Methow Valley Citizens' Council
Scaling down the Resort
Index to MVCC's campaign to avert a destination resort in the Methow Valley, Washington
Some background history about the Aspen / Early Winters / Arrowleaf resort proposal in the Methow Valley, Washington The following is a partial timeline of events surrounding the parcels proposed for resort development in the Methow River / Early Winters / Lost River area, owned by R.D. Merrill and called "Arrowleaf". This document was written as part of the historical documentation for the Methow Valley Citizens Council's 25th anniversary celebration in 1999. Suggested changes, errors found, and help in adding to this record would be greatly appreciated. Please contact George Wooten at 509-997-6010 if you would like to help. 1961: Survey of Sandy Butte by forest Service as one of last of the best potential ski hills remaining in the Northwest 1974: Aspen Ski Corporation Considers Developing Early 1990s: U.S. Supreme Court rules on MVCC case against Forest Service Ski Hill Proposal for Sandy Butte. Ruling favorable on several counts. 1992: Merrill Gets possession of the Property Okanogan County moves to collect funds due it from Early Winters Associates. After spending eight years and 11 million dollars to develop resort, Harry Hoesy loses property to foreclosure. Early Winters Associates planned to build 4,120 dwellings on the 1,200 acres. RD Merrill bought the property to recoup the 4 million it had given Hosey in loans. September 3, 1993: MVCC, FOM and Merrill sign MOU for the Wilson Ranch MVCC agrees to work cooperatively with R.D. Merrill to encourage the DOE and other agencies to issue water permits for the Wilson Ranch PD. In exchange, Merrill agrees to withdraw its application for the existing special use permit for commercial downhill skiing on the Okanogan National Forest and to impose a perpetual deed restriction on the property which precludes RDM or corporations, partnerships associated with RDM from using the property in conjunction with a special use permit for lift-served downhill skiing on Sandy Butte. RD Merrill also agrees to withdraw all water right applications specific to snow making and to change the resort name from Early Winters. The Negotiations Break Down By mid-summer 1994 negotiations began for the remaining 650 acres which would become Arrowleaf. Merrill proposed 689 dwelling units. The MOU was almost signed November 1995. Some delays occurred and the DEIS was released. Various government agencies raised concerns. There were obvious deficiencies in the DEIS. 830 People Sign Petition asking for Limits on Density of the Resort MVCC petitions the Okanogan County Commissioners to limit the development of the Arrowleaf Planned Destination Resort to Phase 1 with a total density of 250 residential units. If the commissioners approve a greater density, the resort will cause increases in on- site and off-site development in the Mazama area that will result in negative impacts on the natural environment in the Mazama area and to the quality of life of the visitors and residents of the Methow Valley. December 13, 1995: Draft EIS for the Arrowleaf PDR was issued. May 14, 1996: The final EIS was issued. May 29, 1996: MVCC filed an administrative appeal of the adequacy of the EIS. On May 29, 1996, the Methow Valley Citizens’ Council (MVCC) appealed the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Arrowleaf Planned Destination Resort. The Arrowleaf Resort is located at the confluence of the Methow River and Early Winters Creek, on a 1, 208 acre site with very high scenic and water quality values in the middle of a major mule deer migration corridor. MVCC is concerned that the resort as currently planned will result in significant irreversible adverse impacts on air quality, water quality and quantity, local wildlife populations, and result in the loss of the rural character of the Methow Valley. According to the appeal filed by MVCC, the Arrowleaf FEIS failed to seriously address many concerns and issues regarding the proposed development, including the effects of additional smoke from 239 resort-proposed fireplaces on winter air quality in the Mazama area, runoff of toxic chemicals from the golf course into local groundwater, and disruption of an important mule deer migration route by new roads and dwelling units. The appeal claims that these and numerous other concerns submitted regarding the Draft EIS from state, federal and private parties were largely dismissed in the Final EIS, which instead concluded that no significant environmental impacts will result from creation of a large destination resort equivalent in population to a new city about the size of Twisp. The appeal is a challenge to the Okanogan County Commissioners decision to approve the FEIS and rezone of the site for a planned destination resort. According to the appeal filed by MVCC, the Arrowleaf FEIS failed to address many concerns and issues regarding the proposed development, including disruption of important wildlife corridors, ground water pollution from toxic chemicals applied in the proposed golf course, the effects of air pollution from fire places and traffic at the proposed resort, noise pollution from construction and greatly increased traffic, water pollution from sewage treatment facilities, and increase strain on public services. The MVCC stated in their appeal that the FEIS failed to adequately disclose the serious adverse environmental effects of the resort in these and many other areas. The current proposal for Arrowleaf is clearly not the "cutting-edge" environmentally sensitive model resort that has been promised by the RD Merrill Company. The appeal is a necessary step in the ongoing dialogue toward the model resort goal. MVCC is also concerned that the resort development as planned will strain county services, result in a dramatic increase in property values and property taxes, create transportation problems in the upper valley, and have other undesirable socio-economic impacts. The current proposal for a Planned Destination Resort on the site also violates the Okanogan County zoning and shorelines codes by placing a subdivision in a flood-prone area and failing to secure sufficient water rights necessary to meet projected demands. In submitting their appeal, MVCC board members point to a recent petition signed by over 850 valley residents, which called for reducing the scale of the Arrowleaf Resort down to a maximum of 250 dwelling units. At least 689 dwelling units are currently proposed for construction on the site. "This petition shows that there are a lot of local residents that are not satisfied with the current Arrowleaf proposal", said Susan Snetsinger, MVCC Secretary. "Okanogan County’s minimal 15 day time period to examine over six inches of documents made a thorough evaluation of the project impossible. We felt we had to appeal just to retain our legal standing and maintain options for further negotiations." MVCC was disappointed in both the final resort proposal and the Final EIS. However, MVCC is continuing its dialogue with the developers and hope to work toward the goal of a model resort. July 9, 1996: The Board of County Commissioners held a hearing on the adequacy of the EIS. The Superior Court later ruled that the Commissioners failed to follow proper procedures in conducting that hearing and, consequently, provided the parties with a limited opportunity to supplement the record before this Court. July 10, 1996: The County Commissioners held a hearing on the underlying issue, i.e., whether to approve the Preliminary Development Plan and Program (PDPP) and rezone. August 1996: The County Hearing & Commissioners' Findings. Okanogan county Board of Commissioners votes to deny the MVCC Appeal of adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Arrowleaf Planned Destination Resort. The board concluded that the FEIS is adequate and meets the requirements and intent of RCW 43.21C. The planned destination resort is approved subject to conditions of approval including stipulations that the resort will have a monitoring plan for air and water and a curtailment plan for air and will comply with state, federal and county laws and regulations. Wood-burning devices were limited to 239 and it was stipulated that no unit shall have a wood burning device as its sole source of heat. September 10, 1996: MVCC appeals Commissioners’ Decision, files Land Use Petition. November 1, 1996: The Pre-hearing in Chelan Superior Court & the Ruling. Judge Carol Wardell of Chelan County Superior Court ruled that the Okanogan County Commissioners did not give due process of the law to the Methow Valley Citizen’s Council during their July 9th appeal hearing on the adequacy of the RD Merrill Company’s Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Arrowleaf resort development in the upper Methow Valley. Judge Wardell said that the July hearing was unfair because MVCC was not allowed cross-examination of witnesses and was denied time to rebut their testimony. November, 1996: The proposed resort is under increased public scrutiny because of excessive air pollution produced by the developers when green trees cut for the golf course were burned in November 1996. December 30, 1996: County Issues Shoreline Permits for Golf Course. On Dec. 30, commissioners voted to approve an application for substantial shoreline development. The permit allows construction of a portion of the golf course within the 100- year floodplain and its associated wetlands at the former Shafer and Cassal ranches. It also allows relocation of the driving range from Shafer Meadow, where it was originally approved by the commissioners, to a new location, along with a change of location for golf hole 4, as cited in the preliminary development plan. Shorelines Appeal - MVCC and Okanogan Wilderness League (OWL) file appeal of Conditional Use Permit given to Merrill to develop golf course in floodplain and for construction of floodplain channels. The shoreline appeals arose after the county commissioners' approval on Dec. 30 of a permit that would allow construction of part of an 18-hole golf course within the Methow River floodplain and wetlands. February 3, 1997: Judge Carol Wardell of the Chelan Superior Court ordered changes in the jurisdiction of the appeal by the Methow Valley Citizens' Council (MVCC) against the Arrowleaf resort and planned development. The Washington State Shorelines Hearing Board will now preside over the case. The original appeal to the County Commissioners that was filed by MVCC will be reheard.. March 31, 1997: the Board of County Commissioners approved the Final Development Plan and Program for Phase I. Spring, 1997: Withdrawal of Shoreline permits. Fearing an unfavorable outcome before the Pollution Control Hearings Board, the Arrowleaf Developers withdraw their Shoreline permits. The change in jurisdiction came after the shoreline appeals were filed. It was based on an amendment to the State Environmental Policy Act which directs that when a SEPA appeal and an appeal of a shoreline permit arise from a single project, the Shorelines Hearings Board has jurisdiction