ENVIROWATCH

HOW HUMANS TREAT
THEIR SURROUNDINGS,
EACH OTHER, THEMSELVES




A River (Used To) Run Through It
Tribe Opposes Licensing of Tacoma's Destructive Hydro Project

by Marsha Shaiman

When the city of Tacoma began diverting the North Fork Skokomish River out of the riverbed in 1930 for its Cushman Hydroelectric Project, it initiated destruction of the Skokomish watershed which continues to this day.

Located on the Olympic Peninsula at the southern end of Hood Canal, Cushman has two dams on the North Fork, with one power plant at the base of the uppermost dam and another on the Hood Canal.
Now, 70 years after the damming and diversion of the North Fork Skokomish, the Cushman Project is in the final stages of evaluation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for issuance of a new 30 to 50-year license. For the first time since its construction, FERC will assess the project's past and future effects on the Skokomish watershed.
But the Skokomish Tribe has lived with the project's effects for several generations and opposes its licensing because of harm to the watershed and local residents.
The original construction of the project not only violated the Skokomish Tribe's treaty rights to watershed resources, but over the years it has almost completely destroyed the once productive North Fork salmon runs. In addition, it has seriously degraded the Skokomish River estuary, and silted up the mainstem Skokomish, subjecting Skokomish Valley residents to more frequent flooding.
Former Tribal Chairman Joseph Pavel stated in a 1994 hearing, "This project has severe negative social and economic impacts on the Skokomish Tribe. This is economic racism and human genocide."
For almost two years, the Skokomish Tribe has negotiated with the city of Tacoma regarding future operations of the Cushman Project. Earlier this year Tacoma walked out on the negotiations.
Despite profits accrued over the last 70 years valued in excess of $1 billion, Tacoma still refuses to consider returning the North Fork to its riverbed, claiming that it is too costly. Nonetheless, Tacoma officials admitted in 1993 that the project "could not be built under today's environmental standards."
The city is offering to return 12 percent of the river's flow back to the riverbed, an amount that will not restore the watershed and guarantees its continued destruction.
FERC has a long history of power industry advocacy and has not indicated that it will require Tacoma to act in a socially responsible and legal manner. The situation is so egregious, however, that FERC may decide to require the return of some, but not all, of the water to the North Fork, a "solution" which benefits no one. This will increase the city's power costs while doing nothing to restore the watershed.
The history of the Cushman Project is a story of broken treaty agreements and detrimental impacts.
In the 1855 Treaty of Point No Point, the Skokomish Indians reserved the right to hunt, fish, and gather in their usual and accustomed places. Their reservation was placed at the mouth of the Skokomish River on Hood Canal because of the Skokomish's dependence on the river for their cultural, spiritual, and economic life.
The Skokomish Tribe, state fisheries, and game agencies all opposed Tacoma's proposal to divert the entire North Fork Skokomish to a power plant on Hood Canal.
By 1934, four years after diversion of the river, the Department of the Interior cited Indian accounts of a once salmon-rich river blocked and dried up so that "the fish run dropped to practically nothing."
Now the North Fork salmon runs are nearly biologically extinct. In addition, traditional gathering, fishing, and hunting sites were flooded by the project reservoirs while other portions of the project illegally occupy reservation land.
The impacts of the North Fork Skokomish also extend to the entire Skokomish estuary. The diversion has reduced the mainstem Skokomish River flow by 40 percent, decreasing the supply of fresh water, sediment, and nutrient inflow to the salmon and shellfish of the estuary. In addition, the mainstem Skokomish no longer carries away as much sediment, subjecting Valley residents to yearly flooding.
Based on these considerations, the conservation group American Rivers, local agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Interior and the National Marine Fisheries Service, all oppose continued out-of-basin diversion of the North Fork. They argue current and proposed project operation will continue to damage the watershed and is in violation of state and federal law.
In fact, the state Department of Ecology has informed FERC that Tacoma does not have the rights for the water it currently uses and the Cushman Project's river diversion violates the 1917 Washington State Water Code.
Neither FERC nor Tacoma are likely to agree to a solution which will restore the Skokomish watershed. Therefore, the tribe is now working with Rep. Norm Dicks to develop a legislative solution to resolve the fisheries and water resource conflicts associated with the project.
As part of the FERC licensing process, a draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) will soon be issued assessing the environmental impact of Cushman's past and future operation and analyzing the impact of restoring the water to the North Fork River. To help the Skokomish Tribe restore the river, get a copy of the DEIS, attend and speak at hearings following the release of the DEIS, and submit written comments.

