|
LAST WEEK'S STORIESHISTORY |
Methow Valley News May 9, 2001 Endangered Species Water unit wants county support Litigation moves to fore in ESA issues Water unit wants county support by Lee Hicks Okanogan County Commissioners are set to meet this week with Methow Basin Watershed Planning Unit members in an effort to resolve confusion over the county’s role in watershed planning. The meeting, set for 4 p. m. Wednesday at the Forest Service offices in Twisp, was requested in a May 2 letter to commissioners from three of the initiating government representatives in the watershed process. The county is the fourth entity. Among items on the agenda is a request by the planning unit for the county to authorize staff funding and to improve financial accounting for watershed planning and salmon recovery monies. Without action, the letter says, watershed planning and the future of the planning unit could be in jeopardy. The letter was signed by the representatives for the Colville Tribes, the Town of Twisp and the Methow Valley Irrigation District, which has the largest number of irrigators in the basin. The letter specifically asks that the county fund a fulltime coordinator to attend planning unit sessions, summarize progress on watershed projects and provide reports. The coordinator would keep the planning unit informed of detailed county accounting of grant and other watershed expenditures. The letter also asks for funding of a secretary, office space and a library. If the county does not act, "the planning unit is prepared to seek its own funding for the management and administration of the planning unit," the letter says. Since losing its first director last October, the county water resources department and its financial functions were folded into the planning department under director Rusty Bonser, who has served in a "coordinator role," the letter said. After the reorganization, the county has not provided a representative with authority to participate in the planning unit as an equal member with the other initiating governments. The letter stated that the county more recently removed a computer from a planning unit office in the Mac Lloyd Logging Co. building. The planning unit letter notes "confusion of lead agency and county roles." The specific points include: —The county through the "coordinator role" has attempted to influence policy issues that should have been raised through the planning unit and its steering committee. Instead, the coordinator role should be to "administer the unit" for the county as the lead agency—not to influence policy decisions. —The county coordinator informed the planning unit in a March 23 letter that the county would be reviewing a "scientific study commissioned by the planning unit" for accuracy and usefulness before releasing it to the unit. The unit’s technical advisory group should first receive and review the unedited study, the letter says. But the county in its lead agency role would review contract compliance. —The county coordinator has not provided adequate financial accounting, including details of county staff time, to the planning unit. —Referring to a state audit report critical of county reporting of watershed planning and salmon funding, the letter says: The county’s failure to act in its lead agency role could jeopardize a stream gauge study by a private hydrology engineering company, groundwater research underway by the U.S. Geological Survey and possibly the release of $175,000 remaining of the $500,000 in state watershed funding for which an application must be filed by June 4, the letter notes. Since the audit that cited problems in accounting for watershed planning and salmon recovery funds, the county has hired former sheriff Jim Weed to direct a new financial oversight office. Last Wednesday (May 2), state senate Republican caucus staffer John Stuhlmiller met in Twisp with county officials and the planning unit to discuss requirements of the state legislation governing watershed planning and salmon recovery. The planning unit interpreted Stuhmiller’s analysis that the county is a "pass through" agency for the watershed planning funds and can monitor expenditures, said unit chairman Dick Ewing. If the county withholds funds, the planning unit might opt to seek funding independently through sources that provide grants to tax-exempt 501(c)(3) groups, Ewing said. The full planning unit is scheduled to meet again May 16 following the May 9 session involving the group’s steering committee, the county and other initiating governments. Litigation moves to fore in ESA issues by Lee Hicks A recent federal court decision and a newly filed lawsuit could both influence the Endangered Species Act debate in the Methow basin. In a decision involving California’s Tulare Lake basin, the U.S. Federal Court of Claims ruled that irrigators were entitled to compensation for a "taking" of their water rights that resulted from federal agency decisions regarding endangered salmon and smelt. Also last week, the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund filed suit in U.S. District Court in Portland challenging as inadequate the National Marine Fisheries Service’s 2000 biological opinion for dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers. The Claims Court decision held that the Tulare irrigators were denied water through a breach of contract by the Bureau of Reclamation. The water was withheld under a biological opinion issued under "Section 7" provisions of the Endangered Species Act that require federal agencies to consult on issues affecting listed fish. "Overall it’s obviously a very good decision for us," said Galen Schuler of Perkins Coie, outside counsel for Okanogan County on ESA issues. Schuler is representing the County and several Methow Valley irrigators in a potential lawsuit, for which a required notice of intent has been filed, against NMFS and the Forest Service over similar issues. The Tulare case involves compensation for the "physical taking" of a contractual right. "If I don’t get water it’s just as if the government were to come into my house and take it for an office building," as Schuler explained the decision. He said that legal options facing the County and local irrigators were similar. The County could seek return of actual water rights impeded by ESA decisions in a federal district court, or compensation for financial loss in the federal claims court. However, Schuler said the claims decision is an "ultimate backstop" if the Tulare case holds up on appeal. Plaintiffs could lose on other arguments over water rights but potentially still be compensated in federal claims court. An official of the Family Farm Alliance, which filed the Tulare suit, called the decision, "a huge victory for the plaintiffs and for all of us who are facing ESA takings issues. The facts of this case may not apply to all situations, but it is a huge step in the right direction," Craig Smith of the farm group wrote in an e-mail to supporters. In the hydro system suit filed last week, a prepared statement by Earthjustice and environmental groups said the NMFS biological opinion, "contains fundamental scientific and legal flaws which keep Columbia and Snake river salmon on the path to extinction. "The Bonneville Power Administration revealed one of those flaws with its recent decisions to stop salmon spills: the agencies have broad latitude to ignore what the new plan requires them to do for salmon." The groups, including Trout Unlimited and the National Wildlife Federation, argued that up to 95 percent of young salmon would perish as a result of BPA holding back water behind dams to meet emergency power generation demands. The hydro system plan needs to address other measures, the statement said, including energy conservation, renewable energy sources such as wind power and, "aggressive water purchases or leases." The Northwest Power Planning Council, which operates fish mitigation programs for BPA, has already announced it plans to pursue a "willing seller" program of buying water rights to theoretically make more available for endangered fish.
|
