Who's Speaking for the Fish? . . . Our Response

We recently read an article in the Spring 2006 edition of Washington Water Watch (PDF download version available from the CELP website), the newsletter for the Center for Environmental Law and Policy (CELP), starting on page 4, titled Who’s Speaking for the Fish?, written by a member of the WRIA 17 planning unit. Noting that new stakeholders came onto the scene “. . . to block adoption of instream flows across the Olympic Peninsula,” the author outlined experiences with water policy planning over a period of more than fifteen years.

We applaud the author’s dedication to helping develop water policy, and likewise appreciate the many years of effort devoted to helping the recovery of our salmon runs. Services of this type are needed, and are much appreciated by everyone who lives in our region. We do, however, feel that the author’s perceptions of the “new stakeholders” late arrival at the table are somewhat inaccurate.

We are not so much new as we are long-time stakeholders who were under the impression that our interests were being adequately represented at the watershed planning table. Until last year, we did not understand the extraordinary impacts something called an “instream flow rule” would have on our local economy or future opportunities for newcomers to our communities. Once we began to understand the ramifications of the rule that the Department of Ecology was drafting for us, we became concerned and started asking questions. The more questions we asked, the greater our concern became. Each time Ecology officials came to Jefferson County to discuss the proposed rule, more members of the public turned out to ask questions and become better educated.

In September, 2005, a couple of hundred members of the WRIA 17 community attended an open house held at Fort Worden State Park by the Department of Ecology. A new version of the draft, completed that day with substantial revisions, was available for review . . . something of an irritant for those who had built their questions based on the previous version. More than once, the moderators suggested breaking up into smaller groups. On each occasion, the audience declined the offer, preferring to have questions and answers available to all. The open house lasted several hours longer than scheduled. After it was over, and most of the people had departed, one senior Ecology official was heard telling another that it was good that they had come, because “ . . . they needed to vent.”

It was the wrong thing to say.

For many of us, the purpose for our participation was to convince DOE officials that the rule was unworkable. Apparently they had not been prepared to be all that responsive to our concerns.

Reasonably certain that our input at the open house was not going to be effective, some community members began writing their elected officials with their concerns. There was no formal letter-writing campaign . . . it just happened.

The wheels didn’t really come off the cart, though, until the days following an article that appeared in the Capital Press on October, 21, 2005. In it, Department of Ecology officials were quoted as saying that people who were using an exempt well as a water source in the growing of produce for sale at farmers’ markets throughout the region were using water illegally. We were well aware of the findings of the 2001 Kim v. Pollution Control Hearings Board, et al. case, which dealt specifically with the use of exempt wells in support of commercial agricultural activities, including nurseries. According to that decision, our small sustainable agriculture producers were within their rights to use water from their exempt wells to help grow their crops.

More letters went out to the members of the 24^th District’s legislative team. Concern was mounting. In response, Representative Lynn Kessler and the other two members of our legislative team, Representative Jim Buck and Senator Jim Hargrove, called for a public meeting, which was held November 10, 2005 at the Fort Worden Commons.

More than 300 members of the WRIA 17 community came to the meeting and heard an apology and list of commitments from the Department of Ecology to the residents of our WRIA. Ecology also announced that they had pulled the proposed rule, and would recommence the rule-making process, this time with participation from the full range of stakeholder groups in the watershed.

Today finds us at a point where a facilitation team has been chosen to work with the community and the Department of Ecology to guide the development of an instream flow rule that does a better job of reaching the balance of needs for both human and fish populations, and helps provide a better future for both than the previously suggested rule would have. We don’t see that as blocking instream flows across the Olympic Peninsula . . . we see that as an opportunity to do the best job possible for the fish and people of WRIA 17.

We fully understand that the Department of Ecology has a statutory obligation to set instream flows by rule, and that WRIA 17 will eventually have an instream flow rule, in company with the other 61 WRIAs in Washington. We don’t object to that. What we do object to is the methodology employed in the draft instream flow rule that was put on the table in 2005. The approach outlined in that proposal would not have provided flow support for any stream, because it was limited to attempting to strictly limiting future withdrawals of water from the watershed for human use. There was no emphasis on looking forward with an eye toward building an infrastructure that would make it possible to adapt to the effects of climate change on the regional ecosystems. It carried a high probability of economic catastrophe and societal disruption as a foreseeable consequence that would not have become readily apparent until several years after its adoption.

