Endangered Species SPECIAL ESA & Water Coverage NEWSRECENT ISSUESLETTERSCLASSIFIEDSLINKS
|
Methow
Valley News November 25, 1999 Endangered Species Coverage GUEST
COLUMN What's next? Last Wednesday night was a success. As a community, along with some concerned outsiders, we were able to give the county commissioners, our state agencies, and the federal agencies, especially NMFS, a resounding NO to the MOA. To sum up our reasons for not wanting the MOA, the following points seem important: 1) The MOA is an agreement that forces irrigators to give up a portion of their water rights for salmon, 2) we understand these water rights as our property associated with our land that makes our land valuable and useful, 3) historically, agriculture has already given up a significant amount of water because of increased on-farm efficiencies and the decline of agriculture in the Valley so that there has been a 50% reduction of water use since the height of agriculture from the late 40’s to the 70’s, 4) we cannot afford to give up any more water and still be viable, 5) DOE records a higher use of water than is actually used, 6) the open irrigation diversions have created an interdependent ecosystem important for salmon and other wildlife that is not being recognized and 7) participation in the MOA process opens the door to even more government intrusion than we have now. The MOA is an attempt to get certain things accomplished through threat of consequences if one does not participate. Mainly, it is a document that permits the DOE and NMFS to adjudicate water rights and reduce present use. Hidden within these obvious objectives is the ability to control future water use and future development. The DOE did openly admit that they lost control of tracking Methow Basin water use, and the NMFS admitted that they did not have the information to set instream flows for salmon, much less know how much could be contributed from irrigation use to these flows. Essentially too much has been woven into a single document without adequate scientific support, recordkeeping or public scrutiny. The problem we now face is that the ESA is not going away. The commissioners are still toying with how to tweak the MOA so it can be signed. Our watershed still has to get an incidental take permit from NMFS for water use to function. DOE’s and NMFS’ perception is that we are overallocated, that we have blocked progress by refusing to adopt the Pilot Project recommendations and that we have been overstudied. This means our local and federal government will still be looking for an end-run game to hit us again with the same answers. In response, we need to be pro-active and understand that Wednesday is just one step we have to take together among many more to follow. The first thing we need to insist upon is that the various aspects noted in the MOA: "take’ issues, reduction of water rights/adjudication of rights for instream flows, implementation committee, technical advisory group (TAG), monitoring and enforcement, be split out and given to the proper group or agency responsible for that aspect’s objective. The only clear "take" issue for our water use is lack of proper fish screens for diversions and certain diversions that introduce fish passage barriers. Very little objection exists on this level. It is the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife that is responsible for the screens and fish passage barriers. NMFS could simply require that these be scheduled appropriately, funding be arranged and the project be completed. The incidental take permit can then be issued to the diverter and WSDFW. The second thing is to insist that no diverter’s water right be compromised.Taking away a person’s water right removes their ability to function, but it has not been proven that more water from ditches help fish. Our RCWs clearly state that the WSDFW may improve diversion and screen structures but they cannot reduce the diverter’s water right. This means that Skyline ditch duced. Present knowledge does not warrant this expense. Wolf Creek and Early Winters should be allowed to operate. The MOA has no right to address reduction of water rights. The third is to insist that a complete hydrological study be funded and completed before any changes are made on our irrigation systems. The monitoring aspect needs to be a part of this study. Yes, we have had a lot of studies done, but all have stopped short and not answered the questions that would be answered by such a study. This is also the real reason the Pilot Project recommendations were not adopted. The community is right in not supporting its recommendations because current information questions it. The fourth is to insist that the local planning unit organized under HB2514 be allowed to do its job. The planning unit already has an implementation committee comprised of the initiating governments, state and federal agencies, and the tribes. They are connected by means of the planning unit to local citizen participation. The various governments have already asked the planning unit members to consider four areas: water quantity, water quality, habitat and instream flows. This means that the planning unit is DOE’s vehicle to address and true-up water rights and water use and it is NMFS’ vehicle to gain assurances from the community that it will preserve habitat and sufficient water for salmon. The planning unit is also the vehicle to request studies and organize technical advisory groups (TAGS) and develop the long-range plan for watershed management. In fact the planning unit’s mandate is more comprehensive than NMFS "more water equals more fish." The MOA does an end-run around this committee and local citizen participation. Lastly, there are several of us working on ways to help water users to be prepared so that everyone can irrigate next spring. We hope to be able to schedule a meeting soon. Once we send out the invitations, please take this meeting seriously and attend. Opinion | Sports |
Local Interest
|