Hitching to conservation

Politics can be an ecosystem, a social science version of John Muir’s, “anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.” The Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan is a $5 billion, 30-year mega-project that defines “integrated,” with multiple gears and political interests. Tug on one part, and we find it hitched to everything else.

The purchase of 50,000 acres in the Teanaway drainage from American Forest Holdings, LLC, earlier this month was a tangible step forward in protecting the Yakima River watershed. The land includes water rights that predate 1905, when the federal government received title to everything that hadn’t yet been privately claimed. As Gov. Jay Inslee notes, healthy management of the watershed will enhance water supply and quality as well as preserve sources of cold-water habitat for fish.

The Teanaway purchase is a standalone win for Washington. Curiously, the heart of the project — water storage for irrigation, fish and domestic-use — flows from failure. In 2009, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation opted for a “no action” recommendation after concluding a four-year, $16 million research study on Yakima basin storage. The plan’s centerpiece was the Black Rock reservoir, priced at $7.7 billion. The project didn’t pass the cost-benefit test — coming in at 13 cents for every dollar invested — and supporters regrouped. For four years, the Yakima Working Group, under the rubric of the Washington Department of Ecology and USBR, has been fine-tuning the plan.

The agencies’ final 2012 environmental impact statement incorporated two alternatives, including no action. With negotiations so delicate (mix land, water and interest groups into an even confection) systemic questions get sidelined. Success requires consensus.

The question that shouldn’t unhitch the plan’s other components is why storage trumps conservation. On the dry east side in Yakima, the average consumer uses 250 gallons of water per day, and a household pays $1.51 per hundred cubic feet. In households in Everett and Tacoma, the drizzly west side, a consumer pays $3.38 per hundred cubic feet and uses approximately half the amount of water per day. Economics drives behavior.

“If market forces were ever more evident, I don’t know where they would be,” said Rep. Hans Dunshee, D-Snohomish. “Cheap, subsidized water means more use, and higher prices mean more prioritized use of water.”

Dunshee’s observation extends beyond domestic water use. Crop choices also are informed by inexpensive water.

As Yakima basin proponents look to a $1.6 billion Wymer dam and raising Bumping Lake, meaningful conservation needs to be hitched on as well.

More in Opinion

Editorial cartoons for Monday, Dec. 11

A sketchy look at the day in politics.… Continue reading

Editorial: Yet another owner for The Everett Clinic

After its brief time with DaVita, uncertainty returns for the clinic with its sale to an insurer.

Editorial cartoons for Sunday, Dec. 10

A sketchy look at the day in politics.… Continue reading

Burke: If you’ve been away for a bit, here’s what you missed

If you have been paying attention, check below to make sure you’re not missing a reason for anxiety.

Milbank: GOP attacks on FBI meant to circle wagons for Trump

Criticism of Mueller and the FBI by Republicans ignores the GOP credentials of those they attack.

Editorial cartoons for Saturday, Dec. 9

A sketchy look at the day in politics.… Continue reading

Second Amendment doesn’t protect rapid-fire weapons

Regarding the letter to the editor in the Dec. 1, Herald, “Constitution’s… Continue reading

Count freight train vibrations trigger mudslides?

I was lying awake during the 3 a.m. hour recently, when I… Continue reading

Are different standards used regarding sexual misconduct?

Recently news people have been fired as a result of sexual misconduct… Continue reading

Most Read