Commentary archive |
Volume
2 Time to fix the
process It’s been nearly two years since negotiations began in an attempt to reach a multi-agency agreement on endangered fish and water issues in the Methow basin. In 1999 the talks were marked by uncertainty over agendas and venues and there appeared to be little attempt by agencies to keep the public informed. Meetings and conference calls were conducted on short notice—often at the direction of federal and state officials—with county representatives having little influence over location. This year, most meetings have been in the Methow Valley and public access has been much better as the basin watershed planning unit assumed local negotiating responsibilities. Even so, any face-to-face negotiations are at the mercy of scheduling constraints involving a dozen or more state and federal officials from outside the area. The process has stalled as agency participants and the local watershed unit pause to confer with colleagues for days or weeks. Each session costs thousands of dollars in salaries and per diem expenses for government officials, as well as lost productive time by local representatives who serve without pay. At this rate, the costs of negotiating the agreement could eclipse those for implementing many of the obvious solutions. Granted, much progress has already been made to improve irrigation ditch operations with better screens, fish by-passes, ditch piping and other measures. But the critical issue related to conserving water and preserving water rights continues to bog down negotiations. Maybe it’s time to reconsider the mechanics of the negotiating process. One possibility might be to schedule an extended multi-day session involving all the negotiating agencies represented by key managers and their attorneys. An agenda would be clearly defined in writing. The session would begin by agreement on which narrow issues remain to be resolved. A professional meeting facilitator with no ties to any participant could direct the sessions. Agencies would have top people and attorneys there to "caucus" and consult privately on key points, bringing back their best efforts to a common table. The objective would be agreement on a draft document—not one to be e-mailed or faxed back and forth as is now the case—but one that could be initialed by negotiators and prepared for presentation to the public. If no agreement on a draft results from the session, then it might be time to declare an impasse. That seems a poor outcome given the amount of time and money invested for two years. But a new negotiating approach could provide direction or closure to a process that appears stuck. No need
to panic on metering plan It’s understandable that beleaguered Methow Valley irrigators would be concerned over state plans to meter water use—especially given the cost of the program. But this plan has been on the Department of Ecology’s—and the courts’—agenda for much of the 1990s. A 1993 state law cracked the whip for Ecology to begin determining how much water is used by permit and water rights holders. The Methow Valley News reported in 1999 that this case was in the works, and DOE itself attempted to forewarn water users in an announcement back then. Last week a Thurston County Superior Court judge told DOE, in effect, to begin metering as the law has said it should be doing for some time, excluding exempt wells. DOE has contended it hasn’t had the resources to police water use. The agency makes similar claims when it comes to processing water rights applications including those that would save water for instream flows and fish. The reasons for DOE’s failures aside, the court has told the agency to follow the law. The problem now is the financial burden for compliance will fall mostly on irrigators who have enough problems already in the Methow. In the lengthy negotiations to reach a fish and water agreement in the basin, all parties seem to agree that measuring how much water is actually used is a reasonable approach. The court has tightened the screws on the metering issue. It’s now time for the legislature to get busy next session and find a way to see that irrigators get some relief in complying with the decision. TPL
should stick with trails commitment There remain some concerns about the Trust for Public Lands’ effort to purchase the Arrowleaf resort site--particularly the role of federal funds in the purchase and potential strings attached to those dollars. But the good news is that TPL has reaffirmed a commitment to keep the 1,100 acres open to recreational use including the Valley’s widely recognized winter and summer trails on the Shafer and Cassal ranch sections. In winter these trails are some of the most accessible for skiers of all skill levels. They hold snow late in the season and have appealing views in many directions all year. TPL officials said recently, in effect, that lack of trails access was never an option after the conservation group was named to represent local environmental organizations which had a "right of opportunity" to purchase the site. When one prospective buyer was said to be holding out for no trails access on a prospective site, an opinion was voiced to the the effect: "Get another buyer." Public access and recreational trails at the Arrowleaf site have been important principles througout the resort’s tortued recent history. Arrowleaf owner R. D. Merrill reaffirmed that commitment while TPL began efforst to purchase the site. But the issue is more than standing on principle. It’s also a marketing consideration for the many up-valley businesses who rely on visitors heading onto the Mazama area trails. Many of those trail users may be staying elsewhere in the Methow and looking for variety in the upper Valley. TPL has made the right decision to get out front on the trails issue by making a commitment to the "public" use of lands that is inherent in the organizations name. Time for
