Fish & wildlife

Archive: Three Sovereigns process

In 1998, several alternative fish and wildlife governance processes were proposed.
This letter invited public input on five models, including the Three Sovereigns process.

Related link: Columbia River Basin forum

July 15, 1998

To interested parties:

For many years, observers of the Columbia River have argued that the river's governance should be streamlined to eliminate duplication, confusion and conflict. The concern was present even when the river was viewed primarily as a system of dams to be managed for energy production, flood control, navigation, and irrigation water. In recent years, the concern has deepened as the river's fish and wildlife populations have declined, fish and wildlife mitigation activities have moved into high gear, and water quality concerns have mounted.

If Congress considers legislation that arises out of restructuring in the energy industry, the Columbia River may be drawn into the debate because it is such an important supplier of energy. Legislation could affect whether the region keeps the benefits of the Columbia River — not just energy, but fish, wildlife, flood control, navigation, irrigation and other uses. A number of ideas for river governance have already been suggested in congressional and regional forums.

We want to invite you to join us in this discussion of Columbia River governance as part of our effort to identify a potential legislative proposal for this region. To start the discussion, we have attached a set of five different approaches that have come up in our conversations so far. The key issues in these proposals revolve around three central concepts: the mission for a governing entity, its authority, and its pattern of representation, which are reflected in the attached table. We don't intend to limit discussion to these alternatives, however; we are not convinced that any one of them is the ideal answer. Rather, we hope to spur your thinking: is one of these approaches more useful than the others? Is there a combination of approaches that would make more sense? Should the region begin with one alternative and phase into another? Are there other approaches to consider?

We hope you will send us comments on these questions. For convenience, please address your comments to us, care of the Northwest Power Planning Council, 851 S. W. Sixth Ave., Portland, Oregon 97204, or email to . Please label your comments "River Governance" and submit them by August 21, 1998.

While we are hearing from you, we also intend to consult with experienced regional experts, the region's other sovereigns including the region's Indian tribes, legislative leaders and stakeholders. We want to hear a broad spectrum of opinion before deciding whether to advance a river governance proposal. We plan to complete these consultations in September and make a determination in November, if not before, whether to advance such a proposal.

Even as we begin this discussion, the governors are working actively with the federal government and the tribes in the Three Sovereigns process. We remain committed to carry on with that process in good faith, and are deliberating with those parties to determine the future course of that effort. We are still of a mind that the region would benefit from the establishment of an inclusive forum that aims for consensus positions for the region on Columbia River issues. In initiating this governance discussion, we are asking whether a consensus-building process is likely to be enough, whether statutory change is needed, or whether the region needs both.

We look forward to hearing from you.

^ top