NEWSHOMEOPINIONLOCAL INTERESTRECENT ISSUESLETTERSCLASSIFIEDSLINKS |
Methow Valley News December 2, 1999 Endangered Species Coverage Officials digest response from MOA meeting Talks on hold for holidays Analysis by Lee Hicks It’s been two weeks since the public vented frustration over endangered fish and water issues at a Twisp meeting with county, state and federal officials. Letters expressing strong, and largely negative, opinions on a proposed memorandum of agreement with state and federal agencies continue to pile up at county commissioners’ offices. Whether written or spoken, the consensus appears to be that the MOA is about as popular as cutting off irrigation water during high spring runoff. A half year of negotiations have boiled down to a clear message from constituents: "Don’t sign it," at least not in the form presented at the Nov. 17 Twisp meeting attended by more than 400 people. The county and state Department of Ecology officials decided immediately after the meeting to "download," and digest, as one participant expressed it, the substance and tone of the meeting. The consequences of the county opting out of the agreement have been strongly implied: Failure could result in a quick adjudication of Methow basin water rights. DOE director Tom Fitzsimmons warns this would only worsen the "gridlock" over water permit applications now pending from the Valley. The sentiment against the agreement appears rooted in what the public considers a flawed process based on incomplete, and perhaps misguided, assumptions of the "best science" to aid endangered fish. No one denies that salmon and steelhead populations are low in the Methow basin. But the disagreement on causes of the problem, and the most effective solutions, forms a wide gap between county officials and local residents, and state and federal officials who act as architects of fish recovery. In the views of MOA opponents, hanging the hopes of salmon recovery on putting more water into Valley streams is a questionable solution that ignores the basin’s hydrological characteristics and historical streamflow patterns. The Nov. 17 meeting served to show state and federal agencies participants the continued skepticism over Endangered Species Act fish listings. The sessions may have been particularly an eye-opener for Fitzsimmons, whose agency would be the pivotal enforcer of any MOA. Fitzsimmons had promised commissioner Dave Schulz at the last face-to-face negotiating to "help sell (the MOA) to your people." By any means that will be a hard sell. New information developed by the county watershed planning unit shows that doubling and tripling of water claims in DOE’s water claims register may exaggerate the amount of water used in the basin. If so the baseline data that would be used in developing streamflow guidelines and a new water rule are also skewed. Fitzsimmons has acknowledged the agency needs to clean up the paperwork. Some sources say NMFS officials, and some within state agencies, believe the county failed to follow through on opportunities, such as the pilot water planning project of the early ’90s, that could have mitigated or prevented the current standoff. The reality, others say, is that the legislature never embraced the 1994 pilot committee report and DOE then apparently did not have political skills or backing to follow through. The plan died for lack of funding. Less than a year after the steelhead was listed as endangered by National Marine Fisheries Service, the county—with encouragement and pressure from DOE—worked toward an earlier memorandum of understanding that followed state law, HB 2514, establishing watershed planning at the local level. The county—at DOE’s urging—was led into a watershed planning effort, to include a water bank for saving water to improve for instream flows and aid fish. That coupled with improvements in irrigation ditches through state salmon recovery funding would be the path to a habitat conservation plan (HCP) blessed by the Endangered Species Act, the county believed. Maybe the county and DOE were guilty of naive or wishful thinking that a watershed plan would be the best single solution for endangered species responses. NMFS made it clear after shutting off federally permitted ditches last spring that watershed planning by itself, wouldn’t be sufficient. From the beginning, federal officials have been determined that the only way to solve listed fish problems in the valley is through increased streamflows; but that single focus solution has proved elusive. NMFS used poor data in initial draft biological opinions to set target flows that were historically insupportable even in high water years. Some biologists said the target flows showed a poor understanding of the basin and its fish populations. In recent weeks, NMFS and irrigators who divert on Forest Service land, have been discussing ways to improve information in the biological opinions. But the key concept of the talks remains streamflows. At this point, the bad pun in the ESA debate could be that changing the emphasis from streamflows to another approach is so much water under the bridge. But, there are those on the county watershed planning unit who are working hard to see that any data used in setting those flows be the best available. Maybe the best way to gain popular support for fish recovery in the basin was put most succinctly by Arnold Asmussen, a watershed planning unit member, at the recent MOA meeting: "I’d like to see less threat and a little more promise..." Opinion | Sports |
Local Interest |