The commissioners didn't respond to yesterday's email, and they didn't rename the courthouse either. Here is today's email:
Dear Commissioners,
During the recent Housing Solutions Committee meeting attended by Commissioners Mike French and Randy Johnson, the Peninsula Housing Authority disclosed that the proposed Mt. Angeles View Phase II project would cost roughly $500,000 per unit—about $30 million for 60 senior housing units. Taxpayers deserve clarity before another large public investment moves forward. What specific oversight mechanisms will be in place to ensure transparency in how these funds are spent, and how will the county verify that costs remain justified throughout the project? After the experience with Peninsula Behavioral Health’s North View project, where millions in public dollars flowed into a project many residents view as a luxury development with little public visibility once funding was secured, what safeguards are being implemented early in the process to prevent similar problems? Will there be independent audits, public reporting on construction costs and operations, or clear performance benchmarks tied to the funding? Most importantly, how will you ensure that taxpayer dollars are protected from the kinds of cost overruns, lack of accountability, and perceived misuse that have raised serious concerns in the past?
$350K price tag for one unit for homeless individuals is insane! With no guarantees of sobriety or employment, NONE! Our county government has not listened or learned from the tax paying citizens and from past experiences. Drug use continues to increase day after day & not much is being done to control the habit. This county can’t afford to build homes, apartments or living spaces at $350K-$500K a pop for drug addicted homeless people who are not contributing to society. Clallam County does not have the tax base in employment or property taxes to support this insane notion of providing free homes to a non-productive group of individuals. Our leaders need some mental health care to bring them back to reality.
Below is a modeled individual-commissioner response showing how this question could be answered under a good-governance framework; it is illustrative only and not an actual county statement.
Dear Constituent,
Thank you for writing. Your question is fair, and I agree that taxpayers deserve clarity before additional public support moves forward.
As an individual commissioner, I think two things can be true at once. First, a reported cost of roughly $500,000 per unit for Mt. Angeles View Phase II is understandably alarming. Second, current Washington affordable-housing data show that while this figure is above the statewide median, it is not automatically outside the range of recent Washington projects. The Washington State Housing Finance Commission reported a median new-construction cost of $413,776 per unit in fiscal year 2025, with some counties at or near the $500,000 range, including Kitsap at $474,140, Pierce at $493,720, and Klickitat at $500,389.
That said, the County’s own March 6, 2026 Housing Solutions Committee packet states that “All Multifamily Project cost based on $400,000/door,” and it lists Mt. Angeles View Phase II as a 60-unit project. On that basis alone, a figure materially above the committee’s own planning assumption should receive a clear public explanation before further commitments are made.
From a good-governance standpoint, I believe the public should be able to see, in open session and on the record, at minimum:
1. a full funding breakdown showing each public and private source;
2. a line-item budget separating land, hard costs, soft costs, financing, contingency, and reserves;
3. an explanation for why the project exceeds the committee’s stated $400,000-per-door baseline;
4. written public reporting during construction and after occupancy; and
5. clear audit, inspection, and corrective-action provisions tied to any county-administered funds or county-backed commitments.
That is consistent with Washington law requiring county business to be conducted openly and with the principle that the public must remain informed in order to maintain control over the instruments of government.
I would also note that “cost per unit” in affordable housing usually reflects total development cost, not just construction labor and materials. In the same state report, construction represented 67% of FY 2025 project costs, while professional fees were 12%, land/acquisition 9%, and financing 7%. That does not remove the sticker shock, but it does mean the public is entitled to see exactly what is included in this project’s number rather than being asked to accept it on trust.
So my answer, as an individual commissioner, is this: $500,000 per unit is high enough to justify public concern, even if it is not unprecedented in Washington. That is precisely why the County should require documentation, benchmarking, and ongoing reporting before additional support advances.
Dr. Sarah. Many of us older folks are shocked at prices. Additionally, the expectation of paying for so many who are irresponsible seems foolish. New apartments, food, medical care, etc. seems excessive. Pet care? Where is the requirement for a personal investment by the residents? Are you attending meetings? Have you been caring for yourself? Are you working toward being drug/alcohol free? What are you doing to be worthy of the taxpayer's investment? For the folks spending my money I have questions. Are you spending wisely? High cost housing and NO defined restrictions? Let me hear about your successes. I expect some degree of responsibility. Unfortunately you can't buy wisdom.
@SheldonMcGuire, I think many residents are asking the same question: if taxpayers are expected to fund these systems, then the government should be able to clearly show the standards, expectations, and results associated with that investment.
60 units at over $400k/door. $24M+ total cost, almost $25M. So many homeless drug addicts could have gone into treatment and become contributing citizens in society. This is such a waste. Which of these commissioners are contractors/developers? Hmmm.
Great point as always at least it has a lasting chance. The North view project is in for a huge surprise when they start ripping their apartments apart to get their drug money... I've been warned by my ex, the abuse councilor. I'd love to be wrong but time will play it all out.
Glen, what you say is as sure as thunder in a lightning storm. What the Commissioners aren't saying is where are the funds going to come from for this money pit?
RCW 42.56 (Public Records Act): This chapter establishes the fundamental right of every person to inspect and copy any public record of a state or local agency, reinforcing the citizen role in achieving transparency and holding officials accountable, as seen with the public records request regarding the courthouse renaming.
RCW 42.30 (Open Public Meetings Act): The OPMA mandates that all meetings of the governing bodies of public agencies must be open to the public. This act ensures that public policy decisions, such as those made by the Salish BH-ASO board, are made in accessible forums, regardless of the location, thus protecting the public's right to witness and participate in government proceedings.
Clallam County Code 31.04.150 (Public involvement and education): This section of the county code explicitly states that "Effective citizen participation, whether by mandate or choice, expands the opportunities for citizens to discuss public policy and influence officials," reinforcing the necessity of citizen vigilance in shaping county administration. https://clallam.county.codes/CCC/31.04.150
Nice potpourri of topics, Jeff, but... "Two lessons were reinforced Tuesday. First, our commissioners remain remarkably susceptible to organized pressure." I would say that this is only true if the organized pressure is from Democrats. We are organized conservative pressure and it gets us nowhere.
A person in need of a home could have this in a campground-style community restrooms and showers for $10K/unit. Even if full wiring, plumbing, heating were added, we're talking $20K/unit. The public should not be in the business of providing free luxury living for those who choose not to be responsible or can't, so $20K/unit is more than enough.
The odd thing about Mark Ozias serving on an executive board that doesn't allow inappropriate or repetitive public comments is that I think his own wife, Lisa Boulware, has violated those guidelines while giving public comment in the commissioners' boardroom. Things that make you go "hmm."
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to Host Hearing on Indian Water Rights Settlements
The hearing, titled “Examining Federal Policies Governing Indian Water Rights Settlements,” will also include testimony on S. 953, the Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025. It is scheduled for 2:30 p.m. ET on Wednesday, March 11, in Room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C.
The intent of Indian water rights settlements is TO AID IN SECURING TRIBAL AND INDIVIDUAL INDIAN RIGHTS TO HISTORIC TRIBAL LAND and ensuring permanent access to clean, reliable water supplies. To support these goals, DOI negotiates and supports implementation of Indian water rights settlements. Settlements often END DECADES OF CONTROVERSY AND CONTENTION AMONG TRIBES AND NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES.
Feb 25, 2026 We were honored to welcome tribal leaders to Washington, D.C. for the Self-Governance Tribal Advisory Committee.
🪶
The day opened in a good way with a prayer led by Chairman W. Ron Allen, followed by remarks from Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Billy Kirkland. Together, we reaffirmed our commitment to tribal sovereignty, strengthened nation-to-nation partnerships and advanced key priorities in support of self-governance.
