NEWSHOMEOPINIONLOCAL INTERESTRECENT ISSUESLETTERSCLASSIFIEDSLINKS |
Methow Valley News September 2, 1999 Endangered Species Coverage County reaffirms position on proposed ESA agreement The following letter was signed by Okanogan County Commissioners Dave Schulz, Ed Thiele and Bob Hirst. Over the past four months the citizens of Okanogan County and the Methow Basin have been overwhelmed with controversy surrounding the use of water resources and requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The County anticipated these issues and embarked on a strategy to develop a habitat conservation plan (HCP) to provide water users with a voluntary option for long-term conservation commitments in exchange for an enforceable promise that future water use complies with the Endangered Species Act and will not be disturbed. The issues are complicated, however, and there are many questions and some misunderstandings among the citizens of Okanogan County. This letter attempts to shed some light on these issues by describing the situation impacting the Methow Valley, what the County would like to do about it, and the fundamental principles that will guide any decision or action by the County. The County recognizes that recent efforts by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to enforce the ESA through U.S. Forest Service-issued special use permits for certain ditch companies and water users are economically disastrous and unnecessarily harsh. The County fears that this trend will continue through direct enforcement actions by the United States against water users for alleged "take" of listed species and through citizen suits. In addition to these obvious threats, the County is also concerned that the Washington Department of Ecology is being pressured to withdraw the Methow Basin from any new water appropriations, including exempt wells for domestic use, to evaluate existing water rights and aggressively enforce beneficial use standards to end wasteful and unauthorized water use, and to petition for a general adjudication of the Methow Basin. Any of these actions could have a severe impact on water use, land development, and the stability of the local community and economy. In response to these threats, the County has proposed to work with the Methow Watershed Planning Process (under HB2514) to develop a programmatic habitat conservation plan (HCP) and umbrella incidental take permit that would extend long-term regulatory assurances to any water user who voluntarily commits to implementing the terms of the HCP. Under state and federal law, development of such an HCP would necessarily be an open and public process involving stakeholders and an opportunity to review and comment on any of the conservation commitments included in the HCP. Realistically, development of an HCP of this scope requires at least three years and the cooperation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the State of Washington. Until an HCP is developed and approved, there is little that the County can do to eliminate the threat of ESA enforcement or control the State’s authority over water and fish. At this time, the only action available to the County is a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the State, NMFS, and USFWS to secure their cooperation in developing an HCP. Since June, the County has negotiated for an MOA to develop an HCP, but NMFS and USFWS have insisted on linking actions under the MOA to controversial biological opinions imposed on Methow Basin water users with Forest Service special use permits. The County is opposed to this linkage. In addition, NMFS and USFWS have insisted that the State and County make regulatory commitments through the MOA. Regulatory commitments are not necessary as a precondition for development of an HCP and the County has refused to make such commitments. The State is persuaded that it should make regulatory commitments through the MOA, but the County is opposed to that and is urging the State to "keep its powder dry" by reserving any regulatory commitments for the HCP. The tug-of-war between the County, State, and federal officials over MOA commitments is perhaps the greatest source of misunderstanding in the Methow Valley and Okanogan County. Controversial commitments such as a basin-wide 25 percent reduction in water use, general adjudication, withdrawal of the basin from appropriation, exempt well limitations, and a building moratorium have been proposed by NMFS—not the County—and many of these proposed commitments have been removed from subsequent drafts of the MOA at the urging of the County. The County remains a party to MOA negotiations and is attempting to persuade state and federal officials to remove all inappropriate and counterproductive commitments from the MOA. The County will stay at the negotiating table as long as the State, NMFS, and USFWS remain willing to consider our recommendations. A recent letter on ESA issues circulating through the County states that it may be time to remind the County Commissioners for whom they work. While such a reminder is always welcome, we want to assure citizens of Okanogan County and the Methow Basin that their commissioners are well aware of whom they serve and will be guided by the following principles in negotiating and deciding to reject or approve the MOA for the Methow Basin: —The MOA should establish a framework for development of a programmatic HCP through an open and public process ending in enforceable conservation commitments that water users may volunteer to implement in exchange for regulatory certainty. —Strong local support is essential to the success of the MOA and HCP. —The MOA should not promise unfounded and premature regulatory actions that will deter public support for development of and participation in an HCP. —The MOA and resulting HCP must recognize that the County and State have strictly limited authority over the use of water resources and must provide incentives for voluntary conservation commitments by owners of valid, existing water rights. —The MOA should not be linked to controversial biological opinions. Actions under the MOA should not be used in the consultation process to justify determinations by NMFS and USFWS or to adversely affect the rights and privileges of any water user subject to consultation. —The County recognizes that the ESA imposes legitimate legal requirements on land and water users that require compliance. —The County believes that strategic action on behalf of land and water users is preferable to a passive approach and the MOA should promote local support for a proactive salmon conservation and recovery program. The County welcomes public input and...will consult with the interested public before making any final decision on the MOA. Opinion | Sports |
Local Interest |