August – October 2010
(09/08/2010) Please note: Feedback is no longer being accepted for this question. Thank you to all that participated. The responses we received are available below. You can also continue to provide comments or contact us at forum@ecy.wa.gov.
August 30 – September 5
THE ISSUE
A watershed or basin is all the land that drains to the same body of water, such as a lake or river. The Watershed Planning Act (WPA) of 1998 provided ten years of grants for local citizens groups and lead agencies to develop and implement watershed plans in partnership with the Washington Department of Ecology.
These plans provide water and land use managers with long term blueprints to protect existing water rights and with better information to make water right decisions.
Plans have been completed that cover all or parts of 37 out of 62 watersheds in Washington. However, without additional state money provided to local governments through an amendment of the WPA, full-scale implementation of many watershed plans will be difficult at best for cash-strapped local governments and improved watershed management will be delayed in these basins.
> > Learn more about the Watershed Planning Act.
Yes, it should be extended. The intent of the plans and implementation process was not well-understood. As a result, there is confusion and resistance to rule-making and implementation. The process needs to be revisisted and assumptions need to be reconsidered. With funding challenges, the process needs to be allowed to run a reasonable course in line with resources.
I say Yes! Having the funds to continue to implement the plan that was created in the Chehalis is very important to all that live here. The process of watershed planning has helped educate people in the area of water resources and the importance of protecting this resource into the future. When you live some place that sees as much rain as we do it is hard for some to fathom the fact that there could be a water shortage. I am proud of what has been acomplished here and have worked with the local group for many years. All of my time has been volunteer and I have appreciated all the help and expertise that has been given by all the partners. I can think of few other ways I would like to see my tax dollars spent then on protecting our environment for the future generations.
Yes, the statute should be amended to provide watershed groups and their sponsoring lead agencies with continuing funding for implementing their locally adopted watershed plans. However, the amendment should not put a four-year sunset on supporting watershed groups’ and their sponsoring lead agencies’ role in implementing and, as may be appropriate over time, amending their locally adopted plans. Additionally, the title of chapter 90.82 RCW should be changed from “watershed planning” to “watershed management.”
Numerous watershed groups succeeded in developing and adopting watershed management plans. They and their sponsoring lead agencies are engaged in implementing these plans and in providing local citizens and governments with a voice in the way their watersheds are managed. It is important work and “shared governance” is the right approach. We must continue to support for these successful efforts.
Currently, the statute provides for up to five years of watershed plan implementation. The question posed in this forum asks about providing an additional four years of support. However, in many watersheds we are past the day when the competing demands for water resources and the factors impacting water availability, water quality and aquatic habitat can be resolved by implementing a one-time fix and then left unmonitored and unmanaged. Moreover, while the pressures on water resources change over time, so do the relevant laws, regulations, and policies. In some instances the laws, regulations, and policies affecting water resource management can be more problematic than the physical factors.
If support for watershed groups and their sponsoring lead agencies ends in four years, then the sunset provisions of the statute will undermine efforts to improve integration of the watershed plans and shared governance of watersheds into Ecology’s water resources, water quality, and other programs. If Ecology’s partnerships with local citizens and governments have don’t have statutorily limited life expectancies, it will most certainly affect the extent to which the Department factors these partnerships into its policies and approach to achieving its mission and mandates.
WIRA # 46 has reached the final stage, implementation. If the planning can not be implementated, we have wasted a lot of time and resources.
I believe the act should be extended to allow the
WIRA’s to complete the process. WIRA #46 has gained national recognition and the support of the tribes. We should not let this and any other grass roots program fail.
Suggest more DOE layoffs, reduced if not discontinued funding of the agency and repeal of the Watershed Planning Act. When did DOE become the know-it-all for water rights? This is absurd and should be stopped immediately.
The key element of this question is “to continue the implementation of locally adopted watershed plans”, meaning Phase 4 of watershed planning. The only watershed groups that would be eligible for such funding would be, by definition, groups that successfully navigated the laboreous planning process. These groups are representative of the key stakeholders who actually have a realistic chance of successful implementation of the watershed plans. These groups represent the needs and values of their local community balanced with the best available science. The relatively small amount of annual funding available to watershed planning groups is good value, and encourages formation of local partnerships to leverage more implementation projects.
I say Yes. Tremendous progress has been made, but without implementation funding, this bottom-up, grass roots effort will not be successful. We want success. Thanks for asking.
Yes – continue – in the Entiat Watershed within Chelan County we started in the early 1990′s on our own. That was much longer than 13 years and our successes have resulted in a plan that is a leader within the state but without State funding we would not have made it to our current level. Don’t give up now. You’ve only just begun. After all the last ice age was a mere 10,000 years ago. Keep on keeping on.
Planning unit support and project funds are still needed – at least for WRIAs where water management rules are underway or scheduled for initiation within the next four years.
WRIAs that have recently completed watershed plans/DIPs but have not yet had the opportunity to implement top priority projects would benefit as well.
Climate change and water demands are not going away. We need to weigh the costs/benefits of shutting down watershed management groups now only to have to reconstitute something like them later, on a reactive basis, versus maintaining them proactively.
Where Watershed Planning has been successful implementation funding should be continued. It is in the implementation that the actual planning benefits are harvested. I would define successful planning as plans completed in a timely fashsion, that have been adopted by local governments, and integrated into local planning policy. It has been our experience in San Juan County that there has been significant benefit from the cooperative planning process between local interests, the DOE and DOH. Such benefits included multiple Coordinated Water System Plans that have supported numerous new water right decisions, and groundwater research that is helping to both protect resources and save the community signficant new-sources-development costs.
In these difficult times investment needs to be targeted to where you will see the most “bang for the buck”. Fund the regions that have shown a track record of producing tangible outcomes as result of their planning process, and that are committed to maintaining their water resource management capacity.
As the Lead Agency for Watershed Planning in WRIA 35 – Middle Snake we support the continued funding of watershed planning. Continued funding would allow the Planning Unit to implement projects beneficial to the watershed that are outlined in our Detailed Implementation Plan. The Planning Unit has been successful in garnering local support which is evident in the effort and commitment by group to move the process of planning and project implementation forward. Funding would help keep this local effort on track.
Yes!!! If the local watershed plan has been adopted it is imparitive that we continue the financial support for implementation,with the priorities adopted… This seems like a no brainer after all of the “local voluntary” effort that has gone into the process (hundreds of hour)to establish and set flows that we all could agree upon. Not funding the planning units to implement what’s been adopted is not finishing what’s been started in good faith!
I agree that groups that have reached the Phase 4 stage of watershed planning should continue to be funded, since that demonstrates a certain level of success in organization and collaboration. I find it ironic, however, that the DOE would asked for comment on a process that it has apparently castrated some time ago. Perhaps the real question that needs to be asked is whether the Watershed Planning Act needs to be amended to ensure that the DOE acts in alignment with the principles of transparency, responsibility, and pragmatic stewardship.
Yes the funding needs to continue. Although the larger WRIAs may have a bloated and bureaucratic mentality crippling them (maybe they should have been broken in to smaller groups), WRIA40a was cut out of the WRIA40 area and our local small scale participation has proven to be very efficient. This will have been a huge waste of time, effort and past funding if these plans are not carried out to fruition. The benefits of these Watershed plans are beneficial to all residents of this state whether they live in the immediate vicinity of a specific WIRA or not. Others have already listed many of the benefits gained from these programs above.
No. The initiating legislation came with timelines and budgets. The state is facing a dire budget crisis. The first programs that should be cut are those that have failed to stay within bounds. Maybe next time (if there is a next time) these groups will be more responsible with the public’s money.
A1) No.
Planning and allotments should occur at the lowest possible level. No expensive, massive and ever-growing government agency will be able to provide the correct response to local situations. The DoE should be in an advisory role ONLY; providing the research and facts needed to make good choices.
-Lee
No. Political subdivisions of the state, are government at the best level. “Lead agencies” are more of a hindrance to successful resolution of local problems.Like any enabler DOE simply justifies its existence. In the 20+ years I have followed DOE in Clallam county, I have yet to see one of their Crisis actually get resolved. From salmon recovery to the fecal coliform ecoli,it all came down to blah,blah, blah!You say water shortages are the problem?Then build dams! But no, you folks want to destroy dams.Store water in times of plenty. This is not a new idea.
I have grave concerns regarding 24 glaring short comings in your 5 public hearings including conflict of interest and lack of any statistical significance processes all of which are wrapped up in the political appearence of staged public hearings. Public hearings are NOT the way to gather information because the nature of the hearings and the inadaquate sampling number and locations, ultimately lead to distorted political conclusions.
Read all about the hard truth regarding this green extreme agency through this link to the entire comment titled “24 Questions Why – to State of Washsington DOE Changing Your Water Rights – NO CONFINDENCE UPDATED
P.S. The reply from Pete Sturtevant dated August 30, 2010, looks like a family member of Ted Sturtevant, Director of State of Washington DOE?
No, I don’t think we should do something as simple as “just extend 4 years.” I do believe addition work is needed and should be done. But I think a review of the objectives and proposals are necessary. I also believe the agencies need to be reviewed to see is there is implementation of some basics before they are rewarded with more money. Our goad is not to build an empire, but to make progress. And not just in restoration projects. Here are some needs I see:
1) Planning departments need to change their development approvals to be consistent with the direction of watershed plans. As an example, Chelan Co. Planning still wasn’t requiring metering on shared wells 8 or 9 months ago.
2) Standards need to be developed for new group well water distribution systems. I’ve seen 8 or 10 cases of PVC water line breaks due to poor construction, or accidental hits of lines in the past few years. Simple things like adding a trace cable along the line would prevent accidents. And metering/reading of meters would catch leaks earlier. (Most of the cases I’ve seen the water has gone to water fields of weeds sometimes for months before discovery. One case leaked 23,000+ gallons/day.)
Bill
The process itself should continue to be funded only if the legislature gives these groups some degree of real legal authority. With all of the current laws and regulations that DOE and WDFW have to follow, there is little real meaningful effect the locals can have in the end.
What is needed is “active management” of our water resources. And this can only be effectively done at the local level, with general State oversight.
No. I sat with a planning group for many years. Half the time is spent revisiting and explaining technical to elected officials. The other half is spent on coming to a concsesus…leaving a waterdowned toothless plan. We were better off having the Tribes continue to meet with local and state governments and get things done on the ground. Things would occur faster with existing plans. Money needs to fund priority projects.
Further reasons to stop funding.
1) Larger groups take twice as much time to decide the obvious…they never agree on difficult issues….too many opinons not based on science…and are biased.
2) The plans are to broad…a shootgun comprehensive approach…versus priority issue specific….focus is to broad…and consultants cookie cut each others plans.
3) Planning is only delaying fixing on the ground what we arleady knew before the legislation
4) Much planning is done in basins…the need to plan in those basins was organized prior to the legislation that expanded interested parties
5) Planning takes money from doing on the ground projects.
6) If the basin does not have a plan by now for priority issues they wasted money.
7) Planning will continue with or without funding….if it is important to the basin.
8) What have is a different plan for every basin…because of broad groups and local control.
9) Significant planning occurs by govt agencies that are slowed down by these planning groups
10) This planning is duplacative to what we already know needs to be fixed..and projects are only delayed.
I propose a 75% Reduction in the DOE budget. We are in a serious recession right now. We should not be loading wasting money and loading onerous rules on people who are already having a bad time. I support replacement candidates for the legislature so this bureaucratic dictatorship can have the brakes put on.