April 22, 2007 Ron Allen, a Native American leader who builds tribe, county and respect
BLYN – This isn’t a conversation. It’s a headlong leap onto a bullet train. Ron Allen is the engineer, hurtling back and forth between the Pacific Northwest and Washington, D.C., negotiating on behalf of a small tribe while developing an ever-larger vision for the North Olympic Peninsula.
In recent months, Allen’s been to meetings in Washington, Oregon and British Columbia, and to conferences in Las Vegas, Nev., and Colorado Springs, Colo., learning about tribal reservation infrastructure and resort marketing.
He’s also been to Washington, D.C., where he helped establish the National Congress of American Indians’ National Policy and Research Center. The center is both a think tank and a clearinghouse for research on Native American issues, from housing to health care to high-school dropout rates to trust lands.
Then there was the Colorado Springs conference in March, where Allen looked into the future of five-diamond hotels, one of which he’s preparing to build. A seven-story hotel, overlooking Sequim Bay, will be the crowning edifice on a campus of attractions: first the Country Store and Gathering Place, for which ground will be broken this spring, and then a 12,000-square-foot conference center to be built adjacent to the 7 Cedars Casino in 2008-09. “I’m a road warrior,” he said in an interview at the Jamestown Tribal Center.
He’s also driven to diversify tribal operations. Last year, the Jamestown tribe PURCHASED A HEALTH AND MEDICAL SUPPLY COMPANY IN SACRAMENTO, CALIF. It bought the Dungeness Golf Course north of Sequim and renamed it the Cedars at Dungeness. This is all part of Allen’s plan to, as he puts it, “take control of our destiny.” “We totally depended on federal funds in the 1980s,” after the tribe achieved federal recognition in 1981, he said. “We started off with $30,000 the first year and went to $180,000 the second. “Last year, we received about $8 MILLION, which is about 40 percent of our revenue base.”
Thank You, Jennifer for sharing this. I don't believe it's just the Native American's 'drumming up' this mess. I question if the Federal Gov is the actual backing, and instructing, and they are 'using the tribes' for a Fed. agenda.
Fresh from water rights classes, the first pacts were with Mexico. I am going to dig a little deeper.
Yes, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) is the original treaty with Mexico that governs many rights in the Southwest, and it is closely linked to the Pueblo Rights Doctrine.
Justia Law
Justia Law
+2
While the treaty does not use the word "Pueblo" in its title, it contains key provisions that protected the land and water rights of the Pueblo Indians and other inhabitants of the ceded territories.
Justia Law
Justia Law
+1
Connection to Pueblo Rights
Property Protection: Articles VIII and IX of the treaty guaranteed that the property rights of Mexican citizens (which at the time included Pueblo Indians in New Mexico) would be "inviolably respected" by the United States.
Pueblo Rights Doctrine: This legal principle, derived from Spanish and Mexican law and preserved by the treaty, suggests that settlements (pueblos) established under those regimes have a prior and paramount right to use as much water from adjacent sources as needed for their municipal purposes.
Legal Recognition: Courts have historically recognized that Pueblo Indians hold their lands by rights superior to the United States because their titles date back to Spanish grants that were fully protected under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
SSRN eLibrary
SSRN eLibrary
+4
The March 11 Hearing
The hearing you mentioned on S. 953, the Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025, is a modern effort to resolve long-standing water claims for the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, and San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe. These settlements often aim to provide "certainty" by quantifying water rights that may have roots in the 1848 treaty or the subsequent Winters Doctrine (federal reserved water rights).
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) is a foundational document between two sovereign nations, the United States and Mexico, and is not "re-negotiated" in the way a contract might be. Instead, its modern application evolves through legislative settlements, like S. 953, which translate ancient treaty-based rights into concrete modern laws.
Here is how the process works for the specific water rights hearing you mentioned:
1. Multi-Party Negotiation
Before reaching Congress, a settlement team—often including the Department of the Interior (DOI), the Department of Justice (DOJ), Tribal Nations (Navajo, Hopi, and San Juan Southern Paiute), and state governments—spends years negotiating. They aim to quantify "paper" rights (historical claims from the treaty or the Winters Doctrine) into "wet" water (actual gallons delivered via infrastructure).
Because these settlements require significant federal funding (over $5 billion for S. 953) and changes to federal law, they must be approved by the U.S. Congress.
POLITICO Pro
POLITICO Pro
+1
The Hearing: The March 11 hearing in Room 628 of the Dirksen Building is a critical step where the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs takes testimony to ensure the bill meets federal criteria.
Legislation: If the committee approves, the bill (S. 953) must pass both the Senate and the House and be signed by the President to become law.
Once Congress passes the law, the settlement must often be reconciled with existing court cases (adjudications). A court will hear any final objections and then issue a final decree and judgment, which legally "re-negotiates" the landscape of water rights for the region.
Historically, the only major "re-negotiation" of the 1848 treaty occurred via the Gadsden Purchase (1853), a separate treaty that adjusted the border and territory in what is now southern Arizona and New Mexico.
To build a formal case against the commercial provisions of S. 953 for the March 11 hearing, the argument should focus on market equity, taxpayer accountability, and the original intent of federal Indian law.
Here is a structured argument you can use to challenge the fairness of tribal commercial water use in this legislation:
1. Violation of the "Winters Doctrine" Original Intent
The legal foundation for tribal water rights—the Winters Doctrine (1908)—was established to provide tribes with enough water to transform their reservations into a "permanent homeland" for sustained living (subsistence farming and domestic use).
The Argument: Extending these "homeland" rights to large-scale industrial, commercial, or off-reservation leasing is a "mission creep" of the original legal intent. Water intended for a family's well or a community garden should not be repurposed into a commercial commodity for a water-marketing business that competes with tax-paying Arizona municipalities.
2. Market Distortion through Federal Subsidies
The $5 billion price tag for S. 953 is almost entirely funded by U.S. taxpayers.
The Argument: This creates an unlevel playing field. A private commercial developer in Arizona must secure their own capital for water infrastructure and pay market rates for delivery. If the federal government builds the pipelines (like the $1.7 billion iiná bá pipeline) for free, any tribal commercial enterprise using that water operates with a massive, non-reimbursable federal subsidy. This puts neighboring non-tribal businesses at a permanent competitive disadvantage.
3. Lack of Regulatory Reciprocity
Water users in Arizona are subject to the strict rules of the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), which limits pumping to protect the aquifer for everyone.
The Argument: Tribal commercial entities often claim sovereign immunity from state groundwater regulations. It is fundamentally unfair for a tribal commercial farm to pump unlimited water from a shared aquifer while a neighboring private farm is legally forced to cut back or face fines. Without regulatory reciprocity, commercial tribal use threatens the long-term sustainability of the entire region's water supply.
4. "Windfall" Profit from a Public Resource
A key part of S. 953 allows tribes to lease their water to third parties (cities or corporations) for profit.
The Argument: Water is a public trust resource in the West. Allowing a single entity to "sit" on a senior water right and then broker it back to the public for a profit creates a "rent-seeking" economy. This forces the citizens of Arizona to pay twice: once to build the infrastructure through federal taxes, and a second time to "rent" the water from the tribe to keep their own cities running.
5. Economic Harm to Rural Communities
Many rural Arizona towns, like Winslow, Holbrook, and Snowflake, rely on the same "Little Colorado River" basin addressed in this bill.
The Argument: If the bill prioritizes high-volume tribal commercial use over existing municipal needs, it effectively "strangles" the growth of these historic towns. A "fair" bill would prioritize human consumption and domestic stability for all residents of Northeastern Arizona equally, rather than carving out a commercial advantage for one group based on a 19th-century treaty.
