Gary,
I would be glad to assist with a letter to the editor also, but like you I have met my quota. Thanks for
sending Roger's information.
I can also comment on the water banking scheme run by the Water Trust as this is what is being
implemented in my area of Okanogan County. We expect the cost of Irrigation water to double in 2 years
and double again in 4 years when those that will be using wells exclusively will be excluded from the
Irrigation district. We are being converted from gravity fed ditches to a series of pipes, pumps, and
wells. Cost to the taxpayers is just over 10 million dollars to provide irrigation water to 1036 acres......all
this to replace a paid for system with minimal operating costs (gravity if free).
Ecology's SOP in Eastern Washington farmland has been to implement Instream flow, drive costs up
either by forcing litigation or compliance with absurd restrictions. When the farm fails, either DNR or
WDFW buys them up. The water trust is an integral part of the plan, in that all privately held water rights
are being sold to the trust (another NGO) to be administered by Ecology. I believe you sent out some
information on this transfer of ownership (tax shift) from the Okanogan Farm Bureau a few months ago.
Additional comments from Mike Newman…
Gary,
1. Ecology did do some studies. PUD and Anacortes paid for a study of ground water flow patterns in
Fisher/Carpenter. This is basically the same study that Zach and some of his neighbors paid $80,000
for. Ecology knew that many of the properties in Fisher/Carpenter Creek did not actually draw water from
the Fisher/Carpenter basin. Supposedly there were also studies by the fish co-managers, the Tribes and
WDFW to determine how much water was required to maintain existing fish habitat, but I have not seen
these studies, Zach may have. The flow numbers are not pulled from Ecology's "posterior", they are
numbers designed to create a situation. They did study flow data, then Ecology set a minimum flow that
cannot be met by the river. This is what they have done in the Skagit, Methow, Dungeness, Yakima,
Spokane....it is their process. They artificially create water shortages.
2. Nobody challenges Ecology except a few private citizens, and Ecology doesn't care about us. Zach
was one. He actually won because he was right and Ecology knew it, Ecology had possession of the
study that proved it....but only the 7 landowners that challenged Ecology got relief. Ecology's science that
exempt wells impact flows is very simple to disprove. We have flow data going back 6 decades. We also
have population data. By comparing population data, particularly rural population, we should see a
continual drop in flow levels in the river if Ecology's science is valid. We don't see that because it didn't
happen, there is no credible evidence supporting Ecology's claim that exempt wells impact stream
flow. In fact, if you examine Ecology's science from many areas in Eastern Washington, particularly the
Methow River, you will see that Ecology's studies, supported by USGS studies, shows that water pulled
from deep aquifers, through wells, and deposited back into the watershed through septic or irrigation
systems, is actually beneficial to stream flows. Ecology's science is not based on the old adage that
water runs downhill, it's based on their agenda, it is designed to create an outcome.
3. The "missing paragraph", particularly in light of the inter office E-mails from the time period are a very
strong indication that Ecology entered into this process with a pre-determined agenda. All they had to do
was convince local governmental agencies to go along with them.
4. Once again the Chairman did not deny that he made the statement with regards to land use. His claim
is that they are trying to protect salmon and protect the agreement. A study comparing salmon run size,
we have the data, and population data, or water use, does not show any correlation to decreases in
salmon run size. The data shows that salmon runs took a dip after the 1974 Boldt decision, but not
enough of a dip to list them under the Endangered Species Act. The runs were listed after the State of
Washington granted co-manager status to the tribes. If we compare history in the Skagit, existing flows
are capable of sustaining salmon runs many times the size of our current runs. Comparisons with other
rivers also support this data. The Cowlitz River is very similar to the Skagit, just slightly smaller. Both
rivers have dams, both meander through agricultural lands and industrial forests. Prior to the Boldt
decision and prior to the tribes being made co-managers, the Skagit had larger runs than the
Cowlitz. Today the Cowlitz, which also does not have tribal gill netters, has a much larger salmon run.
As I have said before, I believe that salmon are endangered because our co-managers want them to be
endangered. Increases in salmon runs would need to be shared with tribal members and non-tribal
fishers. Grant money can be controlled and kept within the inner circle, the small handful of tribal
members and non-Indian employees that live well above the poverty line. Local governments have also
become dependent on the grant money that is made available through the endangered species act. I
can't prove this theory, but I also don't know of any other explanation for the lack of results that we see, in
spite of an estimated $2 Billion a year that we spend on Salmon Enhancement in the State of
Washington.
Mike Newman