It would probably not have been all that helpful to fish populations.

According to the article’s author, we are something called new “ruralites”. We’re not quite certain what that means, but apparently it’s something the author does not fully approve of. (Your humble correspondent learned to drive at the age of twelve, on a John Deere, in a hayfield . . . does that qualify for new ruralite status?)

The author is under the impression that we “. . . claim dahlia and kiwi crops are the heart of an imperiled farm economy.” We don’t. We do, however, understand them as desirable components of the new sustainable agriculture that we have learned is one of the most important aspects of the sustainability movement, working in harmony with healthy ecosystems. The imposition of the previously considered form of instream flow rule, coupled with the Department of Ecology’s reluctance to issue new water rights, would have pretty much killed the opportunity to bring to maturity the infant sustainable agriculture community in WRIA 17. (Those miniature kiwis, by the way, are wonderful eating . . . and we are delighted they do so well in our climate!)

Those of us living in rural areas, not served by public water or sewer systems, are characterized as demanding “. . . rights to extract a public resource from the commons.” We don’t feel that to be an accurate assessment of our expectations. What we want to see continue is the right to bring an exempt well into service to provide for our water needs as allowed under RCW 90.44.050. We are not doing anything illegal or immoral by simply using our resources as allowed by Washington’s statutes. Not being served by a public sewer system, we put most of the water we withdraw directly back into the upper aquifer, at a higher level than we took it from. Being repeatedly used within the water cycle, the water we withdraw always moves back into the commons, in one way or another.

We are coming to the table to partner in developing an improved form of instream flow rule that assures humans reasonable access to the water resources necessary to support our living circumstances and the development of regionally appropriate commercial activities as allowed under the constraints of Washington’s Growth Management Act and our county’s comprehensive plan. We wish to balance this access with the needs of the fish and other wildlife species of concern, so that all will have the quantities of water needed for thriving populations. We also wish to seek out and adopt a wider variety of technologies and approaches aimed toward the sustainable recovery of our threatened fish species in the region. We do not find these goals to be incompatible with one another.

We are bringing our common sense to the table. Our appreciation of the commons may contrast somewhat with the sense of the commons held by others, but that’s the kind of contrast that keeps life interesting, and is not intended to be used as a point of contention. We plan to be participants in the development of a sensible and legally defensible rule.

Although the article’s author points to a belief that the fish can’t survive our modern industrial footprint, it’s equally clear that they don’t have much option. We can, however, work to modify how our industrial footprint is molded to fit the landscape that we live in, while supporting the needs of the species of concern. In that respect, we are very fortunate in our location on the western side of the Puget Sound, where that footprint isn’t heavily entrenched. The task on the other side is complicated by the fact that their industrial base is already deeply established and quite inflexible. We have much greater opportunity to accommodate to the needs of our fish populations. We also have the benefit of the Department of Ecology’s commitments to working with us toward that end.

While “community heart” may provide great insight into the instream flow rule decision-making process, we are under the statutory obligation to build those decisions on the foundation of the best available science. Through our contacts and partnerships, we will be able to bring more science to the table than was previously available. We fully expect that all the science used in developing the rule should and will be peer reviewed, as required by county policy.

Our power structures, both governmental and business, serve to provide us the resources we need to develop the science, and to provide the funding to bring everything and everyone to the table to build the solutions that meet the needs of people and the ecosystems around us. There are very few nations in the world with the economic wherewithal and the political will to allow its citizens the scope of action we are being offered. We are fortunate to have their support in this work and appreciate every bit of independence they give us. We will request even greater autonomy as the rule-making process proceeds.

We agree that we all need healthy watersheds, with clean, clear, cold water in our streams. We are at the table to help design the balance that will serve the needs of our community and the wildlife species our watershed supports. We welcome the challenge, and hope to work with everyone else at the table to rapidly bring solutions into action to expand on the excellent work that is already being done to recover our salmon runs.