The Forsaken Constituents of Lummi Island

Mon, Jul 19, 2010, 11:20 am  //  Tip Johnson

Are our federal representatives callous, indifferent, lazy or just easily influenced? Why do they seek refuge in silence and inaction? Who do they think they represent? Wall Street, Main Street or just their own street? It is proving not to be those who rely on the 90 year old, federally-approved street to their homes on Lummi Island. Will they be forsaken?

We just celebrated Independence Day, commemorating the adoption of the Declaration of Independence by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. To the people of Lummi Island, the significance of 230+ years of independence may soon be lost in the chaos of their disintegrating community.

Access to their community is threatened to be severely limited under a sketchy assertion of the Lummi Nation's. The Lummi Nation claims that a few thousand square feet of submerged land trumps and subverts decades of multiple approvals authorizing passage to Lummi Island, that numerous federal laws are impotent in their sovereign territory.

Countless pleas for help have gone unanswered. The islanders elected representatives seem content to avoid the thorny issue even as their constituents suffer unjustly. Islanders might rightly be wondering if anyone really represents them, for all the taxes they pay.

But these are little people suffering. Let's face it. If it was Cantwell, Murray, Larsen or even Gregoire, things would be playing out very differently. If someone blocked their way home, something would happen pretty damn quick. If a sovereign nation tried imposing a blockade and demanding payment for passage, these fine representatives of the people would be outraged. After all, we built a navy and fought a war to uphold these principles of freedom and show that we would not bend to such abuse. That's American history. It wouldn't matter what confluence of bureaucratic error or oversight created the opportunity, every force of government would inexorably converge and straighten it out, lickety split. Oh, if only someone important lived on Lummi Island.

But no, it's just ordinary folks with homes and businesses, folks that pay taxes, hire help and need customers, elderly that need to get to their doctors, or hope an ambulance can arrive in time, kids that need to get to school. Are Cantwell, Murray, Larsen and Gregoire showing disdain for this small community of under a thousand people? Are they just lazy? Or are other lobbies more influential than the people of Lummi Island?

Whatever the reason, representatives seem to prefer ignoring history, federal policy and legal precedents to let Whatcom County and Lummi Islanders fend for themselves against a threat that could substantially isolate the island community.

The road to Lummi Island was approved ninety years ago. The Lummi claim to a blockade is flimsy, based on bureaucratic oversight, inconsistent with their treaty and federal law. The treaty allowed roads to be built for the public convenience. Federal law has long maintained jurisdiction over navigable waters which overlay the Lummi claim. Federal policy recognizes that local jurisdictions cannot solve historic problems with tribes, that federally negotiatied settlements are necessary. The constitution protects all citizens from restraints on freedom of movement and trade. But not, apparently, if you are too remote or your voice is small enough to be ignored.

I wrote relevant state representatives asking about how the State might help. Only one bothered to reply. Kelli Linville said she, "..spoke with Rick's (Larsen's) office. They said that it was between the County and the Tribe. I spoke with DNR and they were also hands off, as was the Gov. staff." Bless you, Kelli. Plus, she said she would continue to look into whether, "...there is a state avenue to help the people on Lummi Island." That's the spirit, Kelli, keep trying!

Eventually, the Governor's office replied. Melody Younglove, Manager of Constituent Services, wrote, "The federal government and the state of Washington recognize Indian tribes as sovereign?"or independent, self-governing?" (sic) nations. Tribal sovereignty exists because of earlier treaties, federal laws, and presidential executive orders." She goes on to surmise, "It appears that a mutually agreeable resolution would be best accomplished with the Lummi tribal authorities, local government, and federal authorities working together. If this is not possible, federal court intervention may be necessary."

Translation: "We don't intend to do jack" and the people of Lummi Island are "free" to fight their own (federal) government in court to protect their tiny community (so leave the State out of it, please). That's right, a couple hundred adults - probably less counting only those with means - are free to sue the federal government, in turn obligated as trustee to defend the Lummi Nation. Them's bad odds, and it's not good government.

What it really says is that representatives are unfamiliar with the issue, have no idea what they are talking about and hope it will go away. After carefully researching the history, policies and precedents, I wrote our federal representatives explaining the problem and suggesting how, consistent with federal policy, they could help. Not one of them has bothered to reply.

You know you have stumbled upon a stinker when you show documentation of the problem, propose a simple, conventional solution - and can't get a response. When no rebuttal to citations of documents, policies and statutes is offered, you know they have yet to really grapple with the problem. The question is whether they will ever bother.

Americans understand the Boston Tea Party as an iconic rebellion that spurred formation of our first congress and led to the writing of the Declaration of Independence. In Boston, December of 1773, citizens got fed up with higher taxes and more government restrictions. They rallied their forces around an objection to, "taxation without representation."

Today, another "Tea Party" is gaining media attention, and some electoral traction, with similar rhetoric pointed at our government's failure to adequately represent their constituents or uphold the Constitution. For some, it's easy to dismiss as political extremism, but what about citizens for whom there is no representation at all?

Everyone wants good government. But who is supposed make it happen?

What?  What? Speak up, Reps, we can't hear you.

Related Links: