Eminent Domain: "A government's right to take private property for public use."

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 used not infrequently 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 to clearcut a nine-mile "highway" running 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 in opposition to the proposal. After a series of well-attended public hearings, POWA convinced Mayor 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: the Bonneville Power Administration (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 hopes to begin logging in the spring of 2002.

Constructing a new 500-kV power line will fulfill BPA's commitment under a 1961 Columbia River dam treaty between the US and Canada to transmit over 40% of the harnessed power up to the border. Rumor has it that Canada, a country that is facing no shortage of power, will resell Bonneville's obligated power to California.

Seattle Public Utilities, the Seattle City Council and Pacific Crest Biodiversity Project have requested that BPA pursue other viable options outside the Cedar River Watershed. Ray Hoffman, adviser to Mayor Schell, said in a recent Seattle Times article, "the project is in direct conflict with the city's no-logging policy." Margaret Pageler, former president of the Seattle City Council, agreed with Hoffman by saying, "they (BPA) need to look at alternatives outside the watershed."

Despite Bonneville's claim (as noted in their DEIS) that other routes were too expensive or too difficult, viable alternatives remain. Bonneville Power, however, has not conducted a DEIS on any of these alternatives. And since Bonneville conducted only one DEIS for their proposed 500-kV transmission line, that one being the Cedar River Watershed option, one can assume they thought they could cut their way into the watershed without anyone noticing or protesting.

Proving BPA wrong, Pacific Crest Biodiversity Project hosted a community meeting with Bonneville on November 8, 2001, attended by 70 Seattle activists. At the meeting Bonneville 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 Cedar River Watershed. Bonneville sidestepped the community's concerns the entire evening with esoteric jargon that lacked substance and failed to address the meat of the questions posed.

Not letting Bonneville assume a complacent role, the Northwest Energy Coalition hosted the second community meeting on November 30, attended by 25 environmentalists. This meeting, too, proved disappointing as Bonneville continued their diplomatic charade of evading questions. The only success that emerged from both meetings was that BPA pushed back the publish date of the Final Environmental Impact Statement until late spring.

Most recently, Pacific Crest Biodiversity Project's Membership Coordinator Michael Shank and former Friends of the Earth Policy Associate Eric Espenhorst met with BPA executives on Wednesday, January 30, to discuss viable alternatives outside the Cedar River Watershed and to encourage BPA to consider implementing non-transmission line alternatives into BPA's power grid. During the meeting BPA revealed that they were already discussing mitigation options with the City of Seattle. Bonneville states that the City of Seattle has not approved the logging proposal for the watershed but understands that the mitigation package must be drafted. (Last fall the City of Seattle was considering litigation, now they're pursuing mitigation.)

Before Bonneville publishes its Final Environmental Impact Statement and begins construction in the Cedar River Watershed shortly after, we must impress upon them that they face a citizenry unanimously opposed to their proposal. It is now up to Seattle residents to protect the purity of their drinking water by opposing BPA's proposal. It is now up to Seattle residents to protect a fragile ecosystem from further logging by supporting any litigation efforts adopted by the City Council. It is now up to Seattle residents to prove to a federal agency that eminent domain will not be easily implemented.

Visit Pacific Crest Biodiversity Project's website at www.ProtectandRestore.org (or call Michael Shank at 206-545-3734, ext. 11) and encourage the Seattle City Council to take whatever action is necessary, including litigation, in order to protect the Cedar River Watershed. PCBP's website contains a BPA/Cedar River Watershed campaign page completely devoted to protecting the watershed. On this site you'll find a PCBP-endorsed Biological Assessment of Bonneville's logging proposal, phone numbers and email addresses of key representatives (i.e., watershed managers, BPA coordinators, City Council members), maps of the proposed construction, and a history on the 90,000 acre watershed.

--Michael Shank, Membership Coordinator, Pacific Crest Biodiversity Project