To build a comprehensive, high-stakes opposition to the commercial provisions of S. 953 (the Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025), the argument must move beyond "fairness" and tackle constitutional equity, economic distortion, and national resource security.
Here is the complete, multi-layered argument to be presented for the record at the March 11 hearing:
1. Violation of the "Equal Footing" Doctrine
The U.S. Constitution and the "Equal Footing Doctrine" imply that all citizens and entities within a state should be subject to the same fundamental rules regarding natural resources.
The Argument: By granting tribes exclusive commercial water rights that are exempt from state groundwater management and property taxes, S. 953 creates a privileged commercial class. A non-tribal business in Arizona must pay for its water, pay taxes on its land, and follow strict state conservation laws. If a tribal commercial enterprise (like a data center or industrial farm) is exempt from these costs, the federal government is effectively picking "winners and losers" in the private market based on ancestry, which is a violation of the spirit of equal protection.
2. The "Double-Dip" Taxpayer Burden
The $5 billion authorized in this bill is non-reimbursable, meaning the U.S. taxpayer pays the bill and never gets it back.
The Argument: It is one thing to fund drinking water for households (private use). It is another to fund the industrial-scale infrastructure required for commercial profit. If the federal government builds a $1.7 billion pipeline to facilitate tribal commercial leasing, the taxpayer is essentially "subsidizing the competitor." The tribes then charge cities (the same taxpayers who built the pipe) a leasing fee to use the water. This "double-dipping"—where the public pays for the hardware and then pays a "rent" for the software—is a gross misuse of federal appropriations.
3. Destruction of Rural Economic Sovereignty
Northeastern Arizona's "Little Colorado River" basin supports dozens of non-tribal towns like Winslow, Holbrook, and St. Johns.
The Argument: When a settlement grants massive "senior" commercial rights to a tribe, it effectively "caps" the economic growth of every neighboring town. No new factory or small business will move to a rural Arizona town if they have to rely on "junior" water rights that can be shut off during a drought to satisfy a "senior" tribal commercial lease. This bill doesn't just settle a claim; it devalues the private property of every non-tribal landowner in the basin by making their water supply legally precarious.
4. The "Paper Right" Extortion Model
Many critics argue that these settlements have become a form of "legalized extortion."
The Argument: The tribes claim ancient "unquantified" rights from the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Because the U.S. is afraid of a long court battle, it "buys" the tribes off with $5 billion and commercial rights. However, many of these tribes never historically used this volume of water for commerce. Granting "commercial marketing rights" allows a tribe to become a water broker, sitting on a resource they don't need for survival just to sell it to the highest bidder in Phoenix or Tucson. This turns a survival resource into a speculative financial asset, driving up the cost of living for all Arizonans.
5. Lack of Accountability and "Regulatory Havens"
Arizona has some of the strictest water conservation laws in the world (the 1980 Groundwater Management Act).
The Argument: Tribal commercial zones under S. 953 could become "Regulatory Havens." If a tribe decides to host a water-intensive industry—like a semiconductor plant or a massive bottling facility—they are not bound by the same "Assured Water Supply" rules as the rest of the state. This creates an environmental loophole: the tribe can deplete a shared aquifer for commercial gain while the state-regulated neighbors are forced into mandatory "dry-ups" to save that same aquifer.
6. The Geopolitical Risk of Water Marketing
S. 953 allows for "Off-Reservation Leasing," meaning water can be sent far away from the land it was intended to serve.
The Argument: Once water becomes a commercial commodity that can be leased to the highest bidder, it is no longer managed for the "public good." It is managed for maximum profit. In a period of historic drought on the Colorado River, the federal government should be prioritizing system stability, not creating new commercial markets that encourage the movement of water away from rural basins to satisfy urban sprawl or industrial demand.
Summary Statement for the Committee:
"While we support the provision of safe, reliable drinking water for every home on tribal lands, S. 953 overreaches by using $5 billion in public funds to create a federally-subsidized, tax-exempt commercial water monopoly. We request that the bill be amended to restrict the use of federally-funded infrastructure to domestic, municipal, and subsistence purposes only, prohibiting the commercial marketing and leasing of water to third parties."
For the 119th Congress (2025–2026), the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs is composed of 11 members—6 from the Republican majority and 5 from the Democratic minority.
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
+1
The committee does not typically publish direct individual email addresses for Senators; instead, they use secure web contact forms or a centralized committee email for official testimony.
Indian Affairs Committee (.gov)
Indian Affairs Committee (.gov)
+2
Committee Leadership
Chairwoman: Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Vice Chairman: Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
+1
Committee Members
Majority Members (Republicans) Minority Members (Democrats)
John Hoeven (ND) Maria Cantwell (WA)
Steve Daines (MT) Catherine Cortez Masto (NV)
Markwayne Mullin (OK) Tina Smith (MN)
Mike Rounds (SD) Ben Ray Luján (NM)
Jerry Moran (KS)
How to Submit Your Argument
Since the hearing for S. 953 is today, March 11, 2026, at 2:30 p.m. ET, the most effective way to ensure your argument is part of the official record is through these channels:
Native News Online
Native News Online
+1
Official Testimony Email: Send your structured argument to testimony@indian.senate.gov. This is the designated inbox for public input on specific bills like S. 953.
Committee Phone: Call the main office at (202) 224-2251 to register your opposition to the commercial provisions of the bill.
Mexico is not "at the table" for the March 11 hearing because the Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Act (S. 953) is a domestic U.S. legal matter designed to settle internal claims between the federal government, the State of Arizona, and specific Tribal Nations.
While the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo set the stage for these rights, Mexico's current role is handled through separate international frameworks.
Why Mexico is not involved in this specific settlement:
Domestic vs. International: This hearing is about allocating water within the United States' existing share of the Colorado River. Mexico has a separate, guaranteed allotment of 1.5 million acre-feet per year under the 1944 Water Treaty, which is managed by the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC).
Internal Distribution: The tribes involved (Navajo, Hopi, and San Juan Southern Paiute) are seeking to quantify their rights to water that the U.S. already owns according to international law. Dividing that "U.S. bucket" does not legally require Mexico's participation.
Current Tensions: While Mexico is not at this specific "Indian Water Rights" table, they are at a much larger "Colorado River" table. As of March 2026, relations are strained; the U.S. recently denied a special water request from Mexico for the first time in 80 years, citing Mexico's failure to meet its own delivery obligations under the 1944 treaty.
June 26, 2024 Arizona’s water-rich Gila River tribe flexes its political muscle in a drying West
For years, the Gila River tribe has made a business of banking the water it gets from the Colorado River and leasing some of it to cities in Arizona in exchange for money. One such deal reached in 2016 with the fast-growing Phoenix suburb of Chandler netted $46 million for the tribe.
It was only in 2004 that the tribe regained its rights with the water settlement secured by Rodney Lewis, who also was the first Native American attorney to appear before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The West’s water war arrives in Washington
The Trump administration’s hands-off approach to the fight over the Colorado River has left states careening towards a crisis — and it's not clear that Interior Secretary Doug Burgum can turn them around.
Wyoming to the U.S.-Mexico border, along with 5.5 million acres of farmland, American Indian tribes and the high-tech industry that has blossomed around Phoenix
John, My fear of the water rights, which are public now, is what can happen when water is flowing through sovereign private land acquisitions by the tribes? Water rights are not limited to rivers, creeks or streams but also the bigger issue of groundwater rights. It is happening already. When public water rights turns into private water rights, we are all in trouble.
The water steward position, IMO, is the handle of the door that could soon be opened all the way, depending who and how much power is given to that position.
