Methow Valley Citizens' Council
Newsletter Archives
MVCC Archive IndexThe Valley VoiceNews from the Methow Valley Citizens Council Fall 1999 |
 |
Link to articles in this issue:
Water Planning Unit Status Report
Proposed DOE Rule Change Galvanizes Community
September: Month of Peaceful Defiance of User Fees
Methow RD Considers Commercialiation
Arrowleaf Manager Compares Resort to 9-Acre Alfalfa Field
What's Fair is Fair - letter debunking Arrowleaf propaganda
Golf Course Appeal Denied, BOA Says Not About Water
Volunteers Pull Knapweed, Forest Service Sprays Elsewhere
Cartoon: Did You Know
Cartoon: Water Follies
Water Planning Unit Status Report
by George Wooten The Watershed Planning Unit (WPU), a citizens advisory board enabled by state legislation to develop a watershed plan for the Methow Valley, continues to meet every two weeks. According to WPU member Verne Donnét, the WPU decided to participate in the watershed planning agreement currently being developed between the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE), Okanogan County and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The latest draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) has been discussed between the County and DOE, but has not been discussed with top officials at NMFS. The main topics of the MOA concern instream flow rates, fish passage (barriers), fish screens, and storage of ground and surface water for various reaches of the river. A Technical Avisory Group will be developed by the agencies and the WPU consisting of individuals with expertise in the above areas in which to base future decisions upon. The Watershed Planning Unit (WPU) voted in mid-August to proceed with the development of a water resources management plan for the Methow Valley. The first thing on the plan was to develop a water budget that would take into account diversions, river and tributary flow rates, and all historical flow information, which dates back to the early 1900s. It was decided that the water budget was of primary importance because it would establish a baseline for the development of the watershed plan. Other important factors the water budget will examine include fish passage, instream flow rates, ground water and surface water storage, fish screens and fish passage. It was decided at the meeting to delay the development of the water bank until this background information was reviewed. If you have questions about the WPU and the latest draft MOA you can call Dennis Beich at (509) 422-7139 or Commissioner Dave Schultz.Proposed DOE Rule Change Galvanizes Community
by George Wooten Thanks to the efforts of citizen comments at a meeting in June before the DOE, a proposed state rule change is off the books. The rule would have given the Director of Ecology broad, unspecified authority to reallocate water in the valley and throughout the state. Such a rule would have allowed seasonal agricultural rights to be converted to year-round group domestic rights, overriding the state's interest in protecting fish habitat and base stream flows. Of 132 comments, over thirty commented that the rule would facilitate substantial development, and therefore deserves an EIS; and the rule would transform the valley from agricultural to an urban/developed area. MVCC intends to keep the agencies from allowing industry and development to spoil our valley. We have renewed our efforts aimed at protection of our critical natural and cultural resources, particularly water quantity and quality. We will continue to support the needs of our rural environment and ask you to help us keep abreast of new issues. See our updated web site at www.methow.com/~mvcc/September: Month of Peaceful Defiance of User Fees
by Isabelle Spohn From its humble beginnings, the movement against the National Recreation Fee Demonstration Program has taken root and become a force which is finally gaining recognition from those promoting the fees at the national level. During the past year, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have both covered the issue. Because the US Forest Service (USFS) continues to maintain that little opposition exists, opponents have had to draw attention to their cause through more active means than simply refusing to buy passes and complaining to the agency. A series of over 30 demonstrations across the US on August 14 succeeded in gaining press coverage in major newspapers across the nation. In Twisp, about 50 people participated in a march through town. The marchers demonstrated on the lawn of the USFS and submitted a petition against the fees with over 13,000 signatures to the US Regional Forester in Portland. Other successes of the past year include REI's canceled membership in the Recreation Roundtable, a branch of the American Recreation Coalition (ARC) which has taken credit for a major role in creating Fee Demo. Two pieces of legislation which would end Fee Demo have growing bi-partisan sponsorship in the House: HR 786 (The