No, because the 2514 program as implemented by DOE has not been widely effective nor the money allocated to this program been well spent.
I was a citizen participant in WRIA 12′s failed attempt to come up with a watershed management plan. Below was my 9/22/04 parting comment to my fellow Watershed Management Planning Unit members:
I believe that the lesson here is that unless Planning Unit members come (1) to a common understanding (a consensus) of the functioning and malfunction of their watershed, (2) develop a shared vision of what it could become, and (3) obtain the necessary commitment (and adequate funding) from all agencies and special interest groups involved to realize that vision, the Watershed Planning process is unlikely to produce positive results.
In the WRIA 12 watershed management example over $350,000 and countless hours have been spent in a largely fruitless effort to understand and develop a plan for managing the watershed, yet no plan is forthcoming, nor has any money been made available to improve conditions in the watershed. I doubt that this is what the Legislature and Ecology had in mind when they developed the Watershed Planning process and allocated the money to fund the effort.
Yes. The WRIA40a group was successful in developing a plan and is now in phase 4. We continue to meet and are actively working toward completion of the goals set forth in the plan. The public support provided in phase 4 is crucial to the success of the group. Without the formal program, it is unlikely that the various watergroups and users would work together as they have within this program. I am excited to continue to work with our WRIA40a group to implement our Phase 4 goals.
So, the planning is “important” only to the extent that someone else pays for it? If the local participants do not think it is important enough to fund, on their own, after the state money runs out then it looks like the REAL motivation is, drum roll please, access to more (always more!) grant money. I suspect the consulting firms paid to facilitate endless series of meetings and churn out “studies” that, usually, sit unopened on shelves are all in favor of continued funding. That, too, should tell you something.
YES. The key element of this question is “to continue the implementation of locally adopted watershed plans”, meaning Phase 4 of watershed planning. The ONLY watershed groups that would be eligible for such funding would be, by definition, groups that successfully navigated the laboreous planning process. These folks are doing some of the best on-the-ground projects in the state, projects that reflect the needs and values of their local community. The relatively small amount of annual funding available to watershed planning groups is good value, and encourages formation of local partnerships to leverage more implementation projects.
Q1.
If you read the question it sounds great. In reality that is not the case. DOE has their definition of what the Leg. Intent is. Funding for Watershed planning ? Need to check their budget on how money is spent now.
Public input meetings are simply not for gathering of Public Comments. When DOE FWL show up at a Public meeting with over 20 staff members, at what cost?
I hope that DOE is posting ALL comments, and also hope this is not an effort by DOE to skate around holding Public meetings which I believe is a requirement.
The DOE involvement with PSP,
EPA and others is very questionable. With PSP getting a very bad State Auditors report,with more bad news on the way, is this good business ??
Remember this is supposed to be WATERSHED PLANNING!!!!!!
AMEN.
This process has been going on far too long with nothing but negative results.
In the name of saving salmon, water shortages are being artificially created to the ecological and economic ruin of all.
No more time. No more money. SHUT IT DOWN!
NOW!
No. These local watershed planning processes have been an abject failure. They should either be terminated or substantially restructured.
I have participated either as a seat-holder or as a consultant to a group who was represented at the table in five different WRIAs in Western Washington and in several of the watershed councils before them. The following comments apply pretty much all to them:
The WRIAs and watershed councils were not representative of the public but were carefully assembled so as to balance opposing elements among the public and, thereby, eliminate any effective influence that the majority might have had over the outcomes of those processes. That was done by over-representing entities that agreed with departmental policies and under-representing the general public, if, indeed, they were represented at all. Thus, they were not “local” process but processes imported from Olympia and largely directed by them or by local government agencies who collaborated with them. — If the watershed planning process is continued, it should be restructured to be representative of the local constituency.
