|
|
|
Let's manage together
Like the variety of interests who have had the Hanford Reach on their minds for years, I know that any decision on this issue will profoundly affect Mid-Columbia citizens. Just 21/2 years ago, I was chairman for a Senate field hearing in Mattawa, during which competing proposals about how best to manage this treasured resource were offered and discussed. The Herald editorial board correctly wrote on June 24, 1997, that the crux of the Reach problem is distrust. For years, those favoring a "Wild and Scenic" designation didn't trust local officials, and those favoring only a local control approach didn't trust the actions of the federal government. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration's decision last fall to turn management of the 90,000-acre Wahluke Slope over to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a federal refuge shut down any possibility that local citizens would be involved in management decisions for that area. This did not help the Hanford Reach issue, as a whole, move toward a positive compromise. Although we don't yet have a complete resolution, considerable progress has been made. There was once a perception that county governments' goal was to use the Reach for irresponsible agricultural development. The counties appointed nine resident citizens who worked three years to develop a comprehensive management plan for the Reach. While their plan was not perfect, it sparked a dialogue toward a real solution on this issue short of ceding unrestricted control of the area to the federal government. Local, state, federal, tribal and utility interests have worked successfully together for more than a decade to protect salmon runs on the Reach through the Vernita Bar Agreement. In 1996, the counties removed unauthorized agricultural well-drilling equipment from an island in the Hanford Reach area. In 1997, local, state and federal governments worked quickly to clean up harmful pesticide leakages on the Wahluke Slope. And just last year, Reps. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., introduced legislation that would authorize a scientific study and mitigate sloughing of the White Bluffs on the north bank of the Reach, as well as legislation recognizing the quarter-mile buffer along the Reach as a national asset without undue federal restrictions. These are impressive developments. I was pleased to learn that a group crafted a proposal with the intent of bringing the sides together. I sent members of my staff to listen to and talk with several individuals, both from the side of those who supported this latest proposal and those who expressed concerns. There are several intriguing and positive elements of this proposal which have merit and should be explored further. Among them: inclusion of an agreement to protect existing water rights; creation of a "White Bluffs Memorial;" a proposal to study and protect the White Bluffs; and further support for the Columbia River Exhibition for History, Science and Technology museum. Unfortunately the proposal contains elements for which there is not a consensus from many of the interests who must live and work together on this issue longterm. One concern is that the makeup of the proposed Reach management commission would not adequately ensure that local interests are factored in decision making, and that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would have final say over all budget and spending priorities. I would add another very real concern over significantly increasing federal presence in Eastern Washington. I am not inclined to support having the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service - two federal agencies which advocate a dam removal agenda and who apparently don't care to listen to Eastern Washington citizens regarding rules to protect salmon - to dictate what happens to the Mid-Columbia way of life. Efforts to resolve the Reach issue must not get mired down by mistrust, rhetoric, or the biases of any particular side of the issue. The federal advocates must acknowledge the efforts of local governments to achieve a compromise, even in light of federal actions that have undermined mutual trust. While this group's proposal was certainly a worthy effort, it clearly does not represent a consensus of all of the original stakeholders - agriculture, irrigation, tribal, environmental, recreational, public power, tourism and historical interests. These stakeholders must all agree as to the ultimate authority on management. Until that has been achieved, legislation will not be successful. Healthy discussions regarding protection of the Reach have already yielded real progress. But consensus must be achieved. I encourage concerned citizens to continue seeking a solution acceptable to all interests that will ensure the Reach will be protected and properly managed for generations to come. * Slade Gorton is a Republican U.S. senator for Washington state. | ||