State Supreme Court candidate's environmental pitch challenged

By Maureen O'Hagan
Seattle Times staff reporter

Jim Johnson is running for a spot on the state Supreme Court.

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

So when local environmentalists saw Johnson's Web site for his Washington Supreme Court campaign — in which he portrays himself as an environmental crusader — they cried foul.

"For him to claim that he's a friend of the environment is analogous to claiming that cows can fly," said Bruce Gryniewski, executive director of Washington Conservation Voters. "If you just look at his campaign contributions, that's really a telling story."

Exhibit A, according to Gryniewski? The Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) contributed $95,000 to Johnson's campaign. Most state Supreme Court candidates don't raise that much from all their donors combined.

"BIAW represents those people who build at the expense of environmental protections," Gryniewski said. "They're the strongest opposition to the environment in our state Legislature."

Because of this, a number of environmental groups say they're supporting Mary Kay Becker, Johnson's opponent.

But Johnson said the environmental groups have him all wrong.

"They have a short memory," he said. "I'm dismayed because I did many of the environmental cases over the years."

He believes he got an "unfair rap" as anti-environmental in a previous bid for the Supreme Court, in 2002, which is why he devotes so much space to the issue on his home page.

As an assistant attorney general from 1973 to 1993, Johnson represented state agencies on numerous cases affecting the environment, including some involving nuclear-power plants and dam construction, the biggest issues of the time.

For example, he represented the state Department of Fish and Wildlife in opposing a proposal to build a nuclear-power plant on the Skagit River. Lawyer Roger Leed, who represented citizen opponents of the plant, said they would not have been successful without the support of scientists Johnson enlisted to testify.
 
Johnson also said he criminally prosecuted a timber company for violating its permit and was responsible for the cases that set the stage for the planned removal of the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams on the Elwha River, among other environmental accomplishments.

"I will compare my record to any one of those people who are now pretty much come-lately in their theories about environmental protection," he said.

Leed, who has spent more than 30 years on environmental cases, agreed that one can't discount Johnson's work early in his career. "He's not some troglodyte. He was representing the Department of Fisheries and he wasn't trying to sabotage things. He was doing a good job." Leed, however, said that because he disagrees with Johnson in a number of areas, he's supporting Becker.

Indeed, Johnson's most well-known work — as the legal point man for Slade Gorton's fight against Northwest tribes — cost him any hope of support from major environmental groups.

"That's where he got his first credentials as a 'bad guy,' " Leed said, noting that many of the lawyers on Indian cases also work for environmental causes.

And although tribal cases can't always be viewed through the lens of environmental protection, the tribes are "frequently seeking to protect the environment," said Dave Bricklin, an environmental lawyer who has served on the board of numerous green organizations.

Johnson's recent work challenging the listing of salmon as an endangered species is most galling to many environmentalists. A federal judge hearing the case noted that Johnson's side encompasses the "interests ... of builders, realtors, farmers, and cattlemen aggrieved by what they consider the over-protection of salmon habitat."

Johnson's argument: Salmon in several Northwest rivers were improperly listed as threatened or endangered.

The problem, he said, is that environmental authorities failed to properly count hatchery fish along with their wild counterparts.

If they all were counted, salmon on these rivers would not get U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections. And if salmon weren't listed, all the money being spent on them could go to the "other critters that need more help."

An opposing counsel in the lawsuit, Kristen Boyles, an attorney for Earthjustice, said Johnson's argument is at odds with the scientific experts she consulted. "Mr. Johnson currently represents anti-salmon-protection sources," she said.

But Johnson doesn't see his positions as contradictory. Property rights, he said, can co-exist with environmental protections; salmon can thrive without ESA protection.

According to his campaign manager, Alex Hays, Johnson is an environmentalist of a different breed, one whose family has long roots in this area.

"A lot of the new folks that come here are drawn by a different environmental ethic, an environmental ethic that doesn't comprehend a Jim Johnson environmental ethic," he said. "It's really sad."

Maureen O'Hagan: 206-464-2562 or mohagan@seattletimes.com