The Lake Tapps Task Force was formed earlier this year to seek an agreed solution to the preservation of Lake Tapps.

Puget Sound Energy Corporation (PSE) has determined that its White River Hydroelectric Project on the White River and Lake Tapps has become an uneconomical resource for the company. Because PSE’s diversion of waters from the White River is necessary to maintain the current levels of the Lake Tapps reservoir, if PSE were to retire its hydroelectric project, the lake would be expected to dry to substantially lower levels, unless an acceptable alternative is found.

Compounding this dilemma are the effects of PSE’s diversion on anadromous fish in the White River. Recent listings of Puget Sound Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout as endangered species under the 1973 Endangered Species Act have heightened attention to the need to restore anadromous fish migration, spawning and rearing habitat, including the White River.

In December, 1997, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), issued a license for PSE’s White River Hydroelectric Project, including several conditions of operation. Some of these conditions, particularly specified minimum instream flows and flow management provisions for fish habitat in the White River, were not accepted by PSE and the company filed an appeal. State and federal agencies responsible for restoring fish habitat also appealed, requesting the license impose more stringent requirements on PSE.

In July, 1999 the Lake Tapps Task Force retained Agreement Dynamics to facilitate a collaborative process to seek a solution.

As an initial step to assist the Task Force, Agreement Dynamics has interviewed Task Force members and other stakeholders to gauge the current state of the collaboration, and gain increased knowledge of the issues and the interests of the participants. Based on the forty-one interviews conducted, this is the report to the Task Force of our initial assessment.

 Methodology:

The facilitators—Rhonda Hilyer, Dee Endelman and Michael Hildt—interviewed individuals and groups who have a stakeholder interest in the future conditions of Lake Tapps and the White River. Questions were asked to gain an understanding of the issues involved and the interests, ideas and concerns of the stakeholders. As often as possible, interviews were conducted in person, although several were conducted over the telephone in order to achieve timely completion of the assessment.

 Here is what we heard:

" Most interviewees expressed a belief that the collaborative process can lead to a successful agreement. Reasons cited in their responses include:

" The high level of commitment to the process exhibited by Task Force members and others, as well as the widely-held belief that other possible forums—FERC appeals process and/or the court system—would mean far less local influence and control over the outcome.

" That the White River apparently has sufficient volume to provide necessary instream flows for fish habitat, while also providing sufficient diversion through Lake Tapps to maintain a healthy lake. Thus, the problem is generally seen as a matter of economics and resource management, rather than an over-allocation of water resources.

" Getting all the key interests at the same table and receiving a two-year stay of the FERC appeals process is widely seen as evidence of a viable Task Force start for a successful collaboration.

" That the process has lots of support and that the interests of the parties are generally aligned with making it work.

" Many also credited Task Force leadership for their optimism, as well as the respect and growing level of trust among the stakeholders.

" Many stakeholders also spoke enthusiastically of an opportunity not just to solve a tough problem, but also to do something really good—for the White River community, and for other areas.

 

Process Concerns (These concerns expressed are not necessarily generally held or in any particular order.)

" That the process will become more difficult as we deal with substantive issues. We’re still on our honeymoon.

" Task Force members are diverse, not only in their interests but also in their past experience in, and preparation for, collaboration.

" That the process will not be adequately disciplined and decisive. Insufficient momentum would risk losing key participants and even cause the process to founder; especially if FERC should lift the stay for lack of timely progress.

" That we will make decisions without first understanding and validating the science behind river management requirements or the economics of PSE’s position. It would be a big error to come to an agreement only to discover serious flaws during implementation.

" That the process will be over-facilitated and not be flexible enough to adjust to the changing dynamics of the group as it evolves over the coming months.

" That the process will get "touchy-feely" and we’ll waste time "getting back to the 60s."

" That the process will get too legalistic and that the lawyers will gain control.

" That it is hard to make decisions in plenary sessions of the full task force.

" That committees may become a barrier to communications in the same way that a functional organizational structure often erects "silos" that become barriers to multi-disciplined creativity.

" That the resource agencies—NMFS, USF&W, WAFW—will be rigid in their positions and not participate fully.

" That NMFS will negotiate outside of the collaborative process.

" That the resource agencies do not consider the costs and benefits of their requirements.

" That PSE and the fish resource agencies are narrowly-focused on the FERC process and may not explore broader issues and potential solutions.

" Some expressed concern about PSE’s motives and intentions. Among the reasons given for these concerns were:

" That PSE did not inform the public of the problem in a timely manner.

" That PSE may be just working for delay to postpone having to comply with new instream flows, while lessening negative public relations from ultimately retiring from the project.

" That PSE has made money on the project for years while deferring maintenance and reinvestment; now turning to the public to subsidize its future project costs.

" That PSE may be just working to turn public pressure against the fish resource agencies.

" That PSE could get us all to sweeten the economics of the project, then turn around and sell it.

" That PSE has not been clear about its intent: Explained on the one hand that new corporate policy is to divest itself of generating assets, yet states on the other hand that it is indifferent whether or not it continues to own the White River Project. Does PSE want to stay or go?

