Why pull the plug on Alaska water law?

Like people all across Alaska, I’m looking ahead to another summer of salmon. Nothing brings Alaskans together like the return of the salmon, a high point in our year.

Today, Alaska is home to the last best salmon runs on Earth. But what about the future? True, salmon are running strong in certain locales in Alaska, most notably in Bristol Bay. Yet the long-term outlook in many Alaska waters raises a lot of questions.

This is why many are alarmed by a pending proposal from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources to quietly change important state water rules governing lakes and rivers across Alaska, including a push to weaken instream flow protection. Whether it be habitat for fish, drinking water, or a river transportation route, Alaska’s flowing waters sustain life in more ways than one.

The Alaska Legislature knew this when, more than 40 years ago, it wisely updated state water law to include protection for instream flows. Alaska’s leaders had the benefit of being able to look back at the history of Lower 48 water policy, particularly in the American West, and see that in too many cases, too many people had too many claims on too many rivers. More claims than there was water.

The Alaska Legislature had a different idea: measure first, then allocate water — not the other way around. The Legislature also allowed entities such as tribes, nonprofits, businesses and individuals, in public-private partnership, to act in the public interest and reserve what are called “instream flow rights.” That is, reserve a portion of a river’s flow — not all of it — to ensure towns have healthy drinking water, boats have a reliable water route, and fish have enough water during the sensitive early freshwater stages of their wondrous life journey.

The idea of applying for instream flow rights may be new to many, but the reasons are clear. Alaska DNR instructions to applicants on its own website put it this way: “You should apply if you want to ensure that a lake level or stream flow will be available when and where you and the public need it for specific instream or lake level use.”

With this in mind it is unclear why the Alaska DNR would propose a rule change that ignores the good commonsense decisions made by the Alaska Legislature all those decades ago. And, only seven years ago, after a tremendous outpouring of support for smart water policy, the Legislature voted down HB 77, an effort similar to the current DNR proposal.

Especially concerning is an apparent attempt to shut the door on federally recognized tribes that choose to participate in the instream flow reservation process. This has been proposed without any formal tribal consultation — which is required by law.

While current state regulations governing instream flow may have their flaws, they allow for what the Legislature intended. For example, in 2017, the Department of Natural Resources commissioner signed off on an application from The Nature Conservancy, or TNC, to protect baseline minimum water flows in Lower Talarik Creek, a blue-ribbon trout stream and arguably one of the world’s most prized fishing destinations. (This is the first, and still the only, instream flow reservation held by a nonprofit.) The primary beneficiaries of this instream flow right are Alaskans, who can expect to see fish thrive in Lower Talarik Creek for generations to come. TNC, tribes and other nonprofits have applications pending on instream flow reservations on reaches of rivers, including the Koktuli, Mulchatna and Stuyahok — all important salmon waters in Alaska.

In closing, DNR’s proposal to weaken critical instream flow protection, officially titled “Proposed Changes Regarding Water in the Regulation of the Department of Natural Resources,” and first posted to the DNR website Jan. 16, has seen little public review. There has been just one comment period, and DNR made no modifications to these poorly conceived proposed changes after comments to them were made. Fortunately, the House Fisheries Committee has called a legislative hearing where this can be reviewed on May 13 at 10 a.m. Without a public forum like this, few would even know these major rule changes had been proposed.

There is a lot at stake here: Maintaining a proud legacy of salmon sustaining people and the communities we love is worth our best efforts. Keeping the commonsense measures we already have in place ought to be the easy part.

Steve Cohn is Alaska state director for The Nature Conservancy.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.