Show us the water

For all of the giddy optimism of the Columbia River plan that sailed through the Legislature and across the governor's desk, success will be determined by results that do no harm.

A new management scheme for Columbia River water built around conservation and improved storage is an improbable piece of legislation to pass the Senate unanimously and clear the House with only four dissenting votes. Decades of wrangling between Washington lawmakers across the Cascades ended with agricultural communities, environmental interests and resource managers able to describe a new vision of the future, one negotiator said.

Longstanding tensions over providing adequate water for agriculture and leaving enough water in streams for fish, especially in low-water years, were settled with a two-thirds, one-third split — a division that formally recognizes the needs of salmon and steelhead.

Central to the new thinking is a $200 million commitment by the state to improve existing reservoirs and invest in new conservation projects. Gov. Christine Gregoire's infusion of cash is credited with bringing intense discussions to a swift, workable close.

Longer term, there are great expectations for new, massive reservoirs in Eastern Washington. A study released in December listed 11 potential sites, many with price tags that topped $1 billion. Washington could do none of this alone.

This is when regional salesmanship of a larger Columbia Basin view — getting other states to see the value and share the costs — and the reality of federal budget deficits begin to cramp the dream.

An unknown element is how this plan might fit into federal work on a new biological opinion for the main stem of the Columbia and operation of the federal hydro system.

Water storage is a topic that only gets hotter as the combination of climate change, declining snowpacks, conservation demands, population growth and agricultural needs all compete for a scarce resource.

This legislation has all the appearances of a historic breakthrough, but the final deal came together quickly. Cool-headed critics, such as The Center for Environmental Law & Policy, said a close reading of the bill does not match the hype about what will actually be accomplished for fish and in-stream resources.

Informed skeptics ought to be embraced so that a good idea can be made to work. Central to the bill is a requirement for analysis of alternatives to big investments. Unanswered questions only invite legal challenges.

Lawmakers drawn to the balance ascribed to the legislation need to ensure that is the outcome, and that it works for all — people, fish and agriculture.