We Must Steer Clear Of A Land Management Quagmire

Washington state is facing an issue over the next 18 to 24 months that could have a devastating effect on production agriculture.

Starting this fall, the National Marine Fisheries Service might list as many as four types of wild salmon and steelhead as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Additionally, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service could list the bull trout at any time.

Added together, these listings encompass an area making up over three quarters of the state’s land mass.

This action could seriously impact the management of private and public lands throughout the state. It could have a large economic impact on agricultural and forest industries.

Southeast Washington Wheat Growers are familiar with the effects on the Snake River that previous Chinook and Sockeye listings have had. They have already experienced test drawdowns on the Snake. As incredible as it seems, possible “breaching” of the lower four Snake River dams is actually being discussed. If that were to occur, barging on the Snake River would cease.

Some of the potential impacts that could occur if new listings take place are no less drastic. They include possible 150- to 200-foot buffer zones on all streams and the federal government dictating land use practices on private land. There would essentially be a moratorium on all water rights in the state. Many irrigation districts, especially those that derive their water from the Bureau of Reclamation, could see significant portions of their water being diverted to in-stream flows.

These restrictions are real possibilities because of the power of the ESA. In addition, ESA disputes usually end up being decided in federal district court. Whenever natural resource issues are decided by the courts, they turn into win-lose situations. More often than not, agriculture has lost.

Fortunately, there is a way to walk through this incredibly complicated minefield. The process, called watershed planning, is often long and difficult, but seems to be the only way that all the competing issues around salmon and economic activity can be worked out by the people most affected.

A watershed planning effort starts when all affected stakeholders in a watershed decide they want to determine what their future will look like, instead of having the courts decide for them. Usual representatives coming together in a watershed process include agriculture, environmentalists, recreationalists, local government, tribes, business, timber or any other interests that make up a major part of the watershed.

After organizing itself, these watershed councils usually start gathering data. This involves starting at the mouth of a river and working all the way to the headwaters to find out what problems exist in the watershed. Once the group has a clear picture of those problems, it can apply the tools necessary to fix the problems. Ultimately, this group can help decide water quantity and quality, as well as habitat preservation and restoration issues, in a cost-effective, sensible manner.

Many watershed planning efforts are now under way in Washington state. The most sophisticated of these is occurring in the Yakima River watershed. There, the Yakima River Watershed Council has been working on a plan over the last two years to deal with the many water-related issues facing the Yakima River. Implementation of that plan will go a long way toward fixing the problems facing fish in the Yakima Valley while allowing production agriculture to flourish.

Unfortunately, if these efforts are unsuccessful, this state might very well back into a litigation mess like none we have never seen. My concern with that scenario is that not only will it be disruptive to production agriculture, I am firmly convinced it will not help fish habitat at all.

Only by working together, with each side giving a little bit, will we be able to work through this complicated issue.

I have been meeting over the last seven months with numerous agriculture groups to discuss the possible impacts of the ESA and ways we may be able to avoid or work within it. Broad recognition of the problem and support for solving it will be necessary if we are to be successful.

xxxx