a "new economy" for the Methow? Venture capital is usually a high risk and potentially high reward investment category. It was the financial engine that propelled early technology growth in Silicon Valley and Seattle. Maybe a "new paradigm" --in MBA jargon--of this investment tool could be adapted to start a "new economy" in the Methow Valley. A local group could be the country cousin of the urban venture capital model--with important differences. Unlike the hectic pace of dot-com venture investing, a local group might be formed with a pool of "patient" capital from investors with a longer view of the business horizon than capturing a 10-fold "pop" in one day through an initial public offering. This risk capital would come from investors willing to forego the churn of IPOs and big investment gains, accepting a nominal rate of return to invest in businesses that can provide stable, longer-term employment in the Methow. There are a number of permanent and part-time Methow Valley residents who have strong track records in business--whether with industrial companies or high tech startups, or with companies under long-term stable ownership. Besides their capital, or access to it, these businesspeople have expertise to offer fledging companies. They can help guide people with in the early stages of testing a business concept. They can assist in refining business plans and setting up financial, personnel and operating systems. In the Methow, an impediment to venture investors is uncertainty--not so much market and competitive factors but regulatory and permitting issues that have plagued such projects as the Twisp industrial park. With a venture capital pool in place, the burden of economic development would be shifted to government and regulatory agencies to show how they can work with rural areas such as the Methow. It must
be election time Last week the county had a visit from Sen. Patty Murray--an economic "fact finding" trip it was billed. Murray is not up for re-election but fellow Democrat Governor Locke is. Could the senator have been doing some campaign advance work? On Monday, the Governor Locke dropped in for a few hours to lend an ear while invitation-only county residents discussed various local economic issues. Also on Monday, the governor’s press office essentially assured that a guest column from the chief executive that will address economic options for the Methow Valley is on the way to the News. A new study shows that only two of nearly 100 counties in rural Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana have shared in the "socio-economic" vitality brought about by the last decade of national-regional economic prosperity. The next step, the study notes, is to find remedies for rural areas. In the case of the Governor and Sen. Murray, it’s nice to see their concern and have them pay a visit. Assuming the governor is a "lock" for re-election, as most political observers predict, let’s hope we can keep him interested in rural issues after Nov. 7. Let me find that letter A letter to the editor from Vicky Welch last week resulted in a scramble through meticulously organized files to find a "major error" in an earlier commentary that said the Methow Valley Citizens Council had "challenged" the Mazama community plan. The basis for the "challenged" interpretation was a letter from MVCC chairman Lincoln Post, which suggested: "It is the opinion of the (MVCC) that the issuance of a DNS (determination of non-significance) for the Upper Methow Valley Comprehensive Land Use plan by Okanogan County is premature and should be withdrawn. The SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) Checklist reveals that significant environmental impacts are expected to occur and related changes in zoning ordinances need to be fully revealed." "Major error?" Let’s stick with "challenged." Is that
a big ‘H’ or a small ‘h?’ No surprises here. It’s an election year. Anyone expecting the federal caucus of nine resource-related agencies to recommend breaching four Snake River dams might have forgotten it’s an election year. This is not to argue that breaching the dams makes economic or biological sense, although some scientists think it’s a faster way to recover salmon runs in the Snake. As the new Basin-wide Salmon Recovery Strategy (formerly 4H, then All H plans) suggests, breaching the Snake dams might do little to save runs heading into the upper Columbia. But it may not be just the "hydro" part of the Hs that is getting downplayed in the basin recovery strategy. Regarding harvest management, the plan overview states that harvest rates, "are now so low that further reductions will not yield major benefits." So