Washington is a Public Power state. There are 28 operating PUDs; two non-operating. Twenty-three provide electric service; 14 of these also provide water or water and sewer service; five provide water or water and sewer service only.
Yesterday’s courthouse naming win may seem trivial to some, but it is really a first step in a long road to combating a long-entrenched problem - that being, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. For too long the squeaky wheel has been lefty-controlled special interest groups like LWV, the NGOs, the drug addiction hustlers, Indivisible Sequim, Dr Berry, and others who think it’s fine to spend your money on social engineering and big government on the name of “compassion” or some other buzz phrase.
To claim that no taxpayer money has been spent on the Susan Owens memorial overlooks the salaries of those that have spent paid hours working on the project. These hours could have been spent on what could be considered higher priority issues, such as addiction, homelessness, economy, roads, public safety, etc. Sure would be interesting to see our check writers treat expenditures as their coming out of their own pockets. Kudos to the engaged participants at yesterday's commissioner meeting.
I sense, I see the community waking up and asking questions.
I was busy working full time and caring for my large family.
Then something woke up inside of me in 2021.
They keep us distracted.
Distracted.
Keep the information coming, those who feel the connection to an item. run with it and trust your instincts & your experience... comment, write letters ( i have NOT done this yet) and attend meetings.
There are countless city, county, state, meetings and most CAN be attended on-line.
I believe we will become "Limitless" with information.. and when we transcribe and download that information into action, we win!
We have been somber.
By design.
The EDC of Clallam County, hosted a Gala last week with the Former CEO of Starbucks.
Interesting note: Starbucks is packing up shop and moving to Nashville.
Why? because.... Washington State..
I am very grateful to all the commentors yesterday... there were many engaged citizens demanding change.
To the commentor regarding the "Illuminary Mirrored Boxes" in the middle of the Forest,
THANK YOU!
You tied *Susan Owens .. connecting the dots and following the money.
Why the push?
Why the sway?
Just as Jamestown Skallam Tribe and their many buildings being placed in or over Mariposa Creek.
It's all about the money... the plan...
I also attended the Health Board meeting last evening.
Jake Seegers set the tone for the night with his comment.
Let's just say Dr. Berry began her night under fire.
He brought in his Gatoraide bottle.
Nothing about last night was addressing the mess on the streets.
They were "pushing" information "claiming" 68.2% of our population who are HOMED, die of overdoses.
While 27.3% is deemed OTHER, and 4.5% is HOSPITAL.
The charts and printouts:
The County departments like to print paper with pretty colors.
This is a huge deficit alone.
Anyone own a printer?? $$
Highly educational.
On the panel there was a deputy from the Sheriff's department.
I thought she was wonderful & I accept her ideas for bridging the gap and human compassion and care.
She was heartfelt and wanted to "Serve and Protect".
As for "Catch and Release".
Is there anyone here with the ability to find the COST of catch and release?
The cost of the arrest.
Booking.
Housing.
Feeding.
Release.
Repeat.
Curious on that one...
Thank you Jeff.
i appreciate you and all your researchers.
we have a place to bounce ideas and we navigate our way to the truth.
Thank you, Teresa, for attending the Sequim City Council meetings and now the Health Board meeting. Those are hard to endure when you know you're being lied to and gas lighted.
Jeff, everyone who wrote letters and spoke up against renaming the CC Court House was outstanding! Even Stacey Richards who couldn't stay for the entire meeting gave her public comment against harm reduction and presented facts the Comms don't like to hear. Your pot pourri may have some thinking conspiracy theorist, but I align with your thoughts. Just like no one believed taxpayers won't have to pay a penny for anything renamed or memorialized for Susan Owens. We've heard this too many times and trust no one.
"But there is nothing compassionate about forcing the public to normalize visible collapse. There is nothing dignified about leaving people to rot in addiction, psychosis, or permanent instability while officials congratulate themselves for using the right vocabulary. Next time Dr. Berry or her allies lecture the public about preserving human dignity, residents might reasonably ask whether dignity means endless excuses, rapid release, and no meaningful intervention."
This is the best summation of public concerns that I have read! Thank you, Jeff.
Keep up the great work revealing what these slippery underhanded "smiling reptiles" within our community are trying to pull and we will ALL hold them 100% responsible every single step of the way without flinching~! If these clowns in government are working, it is best to believe that their so-called "work" is NOT in our best interests or in line with our wishes~! Berry and her evil medical malpractice "activists" will be facing criminal prosecutions in due time, because we as a community and America as a country MUST make sure that these criminals of humanity receive justice~!
Yesterday was AMAZING! I learned so much from the other public comments. I was debating whether to dial in and am so glad I did.
Thanks for the kind words about my comment! I really feel like Susan Owens handed me that opinion right when I needed to read her words. It’s the first of hers that I’ve read and so now I’m curious to read more.
The cost of some of these taxpayer funded housing projects seems to be way out of budget housing cost.I see all these free housing projects that are going to cost the taxpayers multi millions $$$ but i do not see any affordable housing for working class that will pay back into the tax roll.
Machetes, whips and other weapons are common amongst street people in PA. If you were to search "machete" or"whip" on the scanner page you would find past incidences of persons under the influence and/or mentally ill with weapon at the parks, transit center and trail. The whip cracking is often used to intimidate persons away from walking too close to where they are conducting drug activity.
The commissioners didn't respond to yesterday's email, and they didn't rename the courthouse either. Here is today's email:
Dear Commissioners,
During the recent Housing Solutions Committee meeting attended by Commissioners Mike French and Randy Johnson, the Peninsula Housing Authority disclosed that the proposed Mt. Angeles View Phase II project would cost roughly $500,000 per unit—about $30 million for 60 senior housing units. Taxpayers deserve clarity before another large public investment moves forward. What specific oversight mechanisms will be in place to ensure transparency in how these funds are spent, and how will the county verify that costs remain justified throughout the project? After the experience with Peninsula Behavioral Health’s North View project, where millions in public dollars flowed into a project many residents view as a luxury development with little public visibility once funding was secured, what safeguards are being implemented early in the process to prevent similar problems? Will there be independent audits, public reporting on construction costs and operations, or clear performance benchmarks tied to the funding? Most importantly, how will you ensure that taxpayer dollars are protected from the kinds of cost overruns, lack of accountability, and perceived misuse that have raised serious concerns in the past?
$350K price tag for one unit for homeless individuals is insane! With no guarantees of sobriety or employment, NONE! Our county government has not listened or learned from the tax paying citizens and from past experiences. Drug use continues to increase day after day & not much is being done to control the habit. This county can’t afford to build homes, apartments or living spaces at $350K-$500K a pop for drug addicted homeless people who are not contributing to society. Clallam County does not have the tax base in employment or property taxes to support this insane notion of providing free homes to a non-productive group of individuals. Our leaders need some mental health care to bring them back to reality.
Below is a modeled individual-commissioner response showing how this question could be answered under a good-governance framework; it is illustrative only and not an actual county statement.
Dear Constituent,
Thank you for writing. Your question is fair, and I agree that taxpayers deserve clarity before additional public support moves forward.
As an individual commissioner, I think two things can be true at once. First, a reported cost of roughly $500,000 per unit for Mt. Angeles View Phase II is understandably alarming. Second, current Washington affordable-housing data show that while this figure is above the statewide median, it is not automatically outside the range of recent Washington projects. The Washington State Housing Finance Commission reported a median new-construction cost of $413,776 per unit in fiscal year 2025, with some counties at or near the $500,000 range, including Kitsap at $474,140, Pierce at $493,720, and Klickitat at $500,389.