Forest Tax Relief Act) and HR 2295 (FAIR - The Forest Access Immediate Relief Act.) FAIR would offset any revenues lost through ending user fees by prohibiting subsidies to timber companies for the construction of logging roads on National Forest land. The Clinton/Gore administration, however, is favoring permanence for the fees ahead of schedule, and Al Gore recently dined privately with ARC leaders. Washington State's legislators continue to either promote the fees or maintain a neutral position. Over 100 environmental organizations have signed on to an American Lands proposal which includes opposition to fee demo. Objectors oppose the program's corporate sponsorship by the ARC, which includes such powerful monied interests as Disney, Exxon, Chevron, Harley Davidson, and over 100 others. Many opponents are of the opinion that the fees are a first move toward citizens becoming used to being "customers" on their own land and that eventually the more "affluent groups" rather than "monied interests", which frequently represent recreation with an emphasis upon petroleum use and motorization, will prevail as users of the forests. In some areas of the country, multiple fees from concessionaires in addition to USFS fees have made a visit to the forest nearly unaffordable. In Oregon, the USFS fee alone for the popular Cougar Hot Springs is already $75 per year. Opponents also fear that struggles for dominance in the $400 billion recreation industry will leave wildlife and those who experience spiritual value in the wilds far behind. ARC became a partner with the USFS in promoting Fee Demo through a 1996 Memorandum of Understanding. Partners Outdoors, a gathering attended annually by the USFS, has been conducted every year since 1992 at Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida. Disney has recently expanded its interest in the camping industry with its new Fort Wilderness (on private land), which boasts 784 campsites surrounded by cypress and pine woods, a beach, golf, express checkout, heated pool, outdoor pool, tennis, shops/commercial services, water-skiing, and "free parking." Sites are $43-64 per night, with packages including air transportation, hotel, car or transfers, reservations, park admissions and/or dining plan also available. Fees opponents are understandably uncomfortable with the interest Disney is now taking in public lands. Fees opponents have recently gained the attention of not only Derrick Crandall, director of ARC and guru of Fee Demo, but also of the Disney Corporation. Crandall will defend the fees in a panel at the Mountaineers in Seattle on August 14, 1999, at a yearly meeting which had previously been held annually at REI. Scott Silver of Wild Wilderness, champion of many fee fighters, will head the opposition on the panel. Disney is very displeased with Mr. Silver since the August 14 demonstrations and recently sent him a letter accusing him of violating their copyright due to his production of a T-shirt worn by demonstrators at Disneyland. The T-shirt was a parody including the term "WONDERFUL WORLD OF WRECKREATION," a castle, and mouse ears. Should this David and Goliath confrontation proceed, it will surely be fodder for clever press opportunities. A group called the National Forest Marketing Group, which claims it will set future directions for Fee Demo, has engaged a professional company which it claims is doing a survey which will reveal how people "really feel" about Fee Demo. Unfortunately, the surveyors are apparently not going to areas where there is intense protest against the fees. Also, according to USFS officials, the real goal in doing the survey is to find out how to best market the program. Watch for the results of this survey in the news. Freedom of Information Act requests for information on this group have met with no resonse since February. Meanwhile, leaders of the anti-fee movement have named September a month of peaceful defiance of the fees. Sympathizers are encouraged to tear or "x" out any passes they may have bought and mail them to legislators, cease to visit areas covered by the fees, or visit without passes and with a willingness to pursue the issue before a magistrate if the USFS pursues the issue. Don't forget to express your opinion to legislators, whose addresses are in the front of the North Central Washington phone book.Methow RD Considers Commercialiation
by Isabelle Spohn On July 26, 1999, the Methow Valley Ranger District (MVRD) invited a number of individuals and businesses to a meeting to discuss their opinions of commericial uses of the Methow Valley Ranger District. Ranger Laurie Thorpe's letter of invitation listed three issues for discussion:1. Should appropriate businesses be only those that provide outfitting and guiding services (e.g. livestock or equipment rental and use, interpetive walks, or other guided activities) or should they include providing visitor services (e.g. food, fishing tackle, camp supplies, etc.)?
