Editorial: County must calculate benefit, cost of trade off

A group of nine environmental groups reached an agreement on a plan to improve water storage in the YakimaValley basin last week.

That news should be cause of excitement in KitttitasCounty. Water storage has been a seemingly unsolvable problem with each plan proposed garnering as much opposition as support.

But there is a catch for KittitasCounty. A major component of the plan would be to offset a new reservoir at Wymer on Lmuma Creek and an enlarged BumpingLake reservoir by preserving and restoring about 71,000 acres of land in the basin for habitat, water quality and other environmental issues. Almost all of that land, including 46,500 acres owned by the American Forest Land Co. in the TeanawayValley, would be in KittitasCounty.

Other areas under consideration are 15,000 acres in the YakimaCanyon south of Ellensburg, the majority owned by the Eaton family, 10,000 acres of Plum Creek land in the headwaters of Manastash and Taneum creeks in KittitasCounty and the Little Naches in YakimaCounty.

Any transfer of land from private to public ownership raises a red flag because it takes property off the tax rolls, but in this case the cost might be outweighed by the benefit.

One way to frame this discussion is by asking: How much would you pay to resolve water storage issues and preserve the forested nature of the TeanawayValley? Access to forest land is something that many people would categorize as a priceless asset. One way to calculate the cost is to base it on what the county currently collects in taxes off land classified for open space and designated forest land.

This is a lower rate than land generates if it becomes developed for home sites. Even at the forest land rate, though, loss of tax revenue is an issue. By forgoing the tax money we are in a sense investing in ourselves as a scenic location. Given West Side sprawl, the preservation of forest and open spaces can make our county all the more desirable as a place to visit.

What type of access would be allowed is an issue as well, but the land currently is in private, not public, ownership. Private forest land may seem like it's open to all uses, but private land owners can and do place restrictions on use.

The conservation groups supporting the proposal are the Cascade Land Conservancy, Conservation Northwest, National Wildlife Federation, the Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, the Trust for Public Land, Washington Environmental Council and the Wilderness Society. One group, the Sierra Club, opposes added water storage.

Funding hurdle

While it is noteworthy that multiple groups have agreed on a plan, it remains far from a done deal. Federal and state funding is the big road block. The price tag is estimated at $5 billion over 20 years. While $5 billion is an eye-popping number, it comes off as a bargain compared to the $7.7 billion estimated price tag for Black Rock, the large-scale reservoir proposed east of Yakima, which lost favor as a solution to water storage problems due to its cost.

What may make a difference with funding sources is KittitasCounty's commitment to the project. The county is the main location for the land acquisition. If it isn't on board with the project, it would make it harder, if not impossible, to convince the federal and state government to contribute $5 billion.

County commissioner Paul Jewell has said the county supports long-range water storage plans, but that there are questions about the impact of that much land acquisition in KittitasCounty. He's right to raise that concern.

More information and public relations are needed on this proposal, particularly in KittitasCounty. Last week's meeting took place in Yakima, and the general public has not been involved yet. It's time to start the discussion in the Kittitas Valley.