That said, the County’s own March 6, 2026 Housing Solutions Committee packet states that “All Multifamily Project cost based on $400,000/door,” and it lists Mt. Angeles View Phase II as a 60-unit project. On that basis alone, a figure materially above the committee’s own planning assumption should receive a clear public explanation before further commitments are made.
From a good-governance standpoint, I believe the public should be able to see, in open session and on the record, at minimum:
1. a full funding breakdown showing each public and private source;
2. a line-item budget separating land, hard costs, soft costs, financing, contingency, and reserves;
3. an explanation for why the project exceeds the committee’s stated $400,000-per-door baseline;
4. written public reporting during construction and after occupancy; and
5. clear audit, inspection, and corrective-action provisions tied to any county-administered funds or county-backed commitments.
That is consistent with Washington law requiring county business to be conducted openly and with the principle that the public must remain informed in order to maintain control over the instruments of government.
I would also note that “cost per unit” in affordable housing usually reflects total development cost, not just construction labor and materials. In the same state report, construction represented 67% of FY 2025 project costs, while professional fees were 12%, land/acquisition 9%, and financing 7%. That does not remove the sticker shock, but it does mean the public is entitled to see exactly what is included in this project’s number rather than being asked to accept it on trust.
So my answer, as an individual commissioner, is this: $500,000 per unit is high enough to justify public concern, even if it is not unprecedented in Washington. That is precisely why the County should require documentation, benchmarking, and ongoing reporting before additional support advances.
Sincerely,
Commissioner
Clallam County board of Commissioners
References
Clallam County Housing Solutions Committee. (2026, March 6). Agenda packet. https://www.clallamcountywa.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_03062026-1872
Revised Code of Washington § 36.32.120. Powers of legislative authorities. https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.32.120
Revised Code of Washington § 42.30.030. Meetings declared open and public. https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.30.030
Revised Code of Washington § 42.56.030. Construction. https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.56.030
Washington State Housing Finance Commission. (2025, December). Annual affordable housing cost data: Report to the Washington State Legislature. https://wshfc.org/admin/20251219BlacklineWSHFCCostDataReportFY2024-25.pdf
Dr. Sarah. Many of us older folks are shocked at prices. Additionally, the expectation of paying for so many who are irresponsible seems foolish. New apartments, food, medical care, etc. seems excessive. Pet care? Where is the requirement for a personal investment by the residents? Are you attending meetings? Have you been caring for yourself? Are you working toward being drug/alcohol free? What are you doing to be worthy of the taxpayer's investment? For the folks spending my money I have questions. Are you spending wisely? High cost housing and NO defined restrictions? Let me hear about your successes. I expect some degree of responsibility. Unfortunately you can't buy wisdom.
@SheldonMcGuire, I think many residents are asking the same question: if taxpayers are expected to fund these systems, then the government should be able to clearly show the standards, expectations, and results associated with that investment.
60 units at over $400k/door. $24M+ total cost, almost $25M. So many homeless drug addicts could have gone into treatment and become contributing citizens in society. This is such a waste. Which of these commissioners are contractors/developers? Hmmm.
Great point as always at least it has a lasting chance. The North view project is in for a huge surprise when they start ripping their apartments apart to get their drug money... I've been warned by my ex, the abuse councilor. I'd love to be wrong but time will play it all out.
Glen, what you say is as sure as thunder in a lightning storm. What the Commissioners aren't saying is where are the funds going to come from for this money pit?
Good Governance Daily Proverb:
Public trust holds only when citizens can see the record, enter the room, and test the rationale.
Statutory & Policy Support:
RCW 42.56 (Public Records Act): This chapter establishes the fundamental right of every person to inspect and copy any public record of a state or local agency, reinforcing the citizen role in achieving transparency and holding officials accountable, as seen with the public records request regarding the courthouse renaming.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.56
RCW 42.30 (Open Public Meetings Act): The OPMA mandates that all meetings of the governing bodies of public agencies must be open to the public. This act ensures that public policy decisions, such as those made by the Salish BH-ASO board, are made in accessible forums, regardless of the location, thus protecting the public's right to witness and participate in government proceedings.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.30
Clallam County Code 31.04.150 (Public involvement and education): This section of the county code explicitly states that "Effective citizen participation, whether by mandate or choice, expands the opportunities for citizens to discuss public policy and influence officials," reinforcing the necessity of citizen vigilance in shaping county administration. https://clallam.county.codes/CCC/31.04.150
Nice potpourri of topics, Jeff, but... "Two lessons were reinforced Tuesday. First, our commissioners remain remarkably susceptible to organized pressure." I would say that this is only true if the organized pressure is from Democrats. We are organized conservative pressure and it gets us nowhere.
As for housing, I keep pointing out to deaf ears and blind eyes that housing for the homeless need not cost $500K/unit. A nice, spacious studio apartment, sans running water, can be bought from Costco for $5K or $9K installed: https://www.costco.com/p/-/yardline-upton-12-x-24-wood-shed-do-it-yourself-or-pro-installed/4000247686?langId=-1
A person in need of a home could have this in a campground-style community restrooms and showers for $10K/unit. Even if full wiring, plumbing, heating were added, we're talking $20K/unit. The public should not be in the business of providing free luxury living for those who choose not to be responsible or can't, so $20K/unit is more than enough.
The odd thing about Mark Ozias serving on an executive board that doesn't allow inappropriate or repetitive public comments is that I think his own wife, Lisa Boulware, has violated those guidelines while giving public comment in the commissioners' boardroom. Things that make you go "hmm."
It was a good day yesterday. Thanks for the turnout. It took a village and everyone from the village was there.
John, the village needs to stick together. See today's hearing:
LAND AND WATER RIGHTS ARE BEING EXAMINED
WHISKEY IS FOR DRINKING: WATER IS FOR FIGHTING OVER
https://www.indian.senate.gov/
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to Host Hearing on Indian Water Rights Settlements
The hearing, titled “Examining Federal Policies Governing Indian Water Rights Settlements,” will also include testimony on S. 953, the Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025. It is scheduled for 2:30 p.m. ET on Wednesday, March 11, in Room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C.
The intent of Indian water rights settlements is TO AID IN SECURING TRIBAL AND INDIVIDUAL INDIAN RIGHTS TO HISTORIC TRIBAL LAND and ensuring permanent access to clean, reliable water supplies. To support these goals, DOI negotiates and supports implementation of Indian water rights settlements. Settlements often END DECADES OF CONTROVERSY AND CONTENTION AMONG TRIBES AND NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES.
Tribal Self Governance Advisory Committee
Feb 25, 2026 We were honored to welcome tribal leaders to Washington, D.C. for the Self-Governance Tribal Advisory Committee.
🪶
The day opened in a good way with a prayer led by Chairman W. Ron Allen, followed by remarks from Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Billy Kirkland. Together, we reaffirmed our commitment to tribal sovereignty, strengthened nation-to-nation partnerships and advanced key priorities in support of self-governance.
He's a force to be reckoned with
https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/2007/04/22/ron-allen-a-native-american-leader-who-builds-tribe-county-and-respect/
YOU’VE COME A LONG WAY BABY: THRU FUNDING.
1981 FEDERAL RECOGNITION
1981 FUNDING $30,000
1982 FUNDING $180,000
2007 FUNDING 8 MILLION
2026 FUNDING $????
April 22, 2007 Ron Allen, a Native American leader who builds tribe, county and respect
BLYN – This isn’t a conversation. It’s a headlong leap onto a bullet train. Ron Allen is the engineer, hurtling back and forth between the Pacific Northwest and Washington, D.C., negotiating on behalf of a small tribe while developing an ever-larger vision for the North Olympic Peninsula.
