NEWSHOMEOPINIONLOCAL INTERESTRECENT ISSUESLETTERSCLASSIFIEDSLINKS
|
Methow Valley News December 27, 2000 Endangered Species Publisher's Comment ~ by Lee Hicks Time to fix the process It’s been nearly two years since negotiations began in an attempt to reach a multi-agency agreement on endangered fish and water issues in the Methow basin. In 1999 the talks were marked by uncertainty over agendas and venues and there appeared to be little attempt by agencies to keep the public informed. Meetings and conference calls were conducted on short notice—often at the direction of federal and state officials—with county representatives having little influence over location. This year, most meetings have been in the Methow Valley and public access has been much better as the basin watershed planning unit assumed local negotiating responsibilities. Even so, any face-to-face negotiations are at the mercy of scheduling constraints involving a dozen or more state and federal officials from outside the area. The process has stalled as agency participants and the local watershed unit pause to confer with colleagues for days or weeks. Each session costs thousands of dollars in salaries and per diem expenses for government officials, as well as lost productive time by local representatives who serve without pay. At this rate, the costs of negotiating the agreement could eclipse those for implementing many of the obvious solutions. Granted, much progress has already been made to improve irrigation ditch operations with better screens, fish by-passes, ditch piping and other measures. But the critical issue related to conserving water and preserving water rights continues to bog down negotiations. Maybe it’s time to reconsider the mechanics of the negotiating process. One possibility might be to schedule an extended multi-day session involving all the negotiating agencies represented by key managers and their attorneys. An agenda would be clearly defined in writing. The session would begin by agreement on which narrow issues remain to be resolved. A professional meeting facilitator with no ties to any participant could direct the sessions. Agencies would have top people and attorneys there to "caucus" and consult privately on key points, bringing back their best efforts to a common table. The objective would be agreement on a draft document—not one to be e-mailed or faxed back and forth as is now the case—but one that could be initialed by negotiators and prepared for presentation to the public. If no agreement on a draft results from the session, then it might be time to declare an impasse. That seems a poor outcome given the amount of time and money invested for two years. But a new negotiating approach could provide direction or closure to a process that appears stuck. Opinion | Sports |
Local Interest |