NEWSHOMEOPINIONLOCAL INTERESTRECENT ISSUESLETTERSCLASSIFIEDSLINKS |
Methow Valley News June 17, 1999 Endangered Species Coverage New basin water rule debated at DOE hearing Water bank details, EIS and adjudication requested by Lee Hicks A hearing on the proposed new water rule for the Methow Basin had residents asking for more explanation of the regulations that would substantially change water use in the Methow Valley. At the heart of the rule is a "water bank" that would allow water rights to be deposited to various accounts, and for water to be withdrawn from certain accounts for later use. The bank would be voluntary. "I have a fundamental objection…(that the rule)…has so little substantive information as to how (the water bank) would work," said Val Sukovaty. Other speakers at the June 10 hearing in the Winthrop Barn, including members of the Methow Valley Citizens Council, argued that the new rule promotes group domestic water systems that favor developers. Many growth opponents argued that new water issues, including federal endangered fish listings, and potential development resulting from group domestic systems raised the need for a state Environmental Impact Statement addressing the rule. DOE has issued a "determination of non-significance" that an EIS is not called for under the state Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The proposed water rule would revise the 1976 Methow basin plan, or the Water Resources Inventory Area (WRIA) 48. The rule assumes that water resources in the nearly 2,000 square miles of the Methow basin from Mazama to Pateros is over-allocated, and that no new rights exist. Future water use must come from storage during high flow periods, water right transfers, conservation, the new water bank program or water from "reuse." The over-allocation assumption has drawn objections from members of the Ground Water Advisory Committee, a state-funded local citizens committee that conducted studies of the basin and issued a report in 1993. Among other conclusions, the GWAC report said domestic "consumptive" water use "is insignificant" in the basin. Another water study project, the Pilot Planning Committee, began studying Valley water issues in the early 1990s. It emerged from the so-called 1990 Chelan Agreement that was supposed to bring government, business and tribal cooperation and forestall water litigation. The proposed new water rule mirrors the concept of "trust water rights" that could be deposited in a water bank as proposed by the pilot planning committee. Speaking at the rule hearing, former GWAC member Gary Erickson said the GWAC study contained much more hydrologic data than the pilot committee. And the GWAC group had never agreed with assumptions that Valley water was over-allocated. "The pilot committee started with the assumption that the Methow Valley was out of water…they started with a faulty assumption," Erickson said. However, the ground water group, "said we will stand behind (a pilot committee report) if you’ll keep your hands off domestic use." Erickson said the water bank is "cumbersome and unenforceable," and based on, "paper water." Several MVCC members, speaking as individuals, argued for DOE to send the water rule through the state EIS process. "It’s going to cause a major increase in the population growth of the Valley," according to long-time MVCC activist Vicky Welch. Besides asking for an EIS, some growth opponents said all water rights in the Methow Valley should be "adjudicated," a term applying to, in effect, judicial validation of water uses. Lucy Reid, a veteran no-growth advocate, objected to a rule provision that permits conversion of seasonal irrigation rights to other year-round uses. Reid and Lee Bernheisel are principals of the Okanogan Wilderness League, which has repeatedly sued developers on water issues. "It certainly flies in the face of my public interest and the Endangered Species Act," Reid said. She also asked for adjudication of water rights. But John Hayes, a local land-use planner, said he wanted the county to have the tools to deal with growth. Group domestic systems, as proposed in the rule, are a way to provide those tools, Hayes said. "If we’re not given the tools, then it’s going to be like repairing the 747 in flight." Hayes said. DOE officials conceded that details of pricing and water bank withdrawal procedures were yet to be worked out. However, general guidelines for allocation of water for different uses in five "accounts" have been drafted by the county’s watershed planning unit. The unit was established by an August 1998 memorandum of agreement between the county and Department of Ecology. The comment period for the proposed change in the water rule ends Friday (June 18). Comments may be sent to Thom Lufkin, Water Resources Program, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, Wa 98504-7600, fax (360) 407-6574 or e-mail at tlhw.461.ecy.wa.gov. Opinion | Sports |
Local Interest
|