A message from Representative Jim Buck

Here's a bit of good news from one of our legislators. We have their attention, and there is some disquiet in both the Washington House and Senate over what the Department of Ecology is doing with this rule-making process.

One of the more interesting things that Representative Buck is telling us here is that we have water rights, not water privileges. Because we have water rights, we have to each get up to speed on water law as much as we can, since Ecology is essentially attempting to convert our water rights into what we can think of as "water use privileges". When we feel that our water rights might come under threat as a result of what Ecology is doing to future water rights holders, we are pretty much individually obligated to protect those future landowners and their water rights. If we don't, then Ecology will be looking for ways to limit our water rights once they get those future water rights under their lock and key.

It's encouraging to hear that there is considerable opposition to Ecology's instream flow rule efforts in several other WRIAs. What needs to happen now is that we need to get to know the folks involved in that opposition in those other watersheds. We also need to talk to our neighbors about the instream flow rule-making process, and where it appears to be going.

Even though our more urbanized fellow citizens in town and those in other areas served by public water systems have an established water right that will not be directly affected by the instream flow rule, we need them to know how it will impact them. If Ecology is able to get this instream flow rule signed and into the Washington Administrative Code, its provisions will cause an artificial shortage of usable property in rural areas not served by public water systems.

Property prices for parcels with wells, whether homes are present yet or not, will go through the roof. Those properties that don't get to have wells will be virtually without value, except as open space. Home prices in town will also skyrocket. When home prices go up rapidly, so do property taxes. Not only that, but when the day comes that our children wish to return to the area to live, most of them will not be able to afford to purchase a home here.

Is that what we want?

So, lend an ear to what Jim Buck has to say. He's welcoming us to an effort that he's been working on for years. In order for legislation designed to curb Ecology's appetite for our water to be passed, there's going to have to be a lot of public participation in the legislative process. That means you, me, and all of the neighbors we can get involved. The Department of Ecology is not directly accountable to us, but our legislators are. We can gather together and strongly encourage them to assert a greater degree of direct control over the Department of Ecology.

Let's help them!

---

Thanks for what you are doing to get the word out about the WRIA 17 planning problems. Activities like yours are the only way legislators sympathetic to this cause can get the support they need to defeat this planning process in the coming session. Please rest assured that DOE does not have the full support of the legislature for what they are doing. In fact, I would say that there is bi-partisan opposition to their efforts on both sides of the dome.

Please remind everyone that this DOE effort is not my salmon recovery bill. We separated salmon recovery from watershed planning in 1998 to avoid fights over water rights just like this. Salmon recovery was HB2496 and watershed planning was HB2514. I warned the legislature at that time that anti-growth interests would use 2514 to do just what they are doing.

Now, I have been in this fight for 12 years. DOE has been trying to use a 1971 law to meter wells, hold up issuing water rights, do away with 6 pack systems and lower the number of gallons per day on existing water rights through rule change. I voted for HB2514 in 1998 because it required a public process at the watershed level before DOE could proceed with changes. This local public process is in line with my party's principle that local control is best. This is a good news bad news scenario. The bad news is this process has been going on for 5 years and most of the people who are most upset about the outcome were not involved in creating the plan. The good news is the current public outcry is a necessary and healthy part of the public process and is happening in many WRIAs all over the state. Hopefully, the public outcry will result in changes to the plans. It very definitely has the legislature's attention. Whether the D leadership in the house, senate and governor's mansion will do anything about it is another story.

One of the most important things I learned about salmon and legal language from the Boldt Decision was the difference between a right and a privilege. A right cannot be conditioned - - - a privilege can. We do not have water privileges. We have water rights. Our citizens need to make full use of the body of water law that protects them even if they have to go to court. They also have to make sure DOE fully complies with the administrative procedures act before implementing any rule changes. Republican legislative legal counsel will be monitoring that carefully. I will continue to support your effort. Its nice to have some support and attention from the public after 12 years of struggle.

Best wishes,

Jim Buck