2. Should any appropriate businesses be allowed to operate in existing developed recreation sites, or should they be required or allowed to build adjacent facilities?
3. What sorts of limitations on tenure, services, or products should the Forest Service (FS) consider? The meeting, according to Thorpe, was held because of increasing requests to consider commercial businesses at trailheads, snow parks, and campgrounds. She elaborated at another time that one of her interests was in assisting small local businesses, although it was not clear how concessions could be restricted to small and local business. The application at hand is that of the DeLange snowmobile operation, which is applying to set up a place of business at Eightmile Ranch on the Methow District. Their application follows a court decision refusing to allow their operation on nearby private land because the Okanogan County Zoning code does not allow such operations outside commercial areas. Discussions with Methow Valley Ranger District Recreation Specialist Jim Archambeault indicate that the DeLange's proposal would set the precedent of allowing a major place of business to operate on National Forest land rather than just allowing permittees to guide clients (as packers do) or transport equipment to trailheads (as the DeLanges are now doing). Necessary to the DeLange operation would be a Quonset hut for snowmobiles, a small, moveable office, electricity (existing) for credit card machines, and a new well for a public water supply which could also be used by campers. Most in attendance at the meeting agreed that the environment should be considered in some way in such decisions on commercial operations. One FS individual was concerned that people might not return to the National Forest if they could not purchase things they are accustomed to, such as pop; another was very interested in seeing lattés sold, especially at Washington Pass; and one USFS employee expressed the concern that the FS not overload itself with resonsibility. A small minority of people at the meeting thought that one important issue was increased commercialization of trailheads (with cross-country skiing, mountain bike, dirt bike, etc. concessions) conflicting with visitors' desire to escape these very types of commercial activities. The issue of impacts to threatened and endangered species received an excellent presentation by Susan Crampton, with only a few showing definite support. The ski business representatives agreed that commercial businesses should be allowed on a case-by-case basis. Snomobile interests were the largest group, and they were very supportive of the DeLange operation and the precedent it would set. Laurie Thorpe asked for opinions on whether it was appropriate to assess the carrying capacity of each area, and some questions were raised as to how this might be done. MVCC sent input during the comment period, which ended on August 27. These points and others were included:
* The FS should respect local zoning laws.
* Businesses in the Methow are best served by keeping retail business in town. In addition, they can then advertise that they do business close to one of the least commercialized national forests.
* We expressed concern that increased wildlife impacts will occur in addition to the existing snowmobile traffic problems already vexing the crowded Chewuch River area.
* MVCC believes that part of the ambiance of the Methow Valley, appealing to both residents and visitors alike, is the peace of mind which can be experienced in the National Forest. This should be protected from the increasing national trend toward commercialization.
* MVCC supports educating people on how to prepare for an experience in the wild and exposing them to appreciation of the natural world rather than supplying them with all the amenities they are used to having at home.
* The USFS must follow any applicable regulations on obtaining a public water supply in the Chewuch basin.
* The DeLange operation is one indication of the increasing impact of recreation upon sensitive areas of the National Forest. If this direction is to be pursued, it is time to analyze and assess these impacts and the various alternatives in an Environmental Impact Statement.