that’s two "Hs"—or "hs"—that appear to have dropped in priority since the first draft of options trickled out from the federal caucus late last year. As for hatcheries, the plan seems to favor continued supplementation of "wild" fish with hatchery stock. But it points the way to "reform" hatcheries to minimize harm to endangered runs. Perhaps to take the pressure off the agencies, the plan suggests the possibility of letting tribes operate or manage hatcheries to promote non-listed fisheries. Last, there is the habitat component—which brings all the ramifications of the Endangered Species Act and recovery strategies home to the Methow basin. The federal caucus appears to be opting for near-term habitat measures to bear most of the burden of fish recovery. More water in streams, more stream buffers, fish screens, improved passage and land acquisition are all in the strategy. Mazama
trails are asset to protect In a letter to the Methow Valley Sport Trails Association, the Methow Valley Citizens Council has raised concerns about location of trails on the former Arrowleaf resort property. MVCC chairman Lincoln Post gave the trails directors "our suggestions" and asked for a meeting with the board. MVCC says it favors four-seasons access to the property, which The Trust for Public Lands would likely sell to five wealthy buyers. But there should be "limited public access to views of the Goat Wall in the upper valley." The MVCC letter goes on to say any use of the land should protect natural resources and, "be acceptable to the new owners.." Some Mazama residents are quietly fuming about MVCC taking credit for stopping Arrowleaf, and challenging the Mazama community plan that involved many residents. Questioning trail use is another sore point. "They hear MVCC saying they’re saving our neighborhood and people are sick of it," as one up-Valley resident put it. In response, it’s encouraging to hear from a TPL spokesman that the trust is working with the trails association and the Methow Institute to find a good solution for trails placement if it purchases the site. The opinions of MVCC will be considered as with any other group or individual in the community, according to a TPL spokesman. Trails on the Arrowleaf site are some of the most appealing in the entire Valley, and have long been accessible to a wide range of people of varying skill levels. They are an asset to the Valley’s tourism economy. The site has been the venue for concerts of the Methow Music Festival, for which Arrowleaf’s present owner, R. D. Merrill Co., has provided much support. Although the site is private property, any new owner or owners of the property would be good citizens if they continue to guarantee long-term trails access. A good
tourism idea A program subsidized by Washington State Tourism has the potential to create more opportunities in the future for the Methow Valley and other destinations with small promotion budgets. The state will help local and regional tourism councils on both sides of the North Cascades put together discounted overnight packages supported by Puget Sound-area radio advertising. This pilot effort aims to beef up fall "shoulder season" travel at a time when lodges generally have higher vacancies--and radio stations more air time to sell. Specific destinations would be featured on a rotating basis with inquiries funneled to either a toll free reservations number or reservations web site. While there are no direct costs to lodging operators, they must guarantee to offer overnight accommodations or combination packages--such as meal discounts or other benefits--that add up to 40 percent off published rates. Any opportunity to create tourism partnerships that extend the Methow Valley’s market reach should be welcome. Fall is a great time to travel across the Cascades on any of several variations of the "Cascade Loop." This is a concept that could be expanded to other seasons--especially winter in the Methow when weekdays generally find many available rooms with much to do in the snow. Perhaps this small step might also be extended to a leap across the border. A tour of the wineries and a round of championship golf in British Columbia’s Okanagan region, combined with nights in the Methow and Lake Chalen, can make a memorable trip. And all this can be accomplished without an environmental impact statement or biological opinion of effects on endangered fish. Not a small consideration these days. Biological
opinions jump to conclusions Just-released draft biological opinions for some Valley irrigation ditches may give support to the view that the Endangered Species Act is a de facto federal land-use tool that preempts state and local prerogatives. A section of the draft BOs for Early Winters and Wolf Creek irrigators directly addresses the need for greater land-use controls in the basin. The "cumulative effects" section of the opinions cites basin water studies including the 1994 report of the Methow Basin Pilot Planning Committee regarding "conversion" of seasonal irrigation water for domestic residential use. "Given the fragile nature of this ecosystem, it is clear that tighter land-use and water-use regimes are required to not only recover the listed species, but to support the build-out that could be realized from using only five percent