"Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the State of Washington 's Columbia River Initiative." Columbia River Initiative . 17 Dec. 2004 . Washington State Department of Ecology. 2 Oct. 2005 <http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cri/Images/PDF/cri_mou121704.pdf>.
Summary of the Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the State of Washington's Columbia River Initiative :
Signed on December 17, 2004 by the governor of the state of Washington , the director of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, and the director of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is a non-binding agreement to move forward in specific ways on the Columbia River Initiative. In Section 3, the stated objective is to “secure economic and environmental benefits from improved water management” (MOU 1).
The MOU addresses issues of water storage, drought relief, industrial and municipal water supply, and water from Canada as well as delving into specific plans for the Odessa Subarea and the daily operations of the Potholes Reservoir. Part of the water storage proposal includes an assessment of potential increased storage of additional water from the Columbia River mainstream. This MOU specifies deadlines for petitions for funds as well as possible extensions given the permission of a yet to be established oversight committee. The section on drought relief specifies the potential for up to 33,000 acre-feet of water being made available for existing water rights and up to 17,000 acre-feet made available for increased stream flow during a drought.
The specifications about the Odessa Subarea and the Potholes Reservoir are particularly interesting. As stated in the MOU, “The goal is to make up to 30,000 acre-feet of water available to the Odessa Subarea no later than December 2006 for use during the 2007 irrigation season” (MOU 4). It further notes that the use of that water is specifically for irrigating existing agricultural lands , prioritizing those lands currently under state ground water permits where the current supply from the aquifer is declining.
The section about Potholes Reservoir outlines ideas for a feasibility assessment after an assessment of alternatives for managing the reservoir is completed. The reevaluation of the functioning of the reservoir aims to find alternative water feed routes, changes in storage rule curves, and improved water evacuation routes without compromising the current benefits the reservoir provides. It also proposes to solve the distribution problems faced by the East Low Canal below Interstate 90.
In the section discussing water from Canada , the parties involved indicate a plan to secure water from the Canadian reservoir storage facilities through cooperation with the Canadian government.
The remainder of the document specifies the nature and timing of forthcoming contracts between various parties. It specifies deadlines, outlines a plan and purpose for an Oversight Panel, as well as clearly indicates that this MOU is a nonbinding agreement freely entered into by the signatories who maintain authority to withdraw support and cooperation at any time they deem necessary with 90 days notice to the other parties involved.
Critique
Perhaps the most interesting part of this memorandum is its definite articulation that the conclusions in the document are nonbinding and that the signatories are completely voluntary. The point of the document is to reach a decision as to the path to move forward in part of the Columbia River Initiative (CRI), but this MOU does not contractually obligate the parties to maintain the terms of the agreement.
In the current time of legally binding agreements it seems odd that the parties wouldn't have pursued a more strict and binding agreement so as to ensure participation and cooperation. At first, I assumed that this meant the CRI was not such a priority in the minds of the involved parties because otherwise, at least one of the parties would have demanded a contractual obligation. Upon further consideration, however, I think that perhaps the only way any agreement could be reached at all was to have the terms of the agreement only loosely tying the parties together on a path towards change.
The second part of this MOU that I found interesting was the specifications as to which agricultural lands will be eligible to receive water from the increased flow to the Odessa Subarea. Section 14 of the MOU states that “(t)he goal is to make up to 30,000 acre-feet of water available to the Odessa Subarea no later than December 2006 for use during the 2007 irrigation season. Use of this water is limited to existing agricultural lands, with priority for use on lands currently irrigated under state ground water permits in areas where the Odessa aquifer is declining” (MOU 4). This specification indicates in my mind that there are questions and conflict surrounding what happens to the additional water once the proper channels are utilized to increase water flow to this area. Perhaps the water use is uncontested, but this is the only section in the MOU that is so specific in who gets the water, that it seems logical to assume that this area is hotly contested.
Lastly, the ending sections of the MOU provide guidelines for the proper approval process and include the names of other organizations that will be included in this future proposal. It notes, in Sections 23 and 24, that the State of Washington will consult with a couple different tribal governments, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association Fisheries, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and will consult other agencies according to the Endangered Species Act. The document is completed by noting that the authority of the parties potentially involved shall not be compromised and the furthering of contracts is contingent upon funding.
I will be interested to research further and discover whether this document served as an actual outline for the proposed projects, or was tossed to the wayside once the proper authorities did their due diligence by drafting any agreement relating to the CRI.
reviewed by Jennifer Lenhardt
Robert D. Clark Honors College, University of Oregon
HC 441: Science Colloquium, Columbia River Ecology
Fall term, 2005
Send e-mail to the Webmaster