
Boise
,
Idaho
–
April 9, 2007
News
Release
THE COALITION FOR
IDAHO WATER, INC.
1010 W. Jefferson St., Suite 101
,
BOISE
,
IDAHO
83702
Telephone:
208-344-6690 ~ Fax:
208-344-2744
For
More Information Contact: Norm Semanko (208) 863-7921 or (208)
344-6690
A decision today by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals may
prove a significant turning point in the decades old battle over just
how to solve the problem of restoring
Pacific Northwest
salmon runs, officials with the
Coalition for Idaho Water said today.
The Appeals Court upheld a 2005 lower court decision that requires all
parties in the case to work together to put together a regional plan
that adequately protects endangered salmon and steelhead. The
parties include the States of Idaho,
Montana
,
Oregon
, and
Washington
, and Native American Tribes.
“While not parties to the lower Snake and
Columbia
litigation, the Coalition for Idaho
Water and its members are vitally interested in the outcome, as it could
have indirect impacts on the biological opinion for the
Upper Snake River
projects in
Idaho
and eastern
Oregon
. While additional appeals are possible,
the Coalition feels the decision provides a new impetus to develop
cooperative regional solutions that work for the fish and the region,”
said Coalition spokesman Norm Semanko.
The Coalition also believes the regional collaboration approach set down
in the decision may now hold the best hope for a successful outcome.
The Coalition is formed from more than 50 different organizations
representing
Idaho
counties, cities, chambers of commerce,
industrial, municipal and commercial water users, and agricultural
groups.
“It was a similar process that was used to arrive at the historic Nez
Perce Water Rights Settlement between the federal government, the State
of
Idaho
, Nez Perce Tribe and water users.
That agreement, which provides for water for flow augmentation from
willing sellers, consistent with State law, in exchange for dismissal of
most of the Tribe’s claims in the Snake River Basin Adjudication, must
be preserved, and can in fact serve as a cornerstone for the regional
collaboration now underway. The State, the feds and the Tribe are
all at the table in the collaboration and are well-positioned to make
sure this happens,” Semanko added.
Another important element in the decision is the jeopardy requirement.
Coalition officials say that aspect means any human-caused activity that
results in a loss of endangered fish, such as commercial or
recreational harvest, will now have to come under close scrutiny to see
if it violates the Endangered Species Act.
“That requirement makes an even stronger, more compelling case
for a collaborative approach to the problem. It also places a
greater emphasis on those things being done to enhance the survival
rates of the endangered runs,” Semanko said.
The Coalition also cited as positive the language in the
Appeals Court
decision that expressly limits the
ability of a District Court judge to order dam removal or any other
outcome from the collaborative process. That provision serves as a
permissible procedural restriction rather than an impermissible
substantive restraint, the Coalition spokesman noted.
Semanko also called for environmental plaintiffs in the litigation to
move away from their current narrow, single-focus approach to salmon
recover and to avoid trying to derail the collaborative process,
even if the outcome does not satisfy their narrow “breach the dams”
agenda.
“The lower court’s order called for the federal government to issue
a “failure report” if the process is not successful, and then to
identify additional measures, including the breaching of dams which
could appear to environmental groups as a powerful incentive to work
against the collaborative process, as they have continually done with
the Nez Perce Agreement. If they truly care about the fate
of the listed fish they should be willing to become part of a regional
solution,” Semanko added.
-end-
|