of the saved water," the NMFS opinion concludes. The reference apparently refers to a provision, since withdrawn, in a state Department of Ecology water rule proposed in 1999. It would allow unused irrigation water rights to be changed to domestic use. A "water bank" would be established in which to deposit "saved" water. Ecology withdrew the conversion provision and put the proposed rule on hold after federal, state and local agencies last year failed to reach an agreement on endangered fish and water. However, the final opinions by National Marine Fisheries Service appear to presume that conversion of irrigation to domestic water use might still surface in any new water rule. The Methow Valley Citizens Council has argued the conversion provision would promote population growth by allowing "group domestic" or community water systems for planned developments. At the very least, the substance of the land-use statement in the biological opinions appears premature in that NMFS and state agencies have acknowledged that more data is needed regarding present water use in the basin and the relationship of surface to groundwater withdrawals. That principle has already been agreed to with the Methow Basin Watershed Planning Unit. The tone of the land-use statement also gives some credibility to the contention that the ESA could be used to force state and local decisions that may, or may not, be in the best interest of endangered species. The biological opinions technically apply only to the "Section 7" ditches, which divert from streams on Forest Service land. But the opinions raise important issues of how best to use water to balance needs of fish, agriculture and the local economy. Can this
"PUP" hunt? In a special section this week the News is publishing the text of the "Methow basin planning unit proposal," often called the PUP. Most readers will remember PUP’s predecessor,—MOA, for memorandum of agreement—that was soundly criticized last November. Both documents address the issues of how to protect and begin recovery of endangered and threatened salmon species—and water for fish is a central feature. Unlike the MOA, however, the PUP would build a long-term recovery plan by first developing more data on water use and hydrology to better understand the particular relationship in this basin of water and the needs of fish. The PUP is the local watershed group’s "baseline" to begin negotiations April 18 with National Marine Fisheries Service, US Fish and Wildlife and state agencies. Much citizen volunteer work and public expense for federal, state and local participation has gone into this process for the past year. Rather than a top-down approach from the federal to local level, as in the MOA, the PUP is more a bottom-up document. But it also incorporates components advocated by state and federal participants. It’s a good place to re-start the process. I was
thinking that as well A column by Seattle P-I editorial writer, and part-time Methow resident, Solveig Torvik raises an important point in the discussion of endangered salmon and the possibility of dam breaching. Is the public opinion expressed in the recent "All-H" hearings on hydro, harvest, hatchery and habitat strategies really germane if "best available science" is required by the Endangered Species Act, Torvik asks? A very good question. We're
not there yet "Where are we on all this?" After a year of what can only be called an "intensive process," there appears to be much left to do in fish and water issues as the 2000 irrigation season is imminent. It’s been well over two years since National Marine Fisheries Service presented the Methow basin with its first listing of an endangered fish species. We now have two endangered listings, one threatened and another a good probability in the near future. In the background this year is the prospect of litigation that could artificially influence decisions and undermine countless meetings and hours of work involving citizens and local, state and federal officials. After all the effort, the parties can agree on one thing—fish need water. But even that consensus provides a point of divergence rather than convergence in the debate. "How much water and when?" is the next question. "And how do we arrive at the answers?" NMFS as well as US Fish and Wildlife Service have begun their biological analyses with broad assumptions that more water is needed for fish. But the agencies acknowledge they set high stream flow targets to create extra margins of safety. That is amply clear in recent negotiations by agencies and the Wolf Creek Reclamation District regarding a habitat conservation plan. The "aim high" strategy may not be necessary and might not work, some biologists and hydrologists say. Studies and additional work are needed to factor in basin hydrology, characteristics of fish in the watershed and other habitat needs. On April 18, the the Methow basin watershed planning unit is set to restart negotiations with federal and state agencies in hopes of providing some assurances for water users while protecting fish. The best part of the planning unit proposal is the premise that we need to learn as we go before locking in to untested assumptions that unreasonably threaten irrigation and the Valley's future Staying
