|
Washington takes next step in managing Columbia River - Petitioners want water rights, which would boost agriculture economy
Responding to a petition filed earlier this month by the Columbia-Snake River Irrigators Association and 14 Washington state lawmakers, Ecology Director Tom Fitzsimmons has announced the filing of a proposal that he called the next step in Gov. Gary Locke’s Columbia River Regional Initiative. In an Oct. 22 telephone press conference, Fitzsimmons said his agency had filed what is known as a CR-101, the mechanism that launches the state’s public rule-making process for the management of the Columbia River. The proposal calls for amending the “Instream Resources Program for the Main Stem Columbia River” and the “Water Resources Protection Program for the Main Stem Columbia.” The plan replaces a version filed in July 2001. “I can’t think of a greater symbol of our region’s prosperity than the resources provided by the Columbia River,” Fitzsimmons said. The river is “a lifeline,” he said, as he called for a new look at how the river is managed. Tom Mackay, CSRIA president and financial officer of AgriNorthwest, a large farming operation based in Kennewick, was skeptical of Fitzsimmons’ announcement, and wondered if the proposal would lead to the issuing of new water rights. “Time will tell,” Mackay said. CSRIA, lawmakers and the City of Brewster filed a petition Oct. 2 with Ecology, to begin the formal administrative process to amend existing Ecology rules and to shift the 20-year-old John Day Reserve to open access along the full Columbia. The reserve includes more than 1.3 million acre-feet of water primarily for irrigation. By statute, the reservation has a priority date of June 24, 1980, the petition said. So far, the use of the reserve water has been limited to irrigation of about 330,000 acres. Withdrawals can be made only from the John Day-McNary pool. The petition was an attempt to get Ecology to start issuing water rights from more than 80 applications, some of which have been on file for 10 years or more, CSRIA said. CSRIA’s proposed amendment would allow withdrawals at other points and expand the uses to include industrial, commercial or municipal use, in addition to agriculture. Granting the water rights could boost regional incomes by as much as $1 billion annually, directly and indirectly, by some accounts. The petition was specific to the John Day reserve, Mackay said. Fitzsimmons’ proposal is much broader and doesn’t address the issues in the irrigators’ and lawmakers’ petition, he said. Begun in October 2001, the Columbia River Regional Initiative was hailed by Locke and Fitzsimmons as a “facilitated negotiation process” that was to involve irrigators, fishing interests, recreational users, hydropower providers, environmental interest groups, transportation and city and state governments. The department was also charged with meeting with federal agencies, the tribes and coordinating among state agencies and neighboring states. From the beginning, the initiative has had little support from agriculture interests. A main sticking point is what the irrigators say is Ecology’s adoption of the National Marine Fisheries Service 2000 biological opinion under the Endangered Species Act that addresses the operation of the Columbia River system. Included in the BiOp are target flows to protect listed fish. NMFS’ “no net loss” policy dictates there can be no new water withdrawals from the river without a drop-for-drop replacement from somewhere else. Earlier this year, in a lawsuit filed by CSRIA against Ecology, a Benton County Superior Court judge ruled Ecology could not issue water rights conditioned by NMFS BiOp. The judge said Ecology’s consultation process, adopted in 1998, was “unworkable.” The lawsuit followed a long series of broken-down negotiations between the irrigators group and Ecology over the processing of Columbia River water rights. Originally filed in October 2000 by CSRIA and others to force Ecology to process water rights applications, the suit was put on hold in April 2001 when an out-of-court agreement was reached. Under the agreement, Ecology said it would process a handful of applications to divert water from the Columbia River. Ecology issued draft rulings on the water rights applications, but it imposed interruptible conditions that made them virtually useless, the irrigators said. The conditions prevented water use during July and August, at the height of the growing season when it’s needed most. Last fall, CSRIA resumed its suit against Ecology, and the case is still winding its way through court. “There’s got to be a better way to manage the river than to rely on piecemeal court proceedings every time water-right decisions are made,” Fitzsimmons said. “By initiating rule-making, we hope to involve people through the region in crafting a plan that allows the basin’s economy to grow, diversify and be sustained.” Fitzsimmons said he had “positive signals” from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, NMFS and water user groups that creative solutions could be found for Columbia River water management. “We’re not going to challenge the no-net loss policy, but we’re uncomfortable with certain aspects of it, especially as we look at water uses on a smaller scale,” said Gerry O’Keefe, Ecology policy assistant.“We may be able to manage within their (NMFS’) flow regime and still have flexibility to meet the need for out-of-stream water uses.” Ecology has hired the National Academy of Science to review existing science on the effect of Columbia River off-stream water uses on fish, O’Keefe said. The $488,000 study is expected to be completed by February 2004. A study is also being planned on the economic affects of water use in the region. Fitzsimmons said he hopes a new rule on the river’s management can be adopted in a year and a half. “We’re pleased that Ecology is beginning to move, but we’re concerned about the time frame,” Mackay said. “We don’t know why its takes 18 months to discuss some things that have been in discussions over and over again.” |