So I started with Geoff McQuilkin, Executive Director of Mono Lake Committee, who shared his experience with implementing the famous PTD case, Mono Lake, which declared as victory by environmentalists some 20 years ago. A photo he shown to us told us how standing at the same edge of Mono Lake can look so differently in some two years in different timing - drought time and normal time. It's pretty heartbreaking to see the hard work to raise the Mono Lake water to certain level finally ends up with the nature's power. "What we're still doing to protect this public resource to be ecologically sound. But if we're heading towards getting the water level to its 'normal' level as set out in the case, we might be heading to the wrong direction,"
Richard Wisman, the Director of Oregon Governor's Natural Resources Office, took the floor afterwards, "You might remember that Montana has the right to clean and healthy environment. But you might not remember that in Oregon, in 1970s, people enacted Scenic Waterways Act," he started, talking about the PTD implementation in Oregon. However, the real challenge right now is real: the water reservoir level in Wilammete basin goes down to 1/3 of its normal level, and its beyond direct human action - it's nature. He pointed to California's Preposition 1: the $7.5 bond dedicated for water storage, water recycling, and many other holistic approach to deal with the drought that threat them. See what Oregon has been doing is fascinating, although environmentalists will probably demand more. Coordination with tribes, protection and restoration of fisheries, groundwater apportionment water right scheme (which is pretty unique water right system in the west as oppose to prior appropriation), CFS through in-stream leasing, and the public investment, all is ongoing. He even pointed that people power to demand is needed, full engagement with executive and judicial system.
All of them comes with the same message: the challenge of climate change is a huge chunk of additional homework. We're talking about drought in the west right now, which might be problematic if we want to see PTD in its traditional sense. We also take into account changing condition of nature, which completely different with 20 years ago.
Erin Ryan raise a really interesting question about how these executive people worry about the separation of power posed by the PTD. Wisman points to the possible backoff caused by overreaching judgment by the judiciary, which might frustrates both parties in the end with its unintended political consequences. McQuillin made a point about the balancing of special interests, where there's always be people who are not satisfied and then the court step in, put a hammer on what's actually been satisfactory for some groups. He pointed that PTD really have its role working when government fails to take certain actions. Scheider points that the agencies' objective to work in a collaborative action to make sure they're not get sued, and nodding to the points raised by her co-panels. She also points about hoping people realize how open the executive branch is to have conversation from the stakeholders -- the more they hear from people, the better decision they can make. Additional issue raised by Wisman on the climate change issue: the court will not make a sound decision on the climate, especially related to the complicated science involved in that, and only by locking people together in the room a sound solution can be reached.
No comments:
Post a Comment