the Course There are legitimate reasons for consternation among members of the basin watershed unit—and anyone in the Methow Valley—as the result of decisions of the state’s Salmon Recovery Funding Board last Friday. The watershed group is exercising commendable restraint and good judgment in moving ahead with a March 28 meeting with National Marine Fisheries Service to discuss local proposals for addressing fish and water issues. In its Friday decisions, the salmon board—often referred to as the "surf board"—appeared to ignore considerable local efforts to establish priorities for county fish recovery projects. The actions may provide local government and citizens from around the state with an example of why the board may need some oversight by either the legislature and/or the governor and his executive agencies. Agency heads for Fish and Wildlife, Ecology and other resource agencies serve in an advisory capacity. Board chairman William Ruckelshaus appears committed to the importance of local government and citizen participation in the success of salmon recovery. Ruckelshaus said as much in a Friday interview with the Wenatchee World before the decisions were made. Ruckelshaus, the EPA head in both the Nixon and Reagan administrations and an international businessman, generally has bi-partisan respect in this state and the "other" Washington. He has previously advocated, and reiterated last week, that some coordinated plan and entity is needed to bring together local government, citizens, state and federal agencies. Maybe someone of Ruckelshaus’ stature can hold the attention of the governor and other officials to argue that salmon recovery needs to be free of politics—including environmental politics—and to follow a coherent plan. If so, a process that has thus far been frighteningly fragmented might be brought together into something productive with broad support. Where is
this train wreck? Newspeople look for catchy phrases on which to "hang" a story lead. Those in the public eye understand this and oblige with made-for-news quotes. Last summer several state and federal officials began talking about the "train wreck" that would happen in the Methow Valley if we did not address endangered fish and water issues. It now looks like the choo choo could jump the tracks somewhere down in Olympia even before it could chug its way up our way with a few boxcars of money and legislation that could help solve some water issues statewide. The train wreck analogy was expressed in a story in a Seattle paper last week analyzing how little had been accomplished this legislative session. To no one’s surprise, the session has come down to hand-wringing and the usual bickering over ways to "fix" revenue problems from I-695, resulting in a special session that began last week. Leadership from the governor’s office on fish issues is now critical. One state Senate bill, reportedly backed by the chief executive, to sort water changes and transfers into a separate line from new water applications remains alive in the Senate. That bill now contains new trust water rights provisions from a bill that died in the House. It's important that the substantial efforts of the Methow basin planning unit, county leaders, some state officials and the area’s legislators do not get sucked under in the legislative process. Beyond the money needed for fish projects, state agencies most of all need leadership, not just from the top of their own institution but also from the state’s chief executive. The issues are too important to wait another year We need
an agreement, and money...quickly It’s an axiom of marketing that you need to get someone’s attention before you can persuade them. In the spring of 1999, National Marine Fisheries Service got the attention of irrigators and the entire Methow basin by shutting down many ditches. It seems now that irrigators and other water users have teamed up with the state legislators to get the attention of lawmakers, the governor’s office and the salmon recovery funding board ("surf board"). The tricky part is to follow through with a persuasive message that will assure adequate funding to address endangered fish and water issues. A legislative maneuver last week to get funds for the basin directly from the salmon recovery coffers met with opposition from William Ruckelshaus, an influential Seattle businessman and political leader. A Republican, Ruckelshaus was the first director of the Environmental Protection Agency in the Nixon administration and has considerable bi-partisan clout. Ruckelshaus appears to have been protecting what he views as the integrity of the salmon recovery fund and the board’s charter mission. Legislators seemed to respect his intent. But the problem for the Methow is that salmon board funding follows a review cycle. The county also needs commitments from the state in order to get matching funds from other state and federal sources. Time is running out with winter winding down and spring runoff on the horizon. Both the basin watershed agreement—and evidence of funding to back it up—need to be in place if the Valley is to get NMFS’ cooperation and protection from enforcement action. The basin has been working through this process long enough now. It’s time for the state’s leaders to recognize the local effort and step up to do their part.
