Seattle Times 3-26-98
No one agrees on salmon recovery
by Lynda Mapes, Seattle Times staff reporter
Just several weeks ago, state, tribal and local-government leaders gathered at the Seattle Aquarium and pledged to work together to save the salmon. But so far, even figuring out a framework for discussion of recovery efforts has proven problematic. And Gov. Gary Locke is being urged to veto a centerpiece of the Legislature's salmon-recovery efforts this past session.
The bill, ESHB 2514, would allow local governments, utilities and other interests to form watershed-planning groups to assess water use and supply in management areas throughout the state. Planning groups also would develop a recommended strategy for allocating future water consumption. Water quality and protection and improvement of fish habitat also could be addressed in watershed plans, but that's optional under the bill.
But tribes and major environmental groups want Locke to veto the entire bill. They say it is a bad foundation for salmon recovery. "It's always like this," sighed Ron Shultz, policy director for the Washington office of the National Audubon Society. "We always get bogged down in these who's-at-the-table, how-big-is-it and what-shape-is-it fights."
That doesn't bode well for fish-recovery efforts, including a salmon-recovery effort now in the works in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties. State and local fish policy-makers are hoping to come up with a salmon-recovery plan good enough to stave off a listing of Puget Sound chinook for protection under the Endangered Species Act.
But that won't happen if the bill is signed into law, critics say. "This bill has great potential for driving a wedge that keeps tribes and local governments from making progress on salmon," said Terry Williams, executive director of fisheries and natural resources for the Tulalip Tribes. "The bill is a flawed foundation. Why build on it?"
Jim Anderson, executive director of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, which represents treaty tribes with salmon-fishing rights, called the bill "a terrible way to get going on salmon recovery. This really jeopardizes those efforts. The tribes aren't going to play."
Tribes say they were cut out of the legislative process and given only advisory powers in making water-rights decisions that affect their sovereign-treaty rights. Every major Western Washington treaty tribe with salmon-fishing rights has asked Locke to veto it. Locke was to meet with tribal leaders today. He hasn't decided whether he'll sign the bill, according to his spokeswoman, Marylou Flynn.
Environmental groups say the bill merely masquerades as a fish-recovery effort because planning for fish-habitat preservation and in-stream flows for fish are optional. The Audubon Society, Washington Environmental Council and People for Puget Sound have asked Locke to veto the bill. Commercial fishing groups also oppose it.
Widespread opposition from key players in the salmon-recovery fight could put Locke in an awkward position. Tom Fitzsimmons, his director of the state Department of Ecology, played a key role in getting the bill passed. Fitzsimmons conceded the bill's not perfect and has recommended that Locke veto a portion of it. But he insisted the bill is better than nothing.
He said the state deliberately took "as soft an approach as possible," choosing not to require planning groups to recommend in-stream flows for fish, or habitat-improvement efforts. Instead, an incentive approach was chosen: The state will only provide money to local planning groups that address all pieces of the water-allocation puzzle, including water for fish and habitat.
Fitzsimmons agreed that tribes were left out of the legislative process
But he insisted the bill itself includes tribes in watershed-planning decisions. "This bill does not prescribe an answer to the very contentious negotiation and compromise needed to block the deadlock on setting in-stream flows," he said. "It simply sets up the framework to have this debate and requires a broad range of interest groups to participate." That, alone, would be progress, Fitzsimmons said
Back to Watershed Management Index Page
Back to Whats New Index Page
Back to Chehalis River Council Index Page