|
LAST WEEK'S STORIESHISTORY
|
Methow Valley News March 7, 2001 Endangered Species Streamflows still stall fish and water talks State and feds want face-to-face session by Lee Hicks With irrigation season drawing ever closer in a potential drought year, county, state and federal officials and their attorneys convened in a conference call aimed at settling disputed legal points in any fish and water agreement for the Methow basin. When the call ended with a dozen clicks on the line, some issues appeared resolved or near resolution. And top federal and state officials called for a face-to-face meeting to either finish the process or put it to rest. But the question of dealing with streamflow goals that federal agencies insist are needed to meet needs of endangered fish remains a major obstacle to completing a pact after nearly two years at the table. The multi-line conference call Monday afternoon included officials of National Marine Fisheries Service, the state Department of Ecology, governor’s Salmon Recovery Board, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and attorneys for NMFS and the state. The focus of the talks was the county’s language for a basin "memorandum of agreement" that essentially seeks state and federal support in potential litigation related to endangered species issues. The state and federal agencies had both balked after a phone session two weeks ago, but agreed to continue talks. At Monday’s conference call, the county and state agreed to language that removes the state in references to potential court action or administrative appeals of federal decisions. They also concurred on wording that would not allow state or federal funds to finance admin-istrative appeals or legal action. State Ecology director Tom Fitzsimmons raised concerns that the county has already filed a 60-day "notice of intent" to sue over federal actions affecting local irrigators. But both Fitzsimmons and the county’s outside legal counsel, Galen Schuler, agreed that resolving issues out of court would be preferable. The language, Fitzsimmons suggested, should state that "everything is designed to discourage legal action; however, the parties still reserve the right to do so." The county also appeared to be closing the gap with NMFS on several points. But they couldn’t resolve what Schuler called the critical issue, the county’s position that NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should agree to "intervene" on behalf of basin water users participating in conservation efforts under provisions of a basin agreement. Schuler said there is an important concern that NMFS and USFWS streamflow targets that are part of "biological opinions" for irrigators on federal land may be applied to all water users. He suggested NMFS withdraw the much-debated opinions issues in 1999 and 2000. "What we’d prefer is for NMFS and the Forest Service (which issues irrigation permits for federal land) to withdraw those biological opinions because they really didn’t have the authority to do what they did." Schuler also made a pitch for a "temporary HCP (or habitat conservation plan)" that would provide some protection while water research and studies, some now underway, are completed through the Methow Basin Watershed Planning Unit. Turner and NMFS attorney Melanie Rowland argued the agency could not issue a temporary HCP which permits "take" of endangered fish. It cannot be done in situations involving "water withdrawals" but can when applied to short-term fisheries decisions as NMFS has done in Oregon, they maintained. Schuler said a temporary HCP would provide immediate water gains for fish without locking in tough flow targets now in the biological opinions. "We could not get past if we had to defend this (temporary) HCP...a situation where we know it’s not enough water. That’s the difficulty," Schuler offered. Rowland conceded, "It’s true that we don’t know exactly how much water the fish need. We do know what’s not enough water." She also said the general counsel for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NMFS’ parent agency, would not agree to intervene in litigation for local water users before a case is filed. Fitzsimmons and Turner joined in calling for a face-to-face session to complete negotiations once revised language from Monday’s meeting is reviewed. "It seems to me it oughta be one more meeting, all in the room, a block of time and we either work our way through and be done with this thing or work our way through and decide that this is an infinite process; we’re just not going to get there," Fitzsimmons said. "We’ve been at this how many years now? And what’s referred to here is, if we put this same effort on an HCP, we could be halfway towards an HCP right now." Fitzsimmons and a top Ecology deputy, Joe Williams, expressed confidence that progress was made in the Monday talks. But county commission chairman Craig Verjaska questioned the results. "I guess I failed to see the progress," Verjaska observed, and a few minutes later concluded the session by observing, "We haven’t got anything else to discuss with you guys." Nevertheless, Vejraska asked Schuler to be ready for an immediate conference with the county. For much of the past year, county commissioners have not been involved in the details of negotiations by the planning unit with state and federal agencies. With a shift in the county’s water resources department and Vejraska’s election, the county has stepped up its involvement. The county has said it must send any proposed agreement through the county hearing process before making a decision to commit the county and planning unit. Opinion | Sports |
Local Interest |