NMFS
gets audited? "Generally the auditors don’t like to talk with newspaper people." After about a dozen long-distance telephone calls I had finally reached a number for a U.S. Commerce Department auditor. I’d heard some local irrigators had been contacted regarding a "performance audit" of National Marine Fisheries Service and wanted to learn more. The auditor is with Commerce’s regional office of inspector general, and looks into how well an agency is doing. In this case it is NMFS, an agency of Commerce. After trying numbers for Commerce, I finally found a helpful person at none other than NMFS. She in turn referred me to regional NMFS director Will Stelle’s office, which in turn sent me to the OIG office of Commerce in downtown Seattle. Bingo. But the auditor is traveling, and don’t expect her to talk with you I was told. One irrigator scheduled for an interview said he was told by the auditor that she had "heard that the Methow might be a good place to start." "It sounds like you got a hold of the frying pan without the potholder," he had replied. The nature of the "performance" audit already has local skeptics speculating that it may be a way for the agency to "cover up" with officials in the other Washington. That may be a too-cynical analysis; only time will tell. But I’d sure like to put in a few words. I’d talk about times that a simple press advisory or phone call would have helped us plan coverage of endangered fish and water issues. Most of our reporting has resulted from tips, even in the case of what should have been publicly announced meetings. And I’d suggest that Commerce get a central number for its regional office. NMFS
finds a defender A bylined guest column in the Jan. 28 issue of the state’s largest newspaper is largely a misleading and inaccurate analysis of fish and water issues in the Methow Valley. The Seattle Times piece by Katherine P. Ransel, director of the Northwest Regional Office of American Rivers, accuses Methow irrigators, along with local and state governments, of failing to take action that would help fish. Ransel remarkably lets National Marine Fisheries Service off the hook for any culpability in the process that has dragged on for years now. The problems with Ransel’s article surface in the first few sentences: "Under the Endangered Species Act, the U. S. Forest Service, which authorizes rights of way for the irrigation ditches, was required to assess the impact of the ditches on the fish. Subsequently, NMFS rendered a ‘biological opinion’ that there was clear evidence of harm to the fish." We know, however, that record water was carried downstream last spring while irrigators and the Forest Service had waited a year for any response from National Marine Fisheries Service—yes or no—regarding irrigation. NMFS has thus far issued only draft biological opinions, a precise term under ESA, for several federally permitted ditches. In fact, the agency has time after time missed its own deadlines and has readily admitted that the so-called target flows it included in draft biological opinions required more analysis. Ms. Ransel says local residents and even some in the Puget Sound region wondered what was happening. It all made sense, though, she concludes: "..it seems there was a misunderstanding of NMFS’ obligation under the law, and either a lapse of memory or an honest ignorance about the long history of what can only be called paralysis by state and local officials, irrigation districts and canal operators in the face of the long-acknowledged effects of irrigation screens and deficient river flows on fish survival in the Methow." Ransel’s conclusion tracks very closely defenses by NMFS' management during the protracted discussions of endangered species issues in the Valley. Could NMFS have found someone to help it re-work recent history and buff its image with Times' readers? Closing
the political gap? Anyone who sat in on last week’s session of the House Agriculture and Ecology Committee witnessed an impressive performance by members of the Methow Valley delegation. The cast of speakers included Dave Schulz, Steve Devin, Dick Ewing, Ray Campbell, Craig Boesel, Pete LaRock, Carl Miller, Rusty Bonser, Tom Bartholomew, Mike Poulson, and Ken Sletten. Maybe the most important feature of the collective presentations was a consistently focused message—that the Methow is ready to do the right thing for fish if the process works from the bottom up. The presentations may have been all the more effective because of the reason and restraint in which the message was packaged. Unlike the bitterness that sometimes characterized a Nov. 17 meeting in Twisp on fish and water issues, the speakers carefully outlined their willingness to help build flexibility in a process thus far