NEWSHOMEOPINIONLOCAL INTERESTRECENT ISSUESLETTERSCLASSIFIEDSLINKS |
Methow Valley News August 17, 2000 Endangered Species Publisher's Comment ~ by Lee Hicks Publisher's Comment ~ by Lee Hicks 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 The reference apparently refers to a provision, since withdrawn, in a state Department of Ecology water rule proposed in 1999.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. No time like the present to do it right Will the Methow Basin Planning Unit agreement lead to another Methow Valley Irrigation District (MVID) scenario? This will depend upon how the various agendas reflected in recent events play out. The Biological Opinions recently issued for Early Winters and Wolf Creek ditches are basically an attack, as we have suspected all along, on our low-tech irrigation canal system. This continued harangue is over what the canals do to low instream flows during the last 40 days of the irrigation season. While the Mullan report is quoted often, two facts that the Mullan report support continue to be overlooked: 1) spawner recruitment, especially for steelhead, is higher in mid-Columbia tributaries with irrigation diversions and practices than pristine coastal streams with no human intrusion, and 2) the Methow was well-seeded with both steelhead and Chinook salmon during the peak use of irrigation diversions and agriculture in the Methow compared to the present. These facts would not be possible if irrigation diversions were so bad. Instead they indicate that the level of irrigation use is in a complementary relationship to the Methow ecosystem. The real agenda behind agency direction is reflected in the stated fear of what will happen as population in the Valley approaches build-out. To address that fear, the agencies are willing to destroy an irrigation system that currently supports the complementary existence of human activity and fish needs. The outcome will be a degradation of fish habitat and the ability of people to live here as reflected in the wells that are going dry on Skyline ditch. At a recent meeting between MVID, the BPA, the Yakama Tribes, the DOE and related lawyers, the MVID offered an alternative that would make improvements on their open canal system and let those who want to go to wells to do so. The BPA and DOE were hesitant to adopt the proposal because it represented a change in the scope of work, which would necessitate a bureaucratic resubmission for funds. Essentially this means the district could lose its funding. While it is possible for these agencies to make a good decision to resolve the mounting conflict within MVID, it is obvious that this conflict is being used to ensure that the reorganization plan is implemented. When recent instream flow data presented at the meeting showed that the operation of the ditches without piping was already meeting instream flow impacts promised by the reorganization, there was a very interesting reply from DOE: The fish issue is not important, it’s reasonable use of water. This position, however, is supportive of NMFS’ position that habitat requirements for listed fish are best expressed in terms of streamflows. Both NMFS and the DOE, as noted in the BOs, admit that groundwater recharge from our canal system is not well understood. Neither is the relationship in general between groundwater and surface water well understood. Yet the agencies are willing to commit to actions that take into account only half the best available science. It would be more honest to admit that more scientific investigation is needed to make good decisions. This is the position that the Planning Unit is taking. Many on the PU realize that as demands increase to preserve habitat for species, a more thorough understanding of human/species interaction is needed. But this effort can be thwarted if the agencies through the water conservation plan demand up-front changes in water use that affect the canal system and water rights, only to find out later we shouldn’t have made them. The DOE and NMFS are looking for ways to relieve people of their water rights under the guise of reasonable use and target flows, while the PU needs to assess current water use, determine through a hydrological study how much water can be used for human activity and development, and set aside the needed water. The PU is seeking to establish a dependable water supply that also takes into account fish needs while the agencies, through target flows, are creating uncertainty. The recent advertisement by the DOE for water for streams is also in conflict with the outcomes of the PU. There is no developed plan with good science that identifies where the water saved will help fish. Selling off water rights that may be needed in the future doesn’t make sense. So the answer to the key question of whether or not the prospective agreement is going to resolve anything depends upon how the agencies answer for themselves the following question: If you don’t have time to do it right, when will you have time and money to fix it after you screw things up? Dick Ewing is the chairman of the Methow Basin Planning Unit. Opinion | Sports |
Local Interest |