Salmon recovery plan would become no longer 'voluntary' once passed?

by Joel Kretz

10/6/05

Okanagon County, WA - As many of you know we’ve been told over and over that the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Plan is “voluntary” in nature. But you will notice that statement is ALWAYS prefaced by the words “in and of itself.” The mantra from day one has been, “don’t worry about what’s in the plan because, in and of itself, the plan is voluntary”. I haven’t been able to get anyone to simply say “the plan is voluntary” without prefacing it with the disclaimer “in and of itself.” Why is this so important?

The Federal government is unable, and rightly so, to write or enforce local land use plans or tell private landowners how to manage their land. That’s been the job of state and local government. Until now. The states Growth Management Act mandates that any associated plans, such as this recovery plan, “must be considered” for the local GMA plans. If the county is reviewing their Critical Areas Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan and fails to consider the salmon recovery plan for this area, they will be found non-compliant for failure to consider. Then, in fact, if the county did consider the recovery plan, but decided not to incorporate “voluntary actions,” the county will be challenged to explain their work, and show why the “voluntary” actions were not codified into county ordinance. In addition, the current recovery plan directs the county to “Consider the needs of salmon and trout in comprehensive land-use planning processes,” effectively merging the Counties regulatory authority and the salmon recovery plan.

Even if they promise not to use the plan to override our local authorities - it has already been codified into law under the Growth Management Act. It will put our local county officials in the position of enforcing not only the Endangered Species Act, but forcing them to go far beyond the requirements of the ESA. I don’t want to see our local county officials forced into that position. Equally troubling, the county will be extremely vulnerable to challenges and lawsuits from environmental extremists.

In other words, we are facing the prospect of our local land use decisions affecting your private property being made in Seattle, Olympia or Washington DC.

I think it’s time for the local public to get together and discuss their future at, say, the Agriplex. 

Copyright Joel Kretz 2005