In several of the WRIAs and watershed councils, the outcomes appear to have been pre-determined and there were no real negotiation involved. The government agencies appeared to be attempting to use the process to manufacture public consent for pre-determined outcomes. However, if that was the case, it was an abject failure: The end result was the alienation of a broad spectrum of society. Today, in rural Washington, a substantial majority of the populous have developed a deep resentment and contempt for the process and the various departments involved. — The only way to reverse this, is for the various government departments involved to begin acting transparently and legitimately.
Another problem has been that many of the members of those WRIAs and watershed councils, including some of the government employees who sat on those committees, were not competent to distinguish between valid science and invalid studies, or were unconcerned about the difference. Consequently, they often based their decisions upon scientifically invalid studies. The result is that the plans, ordinances and rules they developed were often irrational and, sometimes, arbitrary, as well. — The departments need to provide valid science and qualified expert advice. However, they have rarely done that. Their representatives have characteristically been experts in social processes, who are skilled at manipulating and directing these types of committees. The department needs to shift its focus towards providing more technical expertise and, thereby, building their credibility.
In conclusion, in each of the committees in which I participated, in the end, the department or a local government entity who was collaborating with them, dictated essentially the terms that they had originally brought to the table. — No good purpose would be served by continuing to fund these processes, unless, there are fundamental changes in how they are conducted.
I had a very different experience with my involvement in WRIA40a. Several entities from two drainages in the watershed area met and agreed on process and goals. We are now in phase 4 and have enjoyed public financial support for 3 projects including flow monitoring, a reservoir study, and a diversion repair project. The active group continues to meet regularly. Termination of the program would be unfortunate. The Management Plan that came from the earlier phases has united the various stakeholders and encouraged action toward completion of our identified goals.
My experience with WRIA issues mirrors that of Mr. Crittenden whereby the DOE merely goes through the motions of collecting public input but with no intention of allowing it to sway them from their agenda.
I have been to many different presentations by DOE on WRIA, Instream flows, etc, and every meeting has the same tone which is that the science is settled and these actions are necessary and will be enacted regardless of public opinion.
But there is an opposing view and with lots of intelligent proponents. Legal scholars that say DOE does not have the authority to take such draconian steps. Scientists that point out that the much of DOE’s dire assertions are mere speculation which are not supported by science and, even if true, the minor gains to be had are not worth the pain that would be inflicted on the public by the draconian restrictions proposed by DOE
Nonetheless, DOE follows an agenda that says “present plan to the public, take public comment, ignore comment, and publish plan.”
“13 years is the blink of an eye in terms of the social and ecological development of a watershed”
It is a long time to gather data, hold meetings with stakeholders and not have some kind of plan.
I suspect some of this does indeed boil down to authority. Some of the rules that Ecology wanted to implement (like the 2007 Walla Walla rule that was curtail the proliferation of exempt wells) may be good ideas, but are largely unenforceable as they contradict statute. And Ecology’s rule making authority expressly prohibits trumping existing statute. AG Opinion 2009 No. 06 is a good example. It’s well intentioned (I think) but useless.
So if local planning groups can get creative plans adopted, perhaps “self enforcement” will work where DOE rulemaking won’t. Because a legislative fix is not forthcoming. Still, how effective these plans can really be a big question still. I question the value of water banks and things like that. If droughts are really going to get worse (I think this is DoE’s general contention and is probably not off base), how will the situation be helped by storing a water right for years, then letting people put it back to use when there is even less water to go around? Helps in the interim, but as a long term solution (unless it’s a backdoor to some kind of legislative relinquishment) it has no teeth at all.
One legislative fix that should be easy to implement, and I don’t know if I has been proposed, is to craft a law that requires metering (regardless of purpose, size, location, etc.) and once meters are installed, exempts the right from partial relinquishment. A lot of lip service is given about getting data. Some water user’s loath contacting DoE because of the “boogeyman” of partial relinquishment. Two lines in the statute and the ability of DoE to get reliable data (and water users to get surety) could increase dramatically.
But I stick with my earlier commment, more firmly, that no the planning period should not be extended. I’m not sure it’s worth putting much more $ into.