" Many credit PSE for installing the state-of-the-art fish screen on the diversion channel.

" That the Corps of Engineers should take greater responsibility for the adverse effects of Mud Mountain Dam on the White River fish habitat. That its mission and responsibility must be broadened to encompass fish habitat on the rivers on which it operates.

" That there is some baggage between PSE officials and those of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife concerning the process for determining interim measures during the stay of the FERC appeals. As one participant put it, "Some healing will be necessary."

" That environmental interests are under-represented on the Task Force.

" That tribal interests are under-represented on the Task Force.

" That some stakeholders may negotiate behind the scenes, outside of the collaborative process, without the knowledge or sanction of the Task Force.

" That several stakeholders are still looking for blame and expect others to solve the problem, without yet understanding that they need to contribute to a solution.

" That it may be difficult for the Task Force to implement an agreement unless it communicates frequently and effectively with external stakeholders, especially homeowners.

" That some elected officials may undermine the process by posturing to the press and/or fomenting distrust among their constituents. Or, may be focused more on who gets the credit (or blame) than contributing collaboratively toward finding a solution.

" That it is unclear whether or not the FERC appeal record is closed during the pendency of the stay.

" That if anyone has veto power, the odds of success are slim.

" That we do not yet have a common and well-understood process for collaboration.

" That someone will file a lawsuit and scuttle the collaborative process before it has a chance to work.

" Preservation of Lake Tapps for residential and recreational enjoyment.

" Preserving and restoring fish habitat in the White River.

" Preserving property values and tax base for vital public services.

" Future economic viability of the White River Hydroelectric Project.

" PSE’s financial gap between its costs and revenues on the White River Project: How reliable are PSE’s numbers and analysis? What costs would PSE face in order to retire the project?

" If PSE leaves, who will pay to maintain the lake system?

" How to attach $value to other possible lake benefits: Recreation, views, flood control, etc.

"

" Need for a tail race barrier or some other means to protect fish from the tail race.

" Is there a Bull Trout issue here?

" Mud Mountain Dam adverse fish habitat impacts. Corps of Engineer’s responsibility for restoring fish habitat.

" Are we protecting native or hatchery salmon?

" Does the current state of biological sciences support the instream flow and flow management requirements imposed by the resource agencies?

" Are the interim measures for instream flows, etc. appropriately set? How will compliance with these measures be enforced? How will the effects of these flows on fish and PSE’s hydroelectric operations be monitored?

" Wildlife habitat preservation and restoration along the bypass reach of the river.

" What is known about possible interconnections between Lake Tapps and nearby aquifers and springs?

" Domestic water resources: Current and future shortages. Opportunities.

" Water resource recovery opportunities from wastewater treatment to contribute water to instream flows.

" Water rights: PSE’s current rights? Transferability of such rights to others?

" That the solution be practical and be readily implemented; e.g., not get bogged down in protracted state water rights debates.

" The financial viability of PSE’s White River Hydroelectric Project. PSE’s analysis indicates that the cost to operate the power plant is greater than the amount of revenues it receives for the power generated. As a private, regulated company, PSE is unable to continue operating the project at a loss, effectively subsidizing other uses of the lake.

" PSE’s shareholders’ have an interest in a fair return on their investments.

" Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) will not allow a regulated utility like PSE to recover its net losses on a project by raising rates to its customers.

" Because PSE’s service area provides its base of customers (ratepayers), any reduction of its service area would reduce corporate sales revenues. Therefore, PSE has a strong interest in keeping its service area intact and without reduction.

" It is important to PSE to maintain good relations with the public throughout its service area, as well as to maintain positive relations with the regulatory agencies that have jurisdiction over its operations.

" Most have an interest in saving the lake for views, open space, recreation and to preserve property values. Lakefront homeowners have a much greater interest in preserving shoreline enjoyment and property values that do those who own upland property. Recreation is, of course, of greater value to those who use the lake for recreation, and may have noise and privacy impacts on lakefront residents.

" That the level of the lake be maintained year round; or at least most of the year with annual draw down as necessary to control weeds, etc.

" Homeowner interests are also diverse with respect to varying financial means and future residential plans.

" Long time homeowners who plan to stay may have a greater interest in a long-term solution.

" Homeowners who want to sell and leave are, perhaps, less interested in, or willing to contribute to, a long-term solution; especially one that would add an obligation on a potential purchaser. Some expressed frustration that the uncertainty over the future of the lake has effectively stalled sale of their property, putting their personal plans on hold. These homeowners are particularly anxious to get this resolved soon.

" New homeowners who just learned of the problem are concerned that their new investment may have less value that they expected. Thus, their primary interest is to recover their value, rather than to accept further obligations.

" Elderly homeowners on fixed incomes, already feeling the strain of rising property valuations and taxes, are fearful that the Lake Tapps collaboration could heighten their financial burdens.

" Preservation and restoration of habitat for fish and wildlife.

" Recovery to a self-sustaining and naturally spawning population of anadromous fish; especially Puget Sound Chinook Salmon.