over both. July 14-15, 1997: Appeal in Chelan Superior Court Dec 8, 1997: Wardell Ruling. Judge Carol Wardell of Chelan Superior Court ruled on December 8th 1997 (MVCC vs Okanogan Co. et. al.) that the Arrowleaf EIS was inadequate regarding water quantity and regading water quality. She ruled that the EIS should be revised and reviewed again by Okanogan County because the discussion of the impacts of the PDR on the quantity of water was not adequate and the the discussions of nitrates and nitrogen, fertilizer, and other ground water issues related to the golf course management of pests was inadequate. MVCC won its appeal on two points, water quality and water quantity issues, but did not meet the burden of proof in the other issues raised. It is worth reiterating that MVCC was limited in this appeal to a rebuttal of material provided by Merrill to the county commissioners after the close of public testimony. Given the narrow window of opportunity, it is an appreciable victory for MVCC. Now Merrill must rewrite the water quantity and quality sections of the EIS and seek preliminary and final approval again for the EIS. In the interim no construction can take place. An Arrowleaf press release proclaimed victory, because they 'won' on 32 of 34 points (or some such tally). Arrowleaf's losing this critical EIS fight on water quality and water quantity, in conjuction with the recent Supreme Court decision for OWL and against the town of Twisp (which is paralleled by a case against the Wilson Ranch) means that "the handwriting is on the wall, and this resort will never be built." - Dave Bricklin. In addition, FEMA recently published its revised floodplain maps, and part of the village is still in the floodplain. "The court has ruled that the EIS was inadequate as a matter of law with regard to the water quality issues related to the use of pesticides on the golf course and the water quantity discussion. Thus the court considered that it was premature to consider the other issues involving the preliminary or final approval." (quote from introductory statement) This case was limited in scope: "The court held that due to the County Commissioners' having received additional information by the proponent after the close of the hearing, MVCC should have an opportunity to cross examine those witnesses and to submit rebuttal testimony. The rebuttal testimony was to be limited to rebutting new factual information and opinions ....the only purpose of allowing the rebuttal was to remedy a due process concern...." January 7, 1999: State Of Washington, Supreme Court, R. D. Merrill Company, Defendant, v. Okanogan Wilderness League ("OWL") and Aaron Burkhart, Appelants, State Of Washington, Pollution Control Hearings Board, Respondents. MADSEN, J. -- This case presents several issues arising out of R.D. Merrill's applications for changes in water rights as part of R.D. Merrill's efforts to provide water for the Wilson Ranch, a cross-country ski resort. R.D. Merrill sought changes in points of diversion, place of use, and purpose of use. Of the five applications now at issue, we affirm the Pollution Control Board's decision upholding the Department of Ecology's approval of three of the changes sought,1 affirm the Board's determination that one of the rights was never perfected and therefore cannot be changed, 2 and reverse and remand for further proceedings with respect to the remaining application. 3 We adhere to our recent decision in Okanogan Wilderness League, Inc. v. Town of Twisp, 133 Wn.2d 769, 947 P.2d 732 (1997) concerning beneficial use of a water right before a change application may be approved under RCW 90.03.380. We also adhere to our analysis in Rettkowski v. Department of Ecology, 122 Wn.2d 219, 858 P.2d 232 (1993) of the public trust doctrine and its relationship to the state's water codes. We conclude that under certain circumstances a change from seasonal to year-round use is permitted under RCW 90.03.380. We hold that approval of two unperfected groundwater rights was permissible under RCW 90.44.100, which, unlike RCW 90.03.380, does not require beneficial use of the appropriative right obtained under a permit before a change in well location may be approved. We conclude that an asserted water right for irrigation under a 1915 notice of intent to appropriate was never perfected and therefore is not subject to change. Finally, we hold that material issues of fact remain as to abandonment or relinquishment of all or a part of the other irrigation right at issue, and remand for further proceedings. Jan 15, 1999: Attorney General of Washington notifies Arrowleaf Developer Merrill that "Wilson Ranch does not appear to have sufficient water to meet Merrill's estimate of annual demand". June, 1999: In attempting to make an end run around the water problems of the Methow Valley, DOE proposes a rule change that would allow them to expedite Arrowleaf's exaggerated water claims. The proposal is dropped after massive citizen protest. June 20, 1999: MVCC appealsthe Administrative Decision by the Administrator for the Okanogan County Board of Adjustment in approving of the Golf Course Management Plan (GCMP) for the Arrowleaf Planned Destination Resort and Preliminary Development Plan (PDR), published in the Omak-Okanogan Chronicle (OCC-407 99-195) on June 2, 1999. The BOA denies the appeal, at attorney Jim Tracey's advice that the issue on appeal (golf course irrigation, condition 26) had nothing to do with water availability.
Index to MVCC's campaign to avert a destination resort in the Methow Valley, Washington
