of all hydro development if they really desired to. But they don't want to be the first to make that sacrifice, that economic pain. They don't want to feel that economic pain.
Q: Negotiations are a give and take process as opposed to litigation where there is a final decision, and I'm sure in this negotiation the tribe will ultimately have to give. Would you be willing to settle for some sort of compensation in a monetary form for water rights that are not granted?
A: That's a possibility. If the mitigation agreement is to conserve water and conserve energy and to restore and enhance salmon and some of that mitigation would go towards that, I'm sure we could agree to that. But it's not up to me to say that. I'm not a negotiator. There is a way to accomplish things if people really desire to do that and not take the stance that this is mine, no one is going to take it away from me.
Q: Additional thoughts on water rights?
A: Water was given to everyone by our Creator. We should share this resource and not have to divide it up. Because we give homage to water and to the creator who gave it to us by drinking a little bit of water before each meal. If people realize that this is really life, if without water there is no life, I hope that one day we will have enough water, good quality and quantity of water, to sustain life.
|