In recent months, Allen’s been to meetings in Washington, Oregon and British Columbia, and to conferences in Las Vegas, Nev., and Colorado Springs, Colo., learning about tribal reservation infrastructure and resort marketing.
He’s also been to Washington, D.C., where he helped establish the National Congress of American Indians’ National Policy and Research Center. The center is both a think tank and a clearinghouse for research on Native American issues, from housing to health care to high-school dropout rates to trust lands.
Then there was the Colorado Springs conference in March, where Allen looked into the future of five-diamond hotels, one of which he’s preparing to build. A seven-story hotel, overlooking Sequim Bay, will be the crowning edifice on a campus of attractions: first the Country Store and Gathering Place, for which ground will be broken this spring, and then a 12,000-square-foot conference center to be built adjacent to the 7 Cedars Casino in 2008-09. “I’m a road warrior,” he said in an interview at the Jamestown Tribal Center.
He’s also driven to diversify tribal operations. Last year, the Jamestown tribe PURCHASED A HEALTH AND MEDICAL SUPPLY COMPANY IN SACRAMENTO, CALIF. It bought the Dungeness Golf Course north of Sequim and renamed it the Cedars at Dungeness. This is all part of Allen’s plan to, as he puts it, “take control of our destiny.” “We totally depended on federal funds in the 1980s,” after the tribe achieved federal recognition in 1981, he said. “We started off with $30,000 the first year and went to $180,000 the second. “Last year, we received about $8 MILLION, which is about 40 percent of our revenue base.”
follow the money...
thanks Jennifer.
Insightful comment... gets us thinking!
Unbelievable.. the corruption, the lies and the white man suffers.
We are all Americans, right?
God Bless America.
Yep. KING W. Ron Allen.....
It's: All hail, King Allen!
Thank You, Jennifer for sharing this. I don't believe it's just the Native American's 'drumming up' this mess. I question if the Federal Gov is the actual backing, and instructing, and they are 'using the tribes' for a Fed. agenda.
KX, I agree something is making them more powerful than we ever imagined ; )
The Boldt Decision set the precedent. Once a foundation is set, covert, divisive tactics and barriers are only a matter of time... Time's up!
I question our own gov't'
s motives also. What's in it for the crooks in D.C. and WA state? The Tribes really trust them?!
Denise, KX is questioning that too. Who is playing who?
Fresh from water rights classes, the first pacts were with Mexico. I am going to dig a little deeper.
Yes, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) is the original treaty with Mexico that governs many rights in the Southwest, and it is closely linked to the Pueblo Rights Doctrine.
Justia Law
Justia Law
+2
While the treaty does not use the word "Pueblo" in its title, it contains key provisions that protected the land and water rights of the Pueblo Indians and other inhabitants of the ceded territories.
Justia Law
Justia Law
+1
Connection to Pueblo Rights
Property Protection: Articles VIII and IX of the treaty guaranteed that the property rights of Mexican citizens (which at the time included Pueblo Indians in New Mexico) would be "inviolably respected" by the United States.
Pueblo Rights Doctrine: This legal principle, derived from Spanish and Mexican law and preserved by the treaty, suggests that settlements (pueblos) established under those regimes have a prior and paramount right to use as much water from adjacent sources as needed for their municipal purposes.
Legal Recognition: Courts have historically recognized that Pueblo Indians hold their lands by rights superior to the United States because their titles date back to Spanish grants that were fully protected under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
SSRN eLibrary
SSRN eLibrary
+4
The March 11 Hearing
The hearing you mentioned on S. 953, the Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025, is a modern effort to resolve long-standing water claims for the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, and San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe. These settlements often aim to provide "certainty" by quantifying water rights that may have roots in the 1848 treaty or the subsequent Winters Doctrine (federal reserved water rights).
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) is a foundational document between two sovereign nations, the United States and Mexico, and is not "re-negotiated" in the way a contract might be. Instead, its modern application evolves through legislative settlements, like S. 953, which translate ancient treaty-based rights into concrete modern laws.
Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Congress.gov | Library of Congress
+4
Here is how the process works for the specific water rights hearing you mentioned:
1. Multi-Party Negotiation
Before reaching Congress, a settlement team—often including the Department of the Interior (DOI), the Department of Justice (DOJ), Tribal Nations (Navajo, Hopi, and San Juan Southern Paiute), and state governments—spends years negotiating. They aim to quantify "paper" rights (historical claims from the treaty or the Winters Doctrine) into "wet" water (actual gallons delivered via infrastructure).
Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Congress.gov | Library of Congress
+3
2. Congressional Authorization
Because these settlements require significant federal funding (over $5 billion for S. 953) and changes to federal law, they must be approved by the U.S. Congress.
POLITICO Pro
POLITICO Pro
+1
The Hearing: The March 11 hearing in Room 628 of the Dirksen Building is a critical step where the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs takes testimony to ensure the bill meets federal criteria.
Legislation: If the committee approves, the bill (S. 953) must pass both the Senate and the House and be signed by the President to become law.
Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Congress.gov | Library of Congress
+2
3. Judicial Decree
Once Congress passes the law, the settlement must often be reconciled with existing court cases (adjudications). A court will hear any final objections and then issue a final decree and judgment, which legally "re-negotiates" the landscape of water rights for the region.
Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Congress.gov | Library of Congress
+2
4. Historical Precedent: The Gadsden Purchase
Historically, the only major "re-negotiation" of the 1848 treaty occurred via the Gadsden Purchase (1853), a separate treaty that adjusted the border and territory in what is now southern Arizona and New Mexico.
National Archives (.gov)
National Archives (.gov)
+1
The argument needs to be made. Please make it
To build a formal case against the commercial provisions of S. 953 for the March 11 hearing, the argument should focus on market equity, taxpayer accountability, and the original intent of federal Indian law.
Here is a structured argument you can use to challenge the fairness of tribal commercial water use in this legislation:
1. Violation of the "Winters Doctrine" Original Intent
The legal foundation for tribal water rights—the Winters Doctrine (1908)—was established to provide tribes with enough water to transform their reservations into a "permanent homeland" for sustained living (subsistence farming and domestic use).
The Argument: Extending these "homeland" rights to large-scale industrial, commercial, or off-reservation leasing is a "mission creep" of the original legal intent. Water intended for a family's well or a community garden should not be repurposed into a commercial commodity for a water-marketing business that competes with tax-paying Arizona municipalities.
2. Market Distortion through Federal Subsidies
The $5 billion price tag for S. 953 is almost entirely funded by U.S. taxpayers.
The Argument: This creates an unlevel playing field. A private commercial developer in Arizona must secure their own capital for water infrastructure and pay market rates for delivery. If the federal government builds the pipelines (like the $1.7 billion iiná bá pipeline) for free, any tribal commercial enterprise using that water operates with a massive, non-reimbursable federal subsidy. This puts neighboring non-tribal businesses at a permanent competitive disadvantage.
3. Lack of Regulatory Reciprocity
Water users in Arizona are subject to the strict rules of the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), which limits pumping to protect the aquifer for everyone.
The Argument: Tribal commercial entities often claim sovereign immunity from state groundwater regulations. It is fundamentally unfair for a tribal commercial farm to pump unlimited water from a shared aquifer while a neighboring private farm is legally forced to cut back or face fines. Without regulatory reciprocity, commercial tribal use threatens the long-term sustainability of the entire region's water supply.
4. "Windfall" Profit from a Public Resource
A key part of S. 953 allows tribes to lease their water to third parties (cities or corporations) for profit.
The Argument: Water is a public trust resource in the West. Allowing a single entity to "sit" on a senior water right and then broker it back to the public for a profit creates a "rent-seeking" economy. This forces the citizens of Arizona to pay twice: once to build the infrastructure through federal taxes, and a second time to "rent" the water from the tribe to keep their own cities running.