Arrowleaf Manager Compares Resort to 9-Acre Alfalfa Field
Note: On August 19, The Methow Valley News published a guest opinion by Arrowleaf Construction Manager Terry O'Reilly titled "The Straight Scoop on Arrowleaf Water", which began with the statement, "Recently there have been a number of inaccurate statements made regarding the water consumption proposed for the Arrowleaf Resort project." The article concludes that at buildout, annual domestic consumption at Arrowleaf will be, "roughly equivalent to the irrigation water consumed in one growing season by 9 acres of alfalfa." The Methow Valley News doesn't want the public to know the truth about Arrowleaf, and has refused to print the following letter, which points out the bias in the O'Reilly letter. The News didn't print this or any other comment letters to Mr. O'Reilly's piece; how many other letters to the editor were tossed in the trash?What's Fair is Fair
by Peter Goldman and Mac Shelton, members of Friends of the Methow. In last week’s My Turn column, Arrowleaf construction manager Terry O’Reilly attempts to give us "the straight scoop" about the resort’s projected water consumption. Regrettably, Mr. O’Reilly’s letter muddies, not clarifies, the water issue. Arrowleaf will cause Mazama to explode into a town with more people than Twisp, in the part of the Valley where water is in the shortest supply. Arrowleaf would dramatically increase water consumption, diminishing already low instream flows and taking water from ranchers and farmers hit hard by endangered fish listings. Here are our specific responses to Mr. O’ Reilly’s errors and unjustified assumptions. * Arrowleaf’s Claim: due to the resort’s state of the art wastewater system, the resort will domestically consume only 15.3 acre-feet of domestic water, roughly the same as 9 acres of alfalfa. This is a misleading figure for several reasons. First, Mr. O’Reilly’s figure includes only domestic consumption such as toilets, showers, sinks, etc. He omits the obvious fact that the owners of 650 homes will likely water their grass, trees, and flowers and occasionally wash their cars; this is water that will not be returned to the aquifer via the "state of the art" water system. What is not stated is what percent of domestic summer water consumption is for lawn and flower irrigation. While it is true that Arrowleaf’s "Stewardship Program" promises to "restrict" lawn and ornamental plantings, what assures the public how much water residents will actually be able to use for irrigation? Moreover, who enforces this? Does Arrowleaf really expect us to believe that people will be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for lots and homes and they will be prohibited from watering their flowers? Even Arrowleaf’s consultant, Golder and Associates, assumed that 35 acre-feet of water would be used for domestic lawn irrigation. Second, Mr. O’Reilly’s 15.3 acre-feet number completely ignores official State of Washington standards for domestic water consumption. According to 1993 guidelines promulgated by the State Department of Health, water systems designed to serve Eastern Washington homes must assume a minimum of 1500 gals. a day. Thus, Arrowleaf’s 650 homes combined with its swimming pool, restaurant, stable, and clubhouse would probably consume 1,000,000 gals. a day, or 1122 acre-feet per year. Even assuming that, as an environmentally sensitive resort, Arrowleaf would use only one-third of the Dept. of Health’s 1500 gal. a day guideline, Arrowleaf would STILL use 374 acre-feet per year for domestic purposes; that’s a whole lot more than Arrowleaf’s 15.3 estimate. * Arrowleaf’s claim: annual irrigation (golf and general grounds) will be 171.8 acre-feet, equivalent to only 104 acres of alfalfa. These water estimates are probably wildly optimistic. Water use at the proposed Snoqualmie Ridge golf course in Puget Sound will be 850,000 gallons per day, or 2.6 acre-feet per day. Assuming a 150-day irrigation season, this is over 390 acre-feet for Arrowleaf’s golf course alone. Irrigation requirements for an east side golf course would likely be higher. Now, let’s assume that Arrowleaf’s "state-of-the-art" golf course and general grounds uses even less than the Westside’s Snoqualmie Ridge, say 250,000 gals. a day (the quantity used by Chelan’s 18 hole golf course). That still would amount to 130 acre-feet per year. Combine that figure with the domestic consumption figures mentioned above and it starts adding up pretty quickly. Another interesting point. According to Arrowleaf’s Environmental Impact Statement, to ensure no pesticide leakage into the water table, the water it dumps on the golf course will not reach the river. So, don’t