I appreciate the feedback, and I would like to clarify what I meant. In the 13 years that the WRIA 22/23 group has been meeting we have moved through the planning phases on schedule, commissioned a comprehensive USGS hydrological model of the basin (portions of which have been completed and are available online), and are active participants in analyzing the flood control/storage needs of the basin. The Army Corp of Engineers feasibility study that is taking place (regarding storage solutions) is scheduled to take 12 years – that’s a federal process, not a watershed process.
The thing that is new and innovative about the watershed planning groups is that solutions to local problems (such as flooding, in our case)are being addressed on a basin-wide scale. Previous projects have been local in scope, with no real understanding of how they affect the rest of the basin. This type of analysis is VITAL to long-term success of any type of watershed management. The groups that have successfully reached Phase 4 and have projects in progress will be invaluable to the policy and science communities, facilitating on-the-ground data collection and serving as models for other basins.
It is true that the watershed planning concept was not widely successful, and the majority of groups were dismal failures at getting organized. Those that did get organized, though, merit further support at the state level.
The fact is, watershed planning groups are intended to be out of the planning stage and into the implementation phase of their plans. There are some highly successful planning units that are, indeed, actively implementing – such as Chehalis and Nisqually.
These successful watershed planning groups should continue to be supported in their efforts. Someone mentioned that “13 years is a lot of time to do anything.” Indeed; however there are three important considerations: 1) 13 years is the blink of an eye in terms of the social and ecological development of a watershed, 2) one of the important functions of local-level planning is slowing down the progress of implementation plans (including those that originate at the state level) that may benefit one town or community but would be disadvantageous to other communities in the basin and 3)science is just recently evolving into useful, cross-disciplinary data that can be applied by those who know their basins best – the people who live and work there.
Funding on a merit basis or on a project basis would help successful planning units continue to be a tremendous benefit to their communities. Allowing these partnerships to form and build public interest and momentum, and then to cut them off at the ankles would be a shame.
NO. Watershed planning should be financed by communities that want water.
An enormous amount of money has been spent on watershed planning. In the end, if the communities actually use the money effectively and come up with a plan, the plans are rarely consistent with the law.
Until water law is reformed, dreaming about what is possible with the water that resides in your watershed is a futile pursuit. Even with the enormous amount of money that is spent in watersheds across the state the planners will only know the tip of the iceberg of what’s necessary to develop workable plans.
Now for a smart idea. If you took all the money that is spent on watershed planning, Ecology could buy water rights for everyone in the state for the next 100 years. Planning is one of governments biggest waste of money and never solves the problem.
My first impulse is no. 13 years is a lot of time to do anything.
As for local water policy folks, unfortunately the process is somewhat self selecting. I don’t think outreach (around here) was particularly effective, but I’m not convinced it matters. The individuals that are willing to participate in any meaningful way are usually few and and far between. Lots of folks have stuff to say, but when it comes to grinding through meetings and sortng out verbage in documents, seems like everyone vanishes.
Yes and no. In an ideal world all planning would be local. Yet the reality is that onerous burdens are being placed on local watersheds from outside entities that make their own rules as they go, i.e., Ecology, EPA, Puget Sound Partnership, a multitude of NGOs, and more. Any solutions to real concerns will come from cohesive watershed planning units, which should now be advancing beyond planning to implementation as determined to be best by the people who live and work in the watershed. Since outside agencies will continue to expand control over our water and our lives, then why bother with the sham of local planning and implementation?
The original concept of watershed planning was good. However, the Dept of Ecology has taken the most important part of it, the actual rules for using and allocating water, away from the Planning Units. DOE does what it wants to do, regardless of what the community wants. The result is we end up with watershed rules that are unrealistic that the local community has no control of. Because of this, the Planning Units sre really unimportant in the big picture. Funding should be continued only if the Planning Units are allowed to draw up their own rules.
