The Skagit Council of Governments voted Wednesday to preserve the Skagit Watershed Council (SWC) as the Skagit and Samish watershed’s lead entity, while also facilitating county and treaty tribes discussions about modernizing SWC governance.
The vote followed a contentious summer, where county officials put forth a proposal in May that would have removed support from the SWC as a lead entity.
What is the Skagit Watershed Council?
Created in 1997, SWC is a nonprofit community partnership coordinating voluntary salmon habitat restoration and protection across the watershed In 1998, Washington’s Salmon Recovery Act designated it the “lead entity” for the Skagit and Samish watersheds by 17 initiating governments, which includes Swinomish, Sauk-Suiattle, Upper Skagit, and Samish tribes; Whatcom, Skagit and Snohomish Counties; two ports; four cities, and four towns.
The “lead entity” role is pivotal to salmon recovery, though primarily operational. SWC oversees a state-mandated, established process where:
- Local groups propose projects.
- A technical team of biologists and engineers reviews them.
- A citizens committee — including tribal members, farmers, nonprofits, and local government officials — ranks them and submits them to the state for funding consideration.
- The state Salmon Recovery Funding Board makes final funding decisions.
Since its creation, more than $100 million in state and federal funding has flowed through it to Skagit restoration projects.
“Our job is to build support for projects, and we’ve done that,” said Aundrea McBride, SWC executive director and coastal geomorphologist. She said the SWC just submitted its 2025 list to the state.
SWC manages the state program that establishes the citizens committee to prioritize projects. They have no say over eminent domain or court-ordered mitigation. They do not decide who gets state funding. The citizens committee makes funding priority recommendations.
The county’s push for change
Some Skagit County leaders have criticized SWC’s structure for years, arguing it should be led by local governments rather than a nonprofit, since local governments are responsible for regulating salmon recovery projects. One official, Skagit County Attorney Will Honea, has asserted it is dominated by Seattle interests in Skagit hydroelectric power.
In Wednesday’s meeting, Honea said the resolution addresses two of his concerns: advancing Chinook recovery projects and pressuring Seattle to add fish passage at their dams, citing Baker Lake’s success and ongoing county talks with Seattle City Light’s Skagit River Hydroelectric Project recertification.
Honea’s reasoning confused attendees, including McBride, who pointed out that everyone wants to make progress on fish restoration, but that City Light’s dam restoration program has nothing to do with SWC’s narrow remit.
“The lead entity program has nothing whatsoever to do with fish passage at the dams,” she said. “I have no idea why he is conflating that with changes to the watershed council governance. We have not participated in any way in licensing. We have no stake in the outcomes, except in that we may be able to advocate for voluntary habitat, restoration, and protection, and help move that process forward.”
Jenn Strang, Skagit City Light media relations manager, confirmed SWC has no role in relicensing and refuted Honea on his characterization of their approach.
“Seattle City Light is strongly committed to fish passage to support salmon recovery and long-term harvest opportunities on the Skagit River. Skagit County’s claim that Seattle is ‘advancing arguments against fish passage both directly and through proxies’ is not accurate in any way,” Strang said. “Our commitment to fish passage has been clearly documented over the years — in our draft and final license applications, in the comprehensive settlement proposal, in numerous pieces of direct correspondence, and in countless conversations with Skagit County.”
What Wednesday’s vote means
The resolution approved Wednesday does not change SWC’s bylaws or leadership. As a private nonprofit, it can only change through its membership and board.
But it does get SCOG members talking. It places the SCOG executive director in the role of facilitator of its own members, pressing tribes and the county to negotiate a structure that guarantees tribal representation and satisfies the county’s desire for more representation for itself and for the diking districts.
McBride and Honea both praised the passage of Wednesday’s resolution as a positive step toward dialogue. Honea encouraged members to pass it and pledged to “get to work.”
“As long as they continue talking, that’s a good step forward,” McBride said. “The stalemate (between SCOG members) is not productive. It’s not good for fish. We need to find a way forward.”
Kari Mar is the editor and publisher of La Conner Community News.