5. Economic Harm to Rural Communities
Many rural Arizona towns, like Winslow, Holbrook, and Snowflake, rely on the same "Little Colorado River" basin addressed in this bill.
The Argument: If the bill prioritizes high-volume tribal commercial use over existing municipal needs, it effectively "strangles" the growth of these historic towns. A "fair" bill would prioritize human consumption and domestic stability for all residents of Northeastern Arizona equally, rather than carving out a commercial advantage for one group based on a 19th-century treaty.
To build a comprehensive, high-stakes opposition to the commercial provisions of S. 953 (the Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025), the argument must move beyond "fairness" and tackle constitutional equity, economic distortion, and national resource security.
Here is the complete, multi-layered argument to be presented for the record at the March 11 hearing:
1. Violation of the "Equal Footing" Doctrine
The U.S. Constitution and the "Equal Footing Doctrine" imply that all citizens and entities within a state should be subject to the same fundamental rules regarding natural resources.
The Argument: By granting tribes exclusive commercial water rights that are exempt from state groundwater management and property taxes, S. 953 creates a privileged commercial class. A non-tribal business in Arizona must pay for its water, pay taxes on its land, and follow strict state conservation laws. If a tribal commercial enterprise (like a data center or industrial farm) is exempt from these costs, the federal government is effectively picking "winners and losers" in the private market based on ancestry, which is a violation of the spirit of equal protection.
2. The "Double-Dip" Taxpayer Burden
The $5 billion authorized in this bill is non-reimbursable, meaning the U.S. taxpayer pays the bill and never gets it back.
The Argument: It is one thing to fund drinking water for households (private use). It is another to fund the industrial-scale infrastructure required for commercial profit. If the federal government builds a $1.7 billion pipeline to facilitate tribal commercial leasing, the taxpayer is essentially "subsidizing the competitor." The tribes then charge cities (the same taxpayers who built the pipe) a leasing fee to use the water. This "double-dipping"—where the public pays for the hardware and then pays a "rent" for the software—is a gross misuse of federal appropriations.
3. Destruction of Rural Economic Sovereignty
Northeastern Arizona's "Little Colorado River" basin supports dozens of non-tribal towns like Winslow, Holbrook, and St. Johns.
The Argument: When a settlement grants massive "senior" commercial rights to a tribe, it effectively "caps" the economic growth of every neighboring town. No new factory or small business will move to a rural Arizona town if they have to rely on "junior" water rights that can be shut off during a drought to satisfy a "senior" tribal commercial lease. This bill doesn't just settle a claim; it devalues the private property of every non-tribal landowner in the basin by making their water supply legally precarious.
4. The "Paper Right" Extortion Model
Many critics argue that these settlements have become a form of "legalized extortion."
The Argument: The tribes claim ancient "unquantified" rights from the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Because the U.S. is afraid of a long court battle, it "buys" the tribes off with $5 billion and commercial rights. However, many of these tribes never historically used this volume of water for commerce. Granting "commercial marketing rights" allows a tribe to become a water broker, sitting on a resource they don't need for survival just to sell it to the highest bidder in Phoenix or Tucson. This turns a survival resource into a speculative financial asset, driving up the cost of living for all Arizonans.
5. Lack of Accountability and "Regulatory Havens"
Arizona has some of the strictest water conservation laws in the world (the 1980 Groundwater Management Act).
The Argument: Tribal commercial zones under S. 953 could become "Regulatory Havens." If a tribe decides to host a water-intensive industry—like a semiconductor plant or a massive bottling facility—they are not bound by the same "Assured Water Supply" rules as the rest of the state. This creates an environmental loophole: the tribe can deplete a shared aquifer for commercial gain while the state-regulated neighbors are forced into mandatory "dry-ups" to save that same aquifer.
6. The Geopolitical Risk of Water Marketing
S. 953 allows for "Off-Reservation Leasing," meaning water can be sent far away from the land it was intended to serve.
The Argument: Once water becomes a commercial commodity that can be leased to the highest bidder, it is no longer managed for the "public good." It is managed for maximum profit. In a period of historic drought on the Colorado River, the federal government should be prioritizing system stability, not creating new commercial markets that encourage the movement of water away from rural basins to satisfy urban sprawl or industrial demand.
Summary Statement for the Committee:
"While we support the provision of safe, reliable drinking water for every home on tribal lands, S. 953 overreaches by using $5 billion in public funds to create a federally-subsidized, tax-exempt commercial water monopoly. We request that the bill be amended to restrict the use of federally-funded infrastructure to domestic, municipal, and subsistence purposes only, prohibiting the commercial marketing and leasing of water to third parties."
For the 119th Congress (2025–2026), the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs is composed of 11 members—6 from the Republican majority and 5 from the Democratic minority.
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
+1
The committee does not typically publish direct individual email addresses for Senators; instead, they use secure web contact forms or a centralized committee email for official testimony.
Indian Affairs Committee (.gov)
Indian Affairs Committee (.gov)
+2
Committee Leadership
Chairwoman: Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Vice Chairman: Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
+1
Committee Members
Majority Members (Republicans) Minority Members (Democrats)
John Hoeven (ND) Maria Cantwell (WA)
Steve Daines (MT) Catherine Cortez Masto (NV)
Markwayne Mullin (OK) Tina Smith (MN)
Mike Rounds (SD) Ben Ray Luján (NM)
Jerry Moran (KS)
How to Submit Your Argument
Since the hearing for S. 953 is today, March 11, 2026, at 2:30 p.m. ET, the most effective way to ensure your argument is part of the official record is through these channels:
Native News Online
Native News Online
+1
Official Testimony Email: Send your structured argument to testimony@indian.senate.gov. This is the designated inbox for public input on specific bills like S. 953.
Committee Phone: Call the main office at (202) 224-2251 to register your opposition to the commercial provisions of the bill.
Mailing Address:
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
838 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Indian Affairs Committee (.gov)
Indian Affairs Committee (.gov)
+3
Mexico is not "at the table" for the March 11 hearing because the Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Act (S. 953) is a domestic U.S. legal matter designed to settle internal claims between the federal government, the State of Arizona, and specific Tribal Nations.
Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Congress.gov | Library of Congress
+1
While the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo set the stage for these rights, Mexico's current role is handled through separate international frameworks.
Why Mexico is not involved in this specific settlement:
Domestic vs. International: This hearing is about allocating water within the United States' existing share of the Colorado River. Mexico has a separate, guaranteed allotment of 1.5 million acre-feet per year under the 1944 Water Treaty, which is managed by the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC).
Internal Distribution: The tribes involved (Navajo, Hopi, and San Juan Southern Paiute) are seeking to quantify their rights to water that the U.S. already owns according to international law. Dividing that "U.S. bucket" does not legally require Mexico's participation.
Current Tensions: While Mexico is not at this specific "Indian Water Rights" table, they are at a much larger "Colorado River" table. As of March 2026, relations are strained; the U.S. recently denied a special water request from Mexico for the first time in 80 years, citing Mexico's failure to meet its own delivery obligations under the 1944 treaty.
John, are you leaving your brain to science?
I was thinking about leaving it to Grok..lol.
If he does I hope he waits about 30 more years. An amazing person.
I have John's brain rights under the ruling, "I've picked it to death"
COLORADO RIVER FIGHT: IS IT A MAP OF THE FUTURE FOR US? WILL WE NEED TO 'RENT' WATER?
https://www.kuer.org/politics-government/2024-06-26/arizonas-water-rich-gila-river-tribe-flexes-its-political-muscle-in-a-drying-west
June 26, 2024 Arizona’s water-rich Gila River tribe flexes its political muscle in a drying West
For years, the Gila River tribe has made a business of banking the water it gets from the Colorado River and leasing some of it to cities in Arizona in exchange for money. One such deal reached in 2016 with the fast-growing Phoenix suburb of Chandler netted $46 million for the tribe.