count on any of Arrowleaf’s golf water to go back into the basin. * Arrowleaf’s claim: it will consume less water each year than has been historically consumed by alfalfa and pasture irrigation on the property. Here’s where the public really deserves to know what’s going on in Mazama. Western water law provides that "if you don’t use it, you lose it." We have very strong grounds to believe they lost it. There has been little or no irrigation on the Arrowleaf property since the 1960s; Arrowleaf seemed to have gone into the alfalfa business in 1992, around the time RD Merrill purchased the land and began shoring up their alleged water rights. We are confident, and so apparently too is the State Department of Ecology, that most of Arrowleaf’s claimed rights long ago were legally abandoned or relinquished for non-use. Other claimed water rights cannot be used by Arrowleaf because they were issued under the Family Farm Act. Arrowleaf opponents got a big win 9 months ago in the State Supreme Court which explicitly questioned Arrowleaf’s irrigation rights and ordered additional hearings on abandonment and relinquishment. Arrowleaf has only recently restarted irrigation in a belated attempt to avoid relinquishment. The truth: Arrowleaf will consume hundreds of acre-feet of water that would ordinarily remain in the Methow Basin to serve the needs of farmers, ranchers, and fish. * Arrowleaf’s claim: the resort will provide a long-run economic base for the Valley. What they are really saying is that more money can be made for some people by taking water away from farmers and ranchers and using the water for resort development. If Arrowleaf is allowed to divert water from traditional agricultural uses, further vacation home and resort developments will not be far behind. The Valley will be a very different place if farms and ranches are replaced by golf courses, subdivisions, and retail services for part-time residents. Far more is at stake than a few hundred acre-feet of water; the outcome of this controversy will dramatically affect the future character of the entire Valley.Golf Course Appeal Denied, BOA Says Not About Water
On July 27, 1999, MVCC appealed the approval of the Golf Course Management Plan at Arrowleaf before the Okanogan County Board of Adjustment (BOA). Condition no. 26, attached to the Final Development Plan by Okanogan County Commissioners, required among other things that the project have a computerized irrigation system. Although the original, written appeal covered numerous issues, MVCC restricted oral comments to water quantity issues, saying that the Arrowleaf development did not have adequate legal water for this management plan and pointing out that a computerized irrigation system requires water or it is not an irrigation system. The BOA was told by attorney Jim Tracey that Condition no. 26 had nothing to do with water, and denied MVCC's appeal on this basis.Volunteers Pull Knapweed, Forest Service Sprays Elsewhere
by George Wooten This summer, the Methow Valley Ranger District sprayed roadsides with the herbicides picloram and glyphosate in an effort to control noxious weeds, under their 1997 Integrated Weed Management Environmental Assessment. In order to curtail the need for spraying, volunteer weed pulling crews were organized by Susan Crampton along the Twisp River. The intended July 6 spraying was curtailed by the National Marine Fisheries Service pending consultation over the effects of the herbicides on listed chinook salmon. Beginning on the Fourth of July weekend about thirty volunteers were successful at pulling knapweed along approximately five miles of the upper Twisp River. The lower part of the river was mowed by Sam Lucy under a Forest Service contract. On July 12, a Biological Evaluation produced by the Forest Service found that the herbicide spraying would have "no effect" on threatened and endangered species: chinook, steelhead and bull trout. Much to the dismay of the hand pulling crews, the spraying was resumed over many other areas of the National Forest. The National Marine Fisheries Service has been asked to investigate whether the Forest Service spray program may have caused harm to the listed species.
| |||
| The Golf Course Management Plan for the proposed Arrowleaf resort shows
that holes number 3, 4, 14 and 15 lie within the FEMA 100-year floodplain.
Each year the golf course would apply fertilizer and a ton of pesticides,
yet the Arrowleaf EIS somehow found that the golf course, a town and 290
units would not impact ground or surface water.
Skeptical about Arrowleaf's claimed impacts? MVCC's website has literature references about how this development will pollute our ground and surface water. |