An equally important question is, in light of the dramatic limitations on available funding in general, should the DOE be looking at ways to do more with less, instead of always asking for more? Ecology often talks about meeting long-term resource needs; this is the time to begin preparing for long-term adjustments to new financial realities. This might include a more realistic assessment of what is needed to insure stream flows for fish while also meeting economic needs. Jefferson County is a classic example where protracted and expensive rule-making processes resulted in a final product that is largely theoretical-based. Management of our valuable watersheds need to be prioritized in accordance with cost/benefit ratios. This might result in more direct cause-and-effect policies rather than fulfilling agency wish lists. It’s time to tighten the belt.
I believe that, in theory, it would be nice to see the funding continue so communities can formulate comprehensive plans that take everything into account. Unfortunately, in practice, the power that DOE yields can negate these costly, theoretical comprehensive plans. If DOE decides that they don’t like the plans they can essentially make them null and void as they see fit, regardless of the prior resource (both time and money) expenditures. Despite the fact that the funding provides for a partnership to seek ‘better information to make water right decisions’, DOE can choose (or not choose) to alter the plans in such a way that it makes the plans a joke and virtually impossible to predict because they may change at any time, at the whim of DOE. With this in mind I believe that the funding is wasteful. If DOE were to practice what they preach then the funding would be a great use of taxpayers money and a useful planning tool for water and land use managers.
I agree with JimK for the most part. No more money should be spent. Too much money has been spent. Each of the areas or WRIAs pretty much repeats what the others did so all follow a precribed process that could have been handled in a recommendation booklet. The process is flawed. Watersheds are not static and are ever changing and the process of education was more of a boring argment of facts. We started in a drought. It does not take a scientist to know that creates concentrations, and averages are not really useful.
Only the engineering companies benefit as get paid to study and teach; while the farm ranch and rural folks are busy making a living they can’t get there or get there often enough to vote; so who is there are all paid government or special interest groups (also likely paid); the few “stakeholders” who try to represent themselves and neighbors are out numbered and out gunned. It is time to stop wasting the money on a undemocratic process.
No extension. Science is a study, we been studying and there is no solutions in site. It is only an opinion, but most of the counties and watersheds in the NE and CNorth of Washington will end up being the recharge area for the southern big corporate irragators to the south. Want to save water? Eliminate lawn and swimming pools and do something about all the wastewater issues. Just the waste each person sends to the WTPs is full of anti-depressants, birth control, and other toxic waste, it is a wonder we have any fish left and we are not growing extra legs like the frogs.
Watershed planning should be given and open ended extension to allow for honest scientific data to be organized impartially before any lasting regulations are considered.
This process should not become the mockery that we saw with the agenda driven SMP renewals that were pushed on the public using biased and untested science while ignoring both citizen comments and the stated process and purpose of the SMA.
If this style of creating regulation continues the public may soon judge environmental efforts as the activists crying wolf and we will be set back, rather than making progress.
This is a loaded question. Obviously, watershed management is important! But, too often, we see plans, or portions of plans, where the local participants were guided/overwhelmed by all of the Agency (such as DOE, DFW) people. In some cases, I believe that local citizens were ignored, or were hand-selected due to a particular political/philosophic bent. In other cases, a Watershed Plan is adopted; and, then, Ecology seeks to change portions of the Plan (one example: adding metering of wells), through Instream Flow Rules, contrary to citizen and/or County input.
I cannot think of any reason why watershed planning should be rushed, and local communities not given all the support they require to develop well-thought out plans for setting instream flows, protecting habitat and water uses for future generations to come.
How about unsustainable costs?
How about agenda-driven bureaucrats who prevent any end result but what they wanted from the start, despite their inability to make a compelling case?
Give it some thought and you’re sure to think of more reasons for NOT pumping more resources (time and money) into a dangerously flawed endless and expensive process.
Yes. The support provided by this Act should be extended. It is important that as many basisns as possbile be given time to prepare comprehensive basin plans.