Logging/Power Plan Threatens Seattle Drinking Water

opinion by Michael Shank, contributor

Remember learning about "eminent domain" in school? In an allegedly free country, it seemed like a handy, albeit heavy-handed, arrangement allowing government agencies to acquire land from owners who were reluctant sellers. For example, it was and is used by federal and state agencies to build freeways across farms and through cities.

That same legal authority may be used by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) to clear-cut a nine-mile" highway" that will run through Seattle's protected 90,000 acre Cedar River Watershed.

This is not the only time the Cedar River Watershed has been threatened by logging. In 1998, Seattle Public Utilities, the Watershed's manager, proposed extensive logging within its boundaries. The Protect Our Watershed Alliance (an environmental coalition spearheaded by Pacific Crest Biodiversity Project) responded with a major campaign opposing the proposal. After a series of well-attended public hearings, POWA convinced former Seattle Mayor Paul Schell and the Seattle City Council to drop the logging plan. Instead, an innovative Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) was implemented in 2000, allocating $90 million for comprehensive protection and restoration activities over the next 50 years.

One year has transpired since Seattle Public Utilities implemented the HCP and already this protected watershed is facing a new threat from the BPA. Last fall BPA published a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on a proposed route through the Cedar River Watershed that would permanently clear-cut 150 acres of forested wetlands and forested riparian zones, construct more than one mile of new roads, construct at least three staging areas for storing machines poles, and lines, and create a 150-foot wide transmission line easement.

Bonneville's DEIS, and subsequent Biological Assessment, failed to accurately measure the adverse effects of construction and erosion upon critical salmon habitat in the watershed and essential connectivity corridors for the spotted owl. Bonneville's DEIS paid little attention to Seattle Public Utilities' plan to build a fish ladder in 2003, an effort by the City to increase the salmon population in the watershed. The proposed power line could also increase the need for a filtration plant in a watershed that presently is so uncontaminated that it needs no filtration. Bonneville hopes to begin logging this summer. The BPA wants to build the 500-kV power line in order to fulfill its commitment under a 1961 Columbia River dam treaty between the US and Canada to transmit over 40 percent of the harnessed power up to the border. Rumor has it that Canada, a country that is facing no shortage of power, will sell Bonneville's obligated power to California.

Seattle Public Utilities, the Seattle City Council and Pacific Crest Biodiversity Project have requested the BPA to pursue other options. Ray Hoffman, adviser to former Mayor Schell, said in a recent Seattle Times article, "the project is in direct conflict with the city's no-logging policy." Margaret Pageler, member of the City Council, agreed with Hoffman, saying "they (BPA) need to look at alternatives outside the watershed." Despite Bonneville's claim that other routes were too expensive or too difficult, there are alternatives. BPA, however, has not conducted a DEIS on any of them.

The Pacific Crest Biodiversity Project hosted a community meeting with Bonneville in November, where the BPA was criticized for not exploring double-circuiting options for the existing power line, ambiguity on the exact location of new roads and construction staging areas, rejecting routes outside the watershed and failing to comprehend the integral role of the watershed. Bonneville sidestepped the community's concerns and failed to address the meat of questions posed.

The Northwest Energy Coalition then hosted a second community meeting in November in which Bonneville continued to evade the hard questions. Recently, the Pacific Crest Biodiversity Project met with the BPA to discuss alternatives for the power lines and to encourage implementing non-transmission line alternatives into BPA's power grid. But the BPA representative said the BPA has no intention of rescinding its plan to enter the Cedar River Watershed this summer.

It is now up to Seattle residents to protect the purity of their drinking water by opposing BPA's proposal. Seattle residents must fight to protect a fragile ecosystem from further logging by supporting all litigation efforts adopted by the City Council. Seattle residents must prove to a federal agency that eminent domain will not be easily implemented.

While Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) has begun discussing a mitigation package with Bonneville Power (so that SPU doesn't get left with condemned land and nothing to show for it), the Seattle City Council is stepping up the heat on Bonneville. Seattle City Council members Margaret Pageler and Heidi Wills hosted a public hearing on March 26 where outraged Seattleites told Bonneville that it was blatantly disrespecting a citizen-protected watershed.

People can encourage the Seattle City Council to take whatever action is necessary, including litigation, in order to protect the watershed. Please take action now and help protect the Cedar River Watershed! The author is outreach director of Biodiversity Northwest, formerly Pacific Crest Biodiversity Project, www.BiodiversityNW.org. He can be reached by calling 206-545-3734 ext 11.