Environmental group seeks to join state in PUD's condemnation suit

By Marcy Stamper
    Claiming that by seeking to condemn state land, the Okanogan County Public Utility District has bypassed the process the state uses to evaluate easements on public lands, an environmental organization has filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit.
    Conservation Northwest, an organization that works to protect wildlife habitat, is seeking to become a party in the condemnation suit on behalf of the Washington Department of Natural Resources. The group’s mission includes ensuring that state lands held in trust for future generations are sustainably managed in an environmentally protective manner, according to the motion.
    “[Commissioner of Public Lands] Peter Goldmark was making a good-faith effort to address the easement request when the PUD unilaterally made a decision to sue,” said David Werntz, Conservation Northwest’s science and conservation director. “He was doing his duty and we want to support him.”
    Werntz said the case has important ramifications for future decision-making as utilities and the state strive to balance increasing needs for power delivery with environmental protection and the economic viability of lands held in the public trust.
    “We’re motivated to engage because there are significant hidden costs with the PUD’s plans,” said Werntz, who said he was concerned about the fragmentation of the largest block of state-owned shrub-steppe mule deer habitat in the Methow. Building new roads for the powerline would also increase erosion, the risk of fire and noxious weeds. Additional sediment in the Methow River would have a negative impact on salmon, he said.
    “DNR was asking the PUD reasonable but tough questions in considering the PUD’s easement application,” according to the motion.
    “CNW fully supports DNR’s decision in this case to demand that a utility that seeks to develop state trust lands explain in careful detail what they are proposing to do, how they are going to do it, and what, if any, impact those actions would have on both the value of the state trust lands themselves and the environment generally,” the group states in the motion.
    In the past, Conservation Northwest has filed legal action against DNR to prevent the agency from clear-cutting large tracts of forest, which they contended would have threatened water quality and forest productivity. These actions have resulted in the development of forest-management plans that preserve habitat while ensuring DNR has adequate resources to finance its trust obligations to schools, according to the motion.
    While Conservation Northwest maintains that the PUD’s preferred Pateros-Twisp route would cause environmental harm in the area, the thrust of their motion advocates time for an adequate review process and the opportunity to impose mitigations to accommodate a powerline right-of-way.
    “Forcing the PUD to obtain an easement instead of condemning the State’s land would also permit DNR to impose appropriate mitigation conditions that DNR deems necessary to prevent environmental harm or harm to the State’s trust property,” according to the motion.
    “If political sub-divisions of the State, like the PUD in this case, have the right via eminent domain to condemn these lands simply because they do not like the way their easement application process is going or do not agree with a State agency easement decision, it will weaken the ability of state environmental laws and DNR to protect its public trust lands,” the group argues.
    The 20-year-old organization, with 7,000 members, mostly from Washington, notes that it has a history of participating in legal and policy battles to protect and connect habitat for fish, wildlife and plants and to defend the interests of Washington residents.
    The group has been active in the transmission line matter since it was proposed in 1997, identifying environmental concerns about the location of the transmission line in its comments for the environmental impact statement on the project, according to the motion.
    Individuals and organizations who demonstrate they represent an interest not covered by parties already involved in a lawsuit may move to intervene, according to an attorney familiar with the case. The strategy is commonly used by industry and conservation groups in environmental lawsuits, he said.
    A judge will weigh the group’s claims about the relevance of its interests. If the motion is granted, Conservation Northwest would have the same status as the other parties to the lawsuit – the PUD, the state and private property owners – and would have the right to present briefs and arguments to the court. The existing parties in the suit have the right to oppose the motion.
    Aaron Toso, Goldmark’s director of communications and outreach, said Goldmark had no comment on Conservation Northwest’s request to intervene.
    Attorneys for the state of Washington have requested a change of venue to Thurston County, where DNR is headquartered, as well as a continuance for additional time in the case.
    A hearing on the motion to intervene and on DNR’s requests has been set for Tuesday (Jan. 19) at 9:30 a.m. in Okanogan County Superior Court. A hearing on public use and necessity in the eminent domain filing is scheduled for two days later.

Photo from the MV News archives