plagued by rigid, albeit inexact and untested, guidelines. Although National Marine Fisheries Service has often been the butt of criticism, last week the speakers asked legislators to look at the state Department of Ecology’s management of water issues and its impact on agriculture, economic growth and fish. Beyond DOE, the speakers asked for attention to outdated concepts of state water law that are disincentives for saving water and helping fish. The local delegation should take satisfaction that their trip may have done something to close the distance between the Methow and Olympia. Later in the week, key lawmakers brought county officials together with federal and state agency managers to look for new locally based solutions. It also appeared the message had gotten to the governor after his chief of staff sat in on the ag-ecology meeting. Maybe the long 12-hour "field trip" helped close some of the political distance from the Methow to Olympia. Progress? Let’s keep our fingers crossed In looking at the present state of discussions regarding fish and water issues, it’s difficult not to recall the words of Val Sukovaty at the big November meeting in Twisp. "It’s not that we don’t care. It’s that the process has been handled so badly," she said. "I hope you don’t feel that because we’re so very, very upset (that) we wouldn’t work to help the fish," she concluded. Could it be that the process is about to turn around? We can hope. Call it cautious—or nervous—optimism. One veteran participant said there appears to be some hope that federal officials are listening to practical solutions rather than stuck on the stick and half-carrot approach that has thus far predominated since the 1999 irrigation season. That said, however, any number of people—inside and outside of government—remember they thought things would be resolved long before now. In fairness to National Marine Fisheries Service, which doesn’t get much sympathy in these parts, the agency has gotten itself into the precarious position of listing fish as endangered without a good grasp of the problem much less solution. NMFS is now saying it’s willing to spend more time on the "best science" that the Endangered Species Act says is needed for fish recovery. State officials are asking for an independent review of one of the most comprehensive studies of upper Columbia basin salmonids that tends to contradict stream flow assumptions embraced by NMFS. State legislators have received some initially-positive reactions from top NMFS officials regarding a more important role of the local watershed planning unit in fish and water programs. All of this looks promising. But even with the heavy snows of recent days, time is running out before spring runoff begins. There’s still much work needed to head off a real meltdown. Water
planning unit shows value of local effort Anyone who doubts the need for better information on water use in the Methow Valley need only take a cruise through the state Department of Ecology’s water registry data base. That’s what members of the water budget committee of the county watershed planning unit did last week. It was a followup to an earlier visit some of the members had made to the department’s Yakima office. Ecology’s Ray Henecke and Ron Dixon led the committee through data bases that contain water claims, permits and certificates. They displayed the data from a laptop computer and overlaid a number of views including points of ground and surface withdrawals, topographical information and aerial surveys. The eye opener was the way veteran Valley irrigators such as Max Judd could quickly identify diversions that had long been out of use. This prompted committee members to discuss how they could proceed to help clean up the Ecology information. Water budget committee member Carl Miller put it bluntly: "Why the hell wouldn’t we want to clean it up." This effort of the water budget committee could be the most important result yet to emerge from the county watershed unit which was created early last year under state authorizing legislation. Henecke and Dixon remarked how easily the committee members could eyeball and correct some of Ecology’s information. This locally based process has already tested the often implied but questionable assumptions by state and federal officials that the Methow basin is "overallocated" in relation to the 1977 "2cfs" rule for the seven major stream reaches. The fact that the water budget committee is focusing on the overlapping and outdated information is a good example of why the watershed planning process is working. And it’s a convincing argument as to why the planning unit should be a key player along with state and federal agencies in developing strategies for water and endangered fish responses. |
