Important information left out of guest column

The letter to the editor mentioned here was published in the March 23, 2006 edition of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. As a response to the opinion piece, the note brings up an interesting point. All too often, crucial pieces of information are left out of public policy decision-making. We've seen this in the draft WRIA 17 instream flow rule, and in others.

Although we can speculate as to why the author didn't mention several of the more significant parts of the legislation that was enacted to help resolve several contentious issues in the Columbia River Basin, we don't really need to go down that path. What we do need to do is to remember that we are working for the best balance of meeting the needs of both people and wildlife species. We can't do that if we don't objectively evaluate all of the available information about a region and its resources before making natural resource policy decisions.

We all have our preferences of how things should be. That's fair. We should all go to some effort toward understanding the positions of those who aren't in agreement with our own visions. We can't work toward balanced and effective policy very well until we at least get everything onto the table where we can talk about it.

In the opinion piece, the author stated, "Scientific analysis and public debate are important predicates to major actions that significantly affect the quality of our environment. But this time the governor and Legislature foreclosed such input. Good science along with opportunities for thoughtful review and exploration of alternatives were discarded, replaced by political backroom wrangling to divvy up pieces of the river."

A little additional research finds information about the process that the author may not have been aware of.

The original version of HB 2860 was seen as unsupportable by many in the legislature. It would likely not have passed, had it come to the floor. A bipartisan group of legislators put together a stakeholder panel, composed of a broad range of environmental activist groups, agricultural interests, and others, which met for many hours over the course of several days. They eventually reached a compromise that they could all accept, one that provides a great many opportunities for solving what have been contentious problems for decades. Far from foreclosing debate and the use of science, the governor and legislators fostered public participation in a manner not often seen. The "cast of characters" selected for the negotiating were not participating in any "political backroom wrangling." They are all leaders in their respective areas of expertise and are people who represent their non-governmental organization constituencies very well. Although they had been asked by elected officials to gather together to try to work out a viable compromise, the politicians, to the best of our knowledge, did not interfere with the process.

The author had the opportunity, along with the rest of the public, to provide written comment to the group that built the compromise. I understand that she provided testimony on her organization's behalf when the bill was in committee.

I would be very interested in learning about any evidence the author has in reference to her assertion of "backroom wrangling". Such information would be important for us to learn about and understand as we move forward in our own very important negotiating efforts on the WRIA 17 instream flow rule and related activities. It would also serve us well in helping us to understand legislative processes better.

We seek to engage the legislative and rule-making processes in a positive and effective manner, seeking to help build healthy policy for Washington. We really hope that all the other participants are planning to do the same.