Why Washington tribes are fighting effort to gut the state's Climate Commitment Act

The majority of Washington state tribes have spoken out against Initiative 2117, which would repeal a key part of the state’s Climate Commitment Act if approved by voters in the November general election.

Under the act, large greenhouse gas emitters essentially pay for the privilege to pollute in state carbon auctions, the proceeds from which go toward reducing emissions and helping communities affected by climate change. Of the state's 29 Tribes, 17 are now opposing the effort to repeal that cap-and-invest program.

While I-2117 wouldn't technically repeal the Climate Commitment Act in its entirety, the state Office of Financial Management says it would essentially leave the policy defunct.

Tribes say they would lose money for things like the Cowlitz Indian Tribe Transit program, the Quinault Indian Nation village relocation project, firefighting, and salmon recovery efforts statewide.

RELATED: How a Northwest tribe is escaping a rising ocean

The Tulalip Tribes would lose out on $500,000 to pay for restoration of Spencer Island on the Snohomish River, according to Brett Shattuck, who manages the Tulalip Tribes’ restoration, acquisition, and stewardship programs. Shattuck said the wetlands of Spencer Island are a nursery for young Chinook salmon and work is being done to connect other waterways to it.

Funding provided by the Tulalip Tribes to restore Spencer Island is just one piece of the pie. Local, state, and federal agencies have also put money toward the project.

RELATED: I-2117 puts WA's cap and invest system on the ballot, defenders of the system make their case

“If one piece [of funding] goes away, it can significantly delay project progress and really reduce the impact that we can have on the landscape,” Shattuck said.

According to the state Office of Financial Management, Washington's current biennial budget includes $232 million for tribes from revenue generated from the Climate Commitment Act. Nearly $72 million has been earmarked for various tribal projects effective Jan. 1, 2025; those projects won't move forward if I-2117 is successful.

RELATED: Proponents of I-2117 make the case for dismantling WA's cap and invest system

That’s concerning to Leonard Forsman, chair of the Suquamish Tribe and a committee member with the “No on 2117” campaign, which opposes the repeal effort. Forsman said doing away with the cap-and-invest program would remove state support for salmon at a critical time, as Puget Sound becomes more acidic to sea life and tides wash away more coastline.

“In our ancestral tradition, the people, land animals, and plants are inseparable,” he said. “They all have a spirit. They all have a soul. We all share the same spirit and soul. This respect for the natural world is what tribes in the Northwest are working to restore, and Initiative 2117 would set us way, way back.”

He added that the passage of I-2117 would also diminish the state’s role in upholding some of the tribes’ treaty rights. That’s because some of that funding goes toward maintaining healthy ecosystems that tribes have rights to gather resources from and maintain.

“We've been doing that before the state started investing in it, with federal and our own money,” Forsman said. “We spend a lot of our own dollars that we generate ourselves, through our enterprises like gaming or our tax compacts and things like that. A lot of that money goes towards those priorities.”

RELATED: As election day nears, climate repeal turns up the heat on WA’s transportation budget crisis

Hallie Balch, a spokesperson for Let’s Go Washington, the conservative group behind I-2117, said the Climate Commitment Act is too costly to taxpayers, and is responsible in part for the state’s high gas prices. Balch also said the state should be using its budget surplus over the past six years to pay for salmon passage and tribal consultation.

“We believe there is too much at stake for all of Washington state to keep this broken system in place,” she said.

Tribes also played a significant role in creating some of the framework for the Climate Commitment Act as it is today, said Ryan Miller, director of treaty rights and government affairs for the Tulalip Tribes. In doing so, they created a consultation process in which tribes have input on projects funded by the act which could impact them.

“That doesn't exist anywhere else in the nation,” Miller said. “We're the first state in the nation to have a dispute resolution system like that as a part of their consultation policy.”

The state also planned to give up to $5 million in Climate Commitment Act grants to tribes in December, to pay for consultations with state agencies and project applicants, and attend meetings for projects that impact them.

RELATED: Campaign to defend Washington state's climate law raises $11 million, far outpacing opposition

But there hasn't been a formal initiation of this dispute resolution system yet, Miller said. All of this now hangs in the balance.

“We don't even know if it works yet, right?” Miller said. “And we're at risk of losing it already.”

It’s a system that Balch from Let's Go Washington calls "an inefficient and dishonest way to govern."

But Miller sees it differently.

“If you ask tribes about how important it is to be able to have a resolution when they disagree with a state agency, I think that would be very high on their list,” he said.