NEWSHOMEOPINIONLOCAL INTERESTRECENT ISSUESLETTERSCLASSIFIEDSLINKSHOW TO |
Methow Valley News September 23 1999 Endangered Species Coverage County calls for voluntary fish plan NMFS official wants "responsibility" by Lee Hicks County officials apparently hope to gain greater local control over endangered fish and water issues with a new draft memorandum of agreement for the Methow basin. The county put its version of the long-discussed MOA into play at a Sept. 14 meeting with officials of National Marine Fisheries Service, the state Department of Ecology and other federal and state resource agencies. At the News’ Tuesday deadline, the county and Ecology were scheduled to review NMFS’ comments on the county’s draft. The new version incorporates much language from earlier drafts going back several months. But it significantly stresses recognition of voluntary efforts to improve streamflows and habitat conditions for federally listed endangered and threatened fish species. The county has also added new language that would commit Ecology to "vigorously represent" state interests in water resources, and agree to not "impair or diminish" valid existing water rights. NMFS’ top state official, Bob Turner, had recently moved to re-start negotiations that had fallen into a lull along with late summer stream flows. A draft with proposed changes by Ecology had been submitted by that agency. But the county version became the focal point of the Sept. 14 session. And the county then presented its position at a public meeting last Thursday in Twisp. As the county was getting ready for its Twisp meeting, Turner was using the Methow as a case study of his agency’s approach to enforcement of the 1973 Endangered Species Act in a Seattle address to an attorneys' seminar. Turner’s vision for the Valley appears clouded by skepticism of whether local officials will be willing to follow through with plans to protect and save fish. At the Seattle seminar two days after meeting with the county and Ecology, Turner used irrigation in the Methow Valley to illustrate various provisions of the ESA, including Section 7 consultations required by federal agencies and Section 9 regulations affecting irrigation on private property. Without naming Okanogan County, Turner told the attorneys that local governments are interested in habitat conservation plans that would provide protection through Section 10 of the ESA against litigation brought under Section 9 regulations. "In some places in my experience when push comes to shove, those entities, often local governments are very reluctant to actually take responsibility for that conservation plan." Turner said. Local governments prefer to negotiate a plan, "but make it voluntary," and not "become an authority" to enforce the plan. He noted that, "...politicians say ‘we have to determine our own future and get the federal government out of our day-to-day lives.’ Experience is telling me that as you really get to...the plan that would get the federal government out of their lives they’re reluctant to do it." Turner also told the attorneys in Seattle that changes in forest practices to accommodate endangered species, including the spotted owl, appear to be more accepted than ESA issues related to water. "When it comes to state water law, they don’t have that same sense. For some reason state water law is inviolate. Well, the fact is that ESA is blind to state water law," Turner told the attorneys. The county has pushed for a provision in the memorandum of agreement that would allow development of a basin-wide habitat conservation plan (HCP) which all parties agree would take several years. It would include such items as a water bank in which to "deposit" unused water rights, and conservation measures for irrigation and other water uses. NMFS has agreed to the HCP approach, which the agency is also supporting in the Puget Sound region. But in the Methow, NMFS officials want to link the MOA and the HCP to achieving "target flows" for basin streams, and the county and irrigators say the numbers suggested thus far are unrealistically high. The county has particularly objected to "response mechanisms" that would be triggered if target flows are not achieved. These provisions pushed by NMFS have in earlier drafts of an MOA included potentially closing the basin to new water appropriation, a county building moratorium, adjudication of water rights and passage of a county ordinance requiring a well-drilling permit. However, the county’s recent draft would protect participants in a "voluntary conservation program" from Ecology enforcement action "based on allegations of wasteful use," placing the burden on those who are not part of the program. The county draft also provides that if "sufficient progress is being achieved" through the MOA, Ecology would not propose a new basin water rule that closes the basin to new water appropriation. Earlier drafts endorsed by NMFS would have required Ecology to adjudicate basin water rights if stream target flows were not achieved at certain stages over several years to 2003. But the county draft proposes that any adjudication be delayed until June 15, 2003 until a county watershed plan and HCP is completed. Opinion | Sports |
Local Interest |
