by Steve Marble

Department of Ecology is implementing laws in the Dungeness River watershed. These laws were developed in a process designed to serve as a model intended to be repeated across the entire State of Washington.

A connected series of meetings and committees led to these proposed rules. The Chelan agreement resulted in the Dungeness/Quilcene Plan (D/Q Plan) which is now being turned into laws referred to as the Dungeness River Rules. Many elements of the D/Q Plan are laudable. However, some troublesome aspects of this plan are glaring.

For starters, where did this planning process come from? The Chelan Agreement was a project sponsored, promoted, and hosted by the Northwest Renewable Resources Center (NRRC). The NRRC was chaired for many years by James Waldo who just made an unsuccessful bid for the governorship.

Variously in his career, Mr. Waldo served as an aid to then governor Dan Evans as well as representing the citizens of the United States as a Justice Department attorney in the Bolt Case. During his campaign Mr. Waldo had to continue to explain that he hadn’t been working for the tribes in that litigation. Veterans of the salmon wars say he served the interests of tribes back then, no matter who signed his paycheck.

Waldo’s old boss, Dan Evans, also did a stint on the board of directors of the NRRC. Dan presided as Governor of the State of Washington during the Bolt Trial. Many non- tribal fishermen, men who lost their livelihood and way of life, some with a heritage spanning many generations in North America and having every right to think of themselves as ‘native’ American, don’t believe Dan Evan’s administration acted in behalf of the citizens. Noting Dan’s Trilateral Commission connections will, no doubt, elicit whines of ‘whaco extremist’ from the nutso left.

Current NRRC chairman is Curt Smitch, former director of Department of Fisheries. Mr. Smitch’s tenure at the agency was marked by controversy. His leadership emphasized Indian rights at the expense of salmon runs. Knowledgeable sources allege that salmon stocks were purposely mismanaged by his department to diminish the number of fish in order to establish a premise for erosion of property rights.

At any rate, this is the stature of the folks who brought us the process resulting in the Dungeness River rules currently being implemented by DOE. Their process involves selecting for a committee, participants whose support for greater government control of water resources is well known. A few moderate member of the business community are included to lend the appearance of balance. Illusion of broad community support is the desired facade.

Trained ‘facilitators’ set the agenda and guide the group in their decisions. Property rights advocates are avoided to all degree possible. Major stake holders are denied representation at the table. ‘Consensus’ is a tool used to neutralize dissent within the group.

In stream flows, the minimum water amounts required in the stream beds for migrating salmon to spawn, are established. At one D/Q meeting, DOE submitted in stream flow numbers for the Dungeness River greater than historical water levels. In other words, a disconnect between reality and adopted in stream flows was a ploy attempted by the regulators.

Once the required stream flows are established the concept of hydraulic continuity is rolled out and distorted beyond recognition by DOE interpretations. If soil conditions allow a conduit, continuity between groundwater and surface water can exist. The agency ignores variation in the soil substrate, and emphasizes the relationships between water sources beyond physical limitations.

Through such gambits, water rights are denied property owners, wells are disallowed, water systems are forced to consolidate into large public entities, rationing rears its head, and the population is under the thumb of unelected bureaucrats.

Pre-determined outcome is insured by a controlled process. That outcome is the transfer of all authority over water to DOE. Like one well driller said, "Controlling water is power, and once people get the taste of power in their mouths, it’s hard to get it out." An agency taking total control of a resource as far reaching as water without legislative review is, at minimum, antidemocratic.

In the language of globalists, a ‘partnership’ between the tribe and the agency has resulted in ‘collaborative decisions’. The legislature, the body empowered by the constitution to make law, is out of the loop.

A small number of special interests control the process with minimal legislative oversight. Public input is short circuited Our form of government is changed.

Some citizens still believe strongly in liberty, our constitution, and the United States of America as a sovereign nation. A shadow government, unaccountable to the electorate, profoundly micro-managing our lives to the point of counting each gallon of water we consume, is an offensive concept to those who value freedom.

Why can’t small landowners be trusted to look after their land? Totalitarian temptations sprout wherever checks, balances, and accountability are eliminated. History is replete with the consequences of elitist thinkers imposing their opinions on their neighbors.