" Recreational fishing.

" Commercially productive fish resources.

" Preservation of wildlife habitat and corridors along the White River.

" Improvement of water quality in the White River.

" Assistance in fulfilling their responsibilities under state and federal laws.

" Lasting solutions to the current dilemma at Lake Tapps and the White River that will withstand scientifically rigorous analysis to meet the long-term biological necessities of the fish.

" Flood control to protect life and property in the Puyallup River Valley and City of Tacoma.

" Preservation or replacement of the fish trap at the PSE diversion dam used by the Corps to transport returning fish above Mud Mountain Dam, the Corps’ flood control dam on the upper White River.

" Assisting their constituents to satisfy their interests through the Lake Tapps collaboration.

" An open and fair process in which all ideas are solicited, respected and examined.

" Preserving the quality of life enjoyed by their citizens, including the natural environment, recreational and residential enjoyment, as well as economic security.

" Preserving tax base that supports services to their constituents.

" Preserving existing domestic water resources that may be affected by the loss of Lake Tapps.

" Examining opportunities to deliver future sewer, water and electrical energy services to their constituents at the lowest possible cost.

" Preserving local control and influence over the outcome.

" Preserving and enhancing the relationships among the stakeholders.

" A lasting and equitable solution.

" Assuring adequate future domestic water resources.

The interests expressed by mayors, city and county council members, and the Pierce County Executive are summarized above. Other elected officials have also expressed their interests in

" A fair and open process of collaboration.

" That all voices be heard.

" That all ideas be sought out, welcomed and considered.

" That the process be continuously creative and avoid focusing on a single agenda.

 

Puyallup Tribe (The Muckleshoot Tribe has not yet been interviewed.)

" Preservation and enhancement of fish resource habitat in the Puyallup River. (receiving waters of the White River.)

" Uncertainty about the process and their proper role in light of their current agreement with PSE.

" Willingness to assist the Task Force; especially with fish biological information and analysis.

" Preserve property values.

" Remove the uncertainty from the Lake Tapps real estate market.

" Assure that solutions do not place a disproportionate burden on homeowners.

 

Special Districts (Fire, Schools, etc.)

" Protection of property tax base in the Lake Tapps area upon which these districts depend in order to continue to provide public services.

" Assuring sufficient water pressure for fighting fires.

" General interest in the quality of services available in their communities.

" Preservation of the recreational and social activities provided by Lake Tapps.

 

Ideas (This is an unprioritized list of ideas that came up in our interviews.)

" Corps of Engineers take over the diversion dam and fish trap. Operating Lake Tapps as part of basin flood control system to compensate for degraded capacity of White River reach between Mud Mountain Dam and the Puyallup River.

" Make more effective use of Mud Mountain Dam to manage flows.

" Create a Lake Tapps Trust Fund to receive contributions from a recreational district to help fill PSE’s white River revenue gap.

" Examine which operating costs imposed by the FERC license are appropriate obligations of a private corporation and which would be more appropriately functions of a public entity; e.g. the boat program.

" Add a 5MW generator at the base of the Lake Tapps diversion flume (enclosed portion) to provide additional revenues.

" Seek a public entity to take over for PSE on the White River. This may involve annexation or incorporation of Lake Tapps areas, and could potentially encompass other utility services and recreation.

" Amend state law to

" Provide a means to license a generation project that costs more to operate than it returns in revenues.

" Broaden transferability of water rights under unique and beneficial circumstances.

" Authorize an entity to acquire the system.

" Divert some White River to consumptive use (domestic water supply) and use some of the new water revenues to help close the PSE White River revenue gap.

" Recover water to help make up instream flows from advanced wastewater treatment.

" Drill wells to feed Lake Tapps.

" Fund this and other salmon recovery programs through general taxation. (A tax on purchase of salmon?).

" Develop a Lake Tapps salmon recovery program consisting of steps that area residents can take to help restore habitat.

 

" The Task Force has already made a good start and is clearly motivated to engage in a collaborative process. It is also clear that most, if not all, task force members are interested both in seeking solutions that will save the lake and the fish. It also seems clear that task force members wish to move forward quickly and do not want to get bogged down in process details.

" Laying a firm foundation for a productive group effort is also critical. This involves the work plan including the ground rules, as well as training in collaborative problem solving.

" In our experience, these two process-oriented steps are critical to achieving results as the group enters into deeper levels of discussion. A number of interviewees were concerned that the group is still in the "honeymoon" phase and is sure to encounter harder times ahead. Following any "honeymoon" is the hard work of a successful relationship. And, as with any good relationship, it is critical that the task force members develop a clear and shared understanding of the ground rules and the collaborative methods they have agreed to use.

" Task Force facilitation should, therefore, work in parallel to support the urgency to get on with solutions, while at the same time conducting training in the collaborative process to bring all members to a common level of preparation and understanding of the collaborative process most likely to enable the group to reach an acceptable agreement.



" Each stakeholder is encouraged to study and make a personal commitment to the work plan and ground rules.

Save Lake Tapps Coalition
© 1999