LAST WEEK'S STORIESHISTORY
|
Methow Valley News July 4, 2001 Endangered Species Publisher's comment by Lee Hicks Ecology signs off on basin "work plan" Publisher's comment by Lee Hicks The law and logic? Last week’s U. S. Supreme Court decision that land-use regulations must balance rights of individuals and government opens up a new dimension to a continuing debate. In the extreme, some government and conservation interests fear the decision could mean rampant "speculation" by landowners and developers. Developers could maximize value on their land by going to court for compensation from the public coffers, even when market conditions might be less favorable. Following this argument, a developer might intentionally buy land with restrictions on a portion of the property, sell off the portion without restriction then go to court to recover on the other parcel. In the extreme example, speculators might even target wetlands or similarly restricted property. This seems an exaggerated and alarmist scenario. The Supreme Court has sent the case that was the basis for the decision back to a lower court. And the resulting compromises may be quite different from the apparently dramatic impact of the high court decision. There don’t appear to be any substantial implications for this decision in relation to current endangered species and water litigation involving the Methow basin. If anything the logic to argue a "taking" of a water right would seem much stronger in the basin than with the issues in the recent Supreme Court decision. Recent federal actions in the Methow basin came long after establishment of the water rights in question. But in last week’s Supreme Court decision the plaintiff knowingly purchased property with land-use restrictions. Another decision last week, this time by the Washington state Supreme Court, would appear to have more logic on its side. In this case the quasi-federal agency Columbia Gorge Commission essentially overturned a Clark County land-use decision allowing a home to be built in the Gorge, a national scenic area. The court appears to have rationally determined the commission should have gone through the county appeal process rather than peremptorily overturning the local decision. In the realm of the law, logic is at times an unpredictable companion. Ecology signs off on basin "work plan" by Lee Hicks A watershed plan for the Methow basin is a step closer after the state Department of Ecology’s approval of a "work plan" which allows the release of additional funding. Ecology and the Methow Basin Watershed Planning Unit agreed to a final draft document, dated June 25. As a result, the remaining $175,000 of an initial $500,000 state appropriation will be available to the local unit. Joe Williams, deputy director of Ecology, said last Friday, "We have provided the county, the lead agency, and the planning unit with the balance of the $500,000." Williams said the funds were those that Sen. Linda Parlette, R-12th, was able to have included in the state budget when she was the basin’s representative in the state house two years ago. Ecology had informed the county and planning unit that the funds could be lost if the plan were not completed before start of the new budget biennium in July. "So, mission accomplished," Williams concluded. Its purpose, as outlined in the mission section of the work plan, is to enable basin and county residents "to gain control and have input over resource management in the Methow watershed." With endangered fish listings and 85 percent of the basin under state or federal management, the plan recognizes that local control carries, "an acute responsibility to participate in the recovery of listed species." A key element of the work plan is to assess actual water use and future needs for domestic, agricultural, municipal, commercial and fish habitat. The plan notes that Ecology’s water claims registry has assumed water use at the rate of 402,177 acre feet per year on 30,000 acres. But a 1976 basin plan and a 1990s study by Golder Associates concluded that only 40,800 acre feet were used on 17,500 acres. The 1976 plan established a 2 cubic foot per second (equivalent to four acre feet, or 1.3 million gallons per day) reservation for each of the basin’s seven stream reaches. But the work plan says actual use is not known and conclusions that use in a reach may exceed 2 cfs could be based on data for 5,000-gallon, permit-exempt wells, which do not use that amount. Among the key points the plan proposes are to: —Assess relationship of surface and groundwater withdrawals. —Develop a basin water budget and water-use model that addresses each stream reach at any time of the year, taking into consideration irrigation demand and needs for fish habitat. —Establish an extensive stream-gauging system and a 10-year monitoring program. —Develop a diversion monitoring system to measure effects of irrigation streamflows. —Study water quality impacts related to domestic and other uses. —Identify fish habitat needs for spawning, rearing and passage in specific reaches, and make recommendations for potential conservation purchases. —Review existing studies to identify ways to increase water storage opportunities. The work plan cites a variety of projects and studies, private and public, now in progress that qualify for inclusion in the basin plan. Opinion | Sports |
Local Interest |