-Marsha Shaiman works with Support for Native Sovereignty. For more information contact

Skokomish Project Manager Vic Martino at (206) 842-5386.

For a copy of the DEIS, contact:

John Blair, FERC
825 North Capitol NE, Washington DC 20426.
Cite FERC Project #460.
Ph. (202) 219-2845.



Milk. It Does a Body What!?
Currently, about 10 percent of milk cows in the US are being injected twice a month with recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), a genetically engineered hormone that stimulates Bessie's milk production. This artificial hormone is banned in Europe, and public sentiment against it is high in the US, but consumers have little opportunity to do any comparative shopping because it's illegal for US dairy companies to label their products as "rBGH free."

According to the Humane Farming Association, federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines against such labeling were signed by an FDA policymaker who formerly worked for Monsanto, the producer of rBGH.
In Washington state, only Rep. Jim McDermott has backed national legislation calling for rBGH labeling. Sen. Patty Murray has not yet committed, according to Jim Ganong, a local anti-rBGH activist.
Activists object to rBGH for three reasons. Some question the human health effects of genetically engineered additives, especially since cows injected with rBGH tend to develop udder infections, which can dramatically increase the pus and blood content in milk. Infected animals need antibiotics, which can further taint the milk. Animal rights concerns also exist, since many cows experience harmful side effects. The Humane Farming Association reports of one New York farmer who lost a quarter of his herd due to udder infections after using rBGH. Still others question the need for more milk, when there is already an overproduction of milk in the US, much of which is dumped. A further glut of milk because of rBGH could also mean more dairy price supports, a risk of some $400 million more in tax money going to dairy farmers, according to some federal agencies.
Washington State's big producer, Darigold, has committed to not using rBGH in most of its products, but probably still produces dried milk with the hormone, according to the latest report by the Provender Journal, which has provided consumers with a list of companies who have and have not committed to rBGH-free products. The following companies have committed to rBGH-free dairy products: The following companies have not guaranteed that their dairy products are rBGH-free. The Pure Food Campaign [(800)253-0681] urges consumers to demand written guarantees that a company's products be rBGH-free.
-Doug Collins


Please see A reader response to the above piece.



Mainstream Media Not Interested
When Northwest Environment Watch (NEW) held a press conference last April about government subsidizing of ecologically dangerous practices in the region, few reporters showed up. Here are some revealing tidbits from NEW's investigations:

Timber companies received some $91 million in tax breaks, underpriced timber, and other handouts from the government.
Residential customers of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) spend about $3 a month to provide subsidized power and water to irrigators, and another $2 a month to subsidize the area's aluminum smelters, which are among the most inefficient in the world. Overuse of BPA's hydropower also has been having a disastrous effect on salmon and river health.



Vinyl Siding? No Thanks!
Many scientists believe that dioxin, a by-product of chlorine, is responsible for large increases in cancer, immune problems, and infertility in the industrialized world. Even the head of the EPA's Office of Toxic Substances has said that the general population is already above any safe exposure to dioxin, which, like DDT, accumulates in fatty tissues. The largest single source of dioxin contamination is probably PVC plastic, which is often burned in garbage incinerators. Approximately 32 percent of industrial chlorine is used to produce PVC (polyvinyl chloride) plastics, including vinyl siding for houses, white plastic plumbing pipes, many food wraps, many disposable hospital supplies, and plastic bottles with recycling arrows encircling the number 3.



[Home] [This Issue's Directory] [WFP Index] [WFP Back Issues] [E-Mail WFP]

Contents on this page were published in the August/September, 1995 edition of the Washington Free Press.
WFP, 1463 E. Republican #178, Seattle, WA -USA, 98112. -- WAfreepress@gmail.com
Copyright © 1995 WFP Collective, Inc.