It was only in 2004 that the tribe regained its rights with the water settlement secured by Rodney Lewis, who also was the first Native American attorney to appear before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The West’s water war arrives in Washington
The Trump administration’s hands-off approach to the fight over the Colorado River has left states careening towards a crisis — and it's not clear that Interior Secretary Doug Burgum can turn them around.
Wyoming to the U.S.-Mexico border, along with 5.5 million acres of farmland, American Indian tribes and the high-tech industry that has blossomed around Phoenix
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/31/west-water-interior-colorado-00756325
John, My fear of the water rights, which are public now, is what can happen when water is flowing through sovereign private land acquisitions by the tribes? Water rights are not limited to rivers, creeks or streams but also the bigger issue of groundwater rights. It is happening already. When public water rights turns into private water rights, we are all in trouble.
The water steward position, IMO, is the handle of the door that could soon be opened all the way, depending who and how much power is given to that position.
Washington is a Public Power state. There are 28 operating PUDs; two non-operating. Twenty-three provide electric service; 14 of these also provide water or water and sewer service; five provide water or water and sewer service only.
oh wow
Who drove the turnip truck to get them there?
Driven by doggers, fueled by enlightenment.
Yesterday’s courthouse naming win may seem trivial to some, but it is really a first step in a long road to combating a long-entrenched problem - that being, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. For too long the squeaky wheel has been lefty-controlled special interest groups like LWV, the NGOs, the drug addiction hustlers, Indivisible Sequim, Dr Berry, and others who think it’s fine to spend your money on social engineering and big government on the name of “compassion” or some other buzz phrase.
To claim that no taxpayer money has been spent on the Susan Owens memorial overlooks the salaries of those that have spent paid hours working on the project. These hours could have been spent on what could be considered higher priority issues, such as addiction, homelessness, economy, roads, public safety, etc. Sure would be interesting to see our check writers treat expenditures as their coming out of their own pockets. Kudos to the engaged participants at yesterday's commissioner meeting.
Eric,
Your first comment yesterday... very powerful.
Thank you. :-)
Especially when you consider the admin fees county and cities siphon off grants and things like the lodging tax funds as expenses
We need t-shirts that say something like "I went to a BoCC meeting and all I got for it was this tacky t-shirt."
And a irritating rash
I like it. How about a coffee mug or tumbler too?
For $135 you can feel righteous in a sequined crowd on May 7th from 5:00 to 8:30pm.
Yep, all Hat and No Cattle....there.
The energy in the room was powerful yesterday.
I sense, I see the community waking up and asking questions.
I was busy working full time and caring for my large family.
Then something woke up inside of me in 2021.
They keep us distracted.
Distracted.
Keep the information coming, those who feel the connection to an item. run with it and trust your instincts & your experience... comment, write letters ( i have NOT done this yet) and attend meetings.
There are countless city, county, state, meetings and most CAN be attended on-line.
I believe we will become "Limitless" with information.. and when we transcribe and download that information into action, we win!
We have been somber.
By design.
The EDC of Clallam County, hosted a Gala last week with the Former CEO of Starbucks.
Interesting note: Starbucks is packing up shop and moving to Nashville.
Why? because.... Washington State..
I am very grateful to all the commentors yesterday... there were many engaged citizens demanding change.
To the commentor regarding the "Illuminary Mirrored Boxes" in the middle of the Forest,
THANK YOU!
You tied *Susan Owens .. connecting the dots and following the money.
Why the push?
Why the sway?
Just as Jamestown Skallam Tribe and their many buildings being placed in or over Mariposa Creek.
It's all about the money... the plan...
I also attended the Health Board meeting last evening.
Jake Seegers set the tone for the night with his comment.
Let's just say Dr. Berry began her night under fire.
He brought in his Gatoraide bottle.
Nothing about last night was addressing the mess on the streets.
They were "pushing" information "claiming" 68.2% of our population who are HOMED, die of overdoses.
While 27.3% is deemed OTHER, and 4.5% is HOSPITAL.
The charts and printouts:
The County departments like to print paper with pretty colors.
This is a huge deficit alone.
Anyone own a printer?? $$
Highly educational.
On the panel there was a deputy from the Sheriff's department.
I thought she was wonderful & I accept her ideas for bridging the gap and human compassion and care.
She was heartfelt and wanted to "Serve and Protect".
As for "Catch and Release".
Is there anyone here with the ability to find the COST of catch and release?
The cost of the arrest.
Booking.
Housing.
Feeding.
Release.
Repeat.
Curious on that one...
Thank you Jeff.
i appreciate you and all your researchers.
we have a place to bounce ideas and we navigate our way to the truth.
Teresa :-)
Teresa, I just love reading your reports. They are real and down to earth!
i just get so dang excited to see movement!! 😃✔️
Thank you, Teresa, for attending the Sequim City Council meetings and now the Health Board meeting. Those are hard to endure when you know you're being lied to and gas lighted.
i pray we can turn the head of the snake Denise…
a great community is worth saving.🇺🇸❤️
Jeff, everyone who wrote letters and spoke up against renaming the CC Court House was outstanding! Even Stacey Richards who couldn't stay for the entire meeting gave her public comment against harm reduction and presented facts the Comms don't like to hear. Your pot pourri may have some thinking conspiracy theorist, but I align with your thoughts. Just like no one believed taxpayers won't have to pay a penny for anything renamed or memorialized for Susan Owens. We've heard this too many times and trust no one.
"But there is nothing compassionate about forcing the public to normalize visible collapse. There is nothing dignified about leaving people to rot in addiction, psychosis, or permanent instability while officials congratulate themselves for using the right vocabulary. Next time Dr. Berry or her allies lecture the public about preserving human dignity, residents might reasonably ask whether dignity means endless excuses, rapid release, and no meaningful intervention."
This is the best summation of public concerns that I have read! Thank you, Jeff.
👏!!
Excellent article Jeff Tozzer~!
Keep up the great work revealing what these slippery underhanded "smiling reptiles" within our community are trying to pull and we will ALL hold them 100% responsible every single step of the way without flinching~! If these clowns in government are working, it is best to believe that their so-called "work" is NOT in our best interests or in line with our wishes~! Berry and her evil medical malpractice "activists" will be facing criminal prosecutions in due time, because we as a community and America as a country MUST make sure that these criminals of humanity receive justice~!
Sincerely, Mike
As much as I bag on the Commissioners on other matters I applaud their thoughtful pivot here.
Thoughtful or pressured...
Thoughtfully pressured?
Yesterday was AMAZING! I learned so much from the other public comments. I was debating whether to dial in and am so glad I did.
Thanks for the kind words about my comment! I really feel like Susan Owens handed me that opinion right when I needed to read her words. It’s the first of hers that I’ve read and so now I’m curious to read more.
That's fantastic to hear your experience. I think many are doing so as a result of the CCWD articles. Hopefully more decide to do the same.
The cost of some of these taxpayer funded housing projects seems to be way out of budget housing cost.I see all these free housing projects that are going to cost the taxpayers multi millions $$$ but i do not see any affordable housing for working class that will pay back into the tax roll.
Machetes, whips and other weapons are common amongst street people in PA. If you were to search "machete" or"whip" on the scanner page you would find past incidences of persons under the influence and/or mentally ill with weapon at the parks, transit center and trail. The whip cracking is often used to intimidate persons away from walking too close to where they are conducting drug activity.