|
<br />and some court battles, but we are going to lose (he war."
<br />Second, there is a balance of power in the Recovery
<br />Program. Anyone parly has the ability to say "no." With the
<br />Endangered Species Acl, the Service could potentiaUy stop water
<br />development in the Upper Colorado River Basin, On the other
<br />hand, the water users and the states can create so much political
<br />havoc for the process that nothing would happen from the fishes'
<br />standpoinL In addition, there was a lot of fertile legal ground on
<br />both sides of the issue which could bring water development and
<br />fish recovery to a halt. Tbis "balance of power" is a key element
<br />to keeping all the parties at the table.
<br />Another positive factor relates to funding for the recovery
<br />-i effort. When you bring together a federal-stale,private
<br />consortium the money is easier to secure. Congress likes this
<br />kind of program. Instead of bringing them a problem, you are
<br />bringing them a solution. It may cost additional money but, it
<br />also avoids a major confrontation. This is now one of the best-
<br />funded endangered species recovery eIforts in the country.
<br />Another positive force is that in bringing together this kind
<br />of coa1ition~-environmental groups, power interests, water
<br />interests, federal and state agencies--a synergy develops. The
<br />states and private parties can do things that the federal agencies
<br />can't do (and vice versa). The environmental and water,
<br />development community can provide political support. A definite
<br />synergistic effect is produced creating an environment that makes
<br />it possible to implement the kinds of changes that are necessary
<br />to recover natural ecosystems.
<br />. Other positives were present as well. It is hard under this
<br />kind of formal arrangement for anybody to quit. We instituted an
<br />appeal process that establishes at least a six months wait for
<br />anyone who wants to walk away. They have to get two
<br />committees' and the Governor's/Secretary of the Interior's
<br />approval before they can quit. So, there is a real incentive for
<br />people to stay at the table. I think that is one of the key
<br />advantages of having high levels of support for the Program.
<br />Finally, this kind of program provides due process for
<br />everybody--it gives everybody a voice. It sets up committees and
<br />gives everybody a chance to have input. We operate by
<br />consensus-'we don't do anything unless we all agree. That has
<br />forced us to learn to accept and appreciate other people's
<br />perspectives and take those perspectives seriously in whatever
<br />negotiations we have.
<br />But there are negative factors acting as barriers to the
<br />success of the effort. One negative factor relates to technical
<br />uncertainties. It still is not clear what it is going to take to
<br />recover these fish. The fish are very difficult to study and are
<br />hard to find. Because it is difficult to know "ith certainty what
<br />needs to be done there is a lot of risk involved. It is hard to get
<br />the Bureau of Reclamation to agree to reoperate their dam and
<br />risk losing $5 million a year in power revenues when there is
<br />limited hard data to support the request. Likewise, the State of
<br />Colorado is reluctant to appropriate and protect a million acre-
<br />feet of water in the Yampa River when there is technical
<br />uncertainty about the biological data.
<br />There is also uncertainty on the water development side. The
<br />states don't have a good handle on where or when they are going
<br />to develop their water, including what tributaries are going to get
<br />developed, The purpose of the Recovery Program is to recover
<br />
<br />3
<br />
<br />the fish while water development goes forward, It is hard to
<br />make decisions when you don't know quite what it takes to
<br />recover the fish or where/when waler is going to be
<br />developed. These technical uncertainties act to delay actions
<br />needed to recover the fish. Without timely action, there is a
<br />real danger the fish could become extinct.
<br />Also, at an institutional level or persooallevel, there is
<br />something that we refer to as a "technical cultural clash" that
<br />exists as a result of bringing dilferent disciplines together.
<br />Engineers and biologists, for instance, often don't undersrand
<br />each othernthey frequently look at the world differently. An
<br />engineer is used to looking at things in deterministic ways":
<br />if you want to build a bridge, you develop a step,down
<br />outline, all the data is laid out, you have equations, you plug
<br />in numbers, and you get specific answers. When you are
<br />dealing with natural ecosystems, you are talking about
<br />biological theory and ecological principles, probabilities of
<br />occurrence, professional judgements, and those kinds of
<br />things. That kind of talk drives engineers up the waiL There
<br />is a need to have better communication between those
<br />different disciplines. How to bridge that gap is a real
<br />chaUenge.
<br />Even though we have a cooperative agreement saying we
<br />are all cooperators there is still a Jot, of underlying distrust
<br />among participants. We have a long history of fighting each
<br />other--and there are a lot of people that have a hard time
<br />forgelling that. For example, some people within the Fish
<br />and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation have a
<br />history of fighting each other. Some of the water developers
<br />are suspicious that some of the participants don't care abouf
<br />water development needs; or vice versa--the water
<br />developers don't care aboul the fish. It takes time to
<br />overcome those perceptions (or realities). It may require
<br />certain people to leave or die, and commissions to be
<br />replaced.
<br />Another negative force is Colorado's water law. Some
<br />people believe that Colorado's water law system is archaic.
<br />In this state, when there is a problem in this arena, it is
<br />common practice to go to court to resolve the issue. We are
<br />trying to solve these problems in a cooperative manner, but
<br />frequently we are challenged legally whenever we make a
<br />move. For example, the State of Colorado recently filed for
<br />a water right and several people objected to it. Now we have
<br />to go court and resolve those disputes. This adversarial
<br />approach doesn't lend itself to this kind of adaptive
<br />management, negotiated-type of settlement.
<br />We are probably going to have to make new law in
<br />order to successfully implement this program. This will bring
<br />in the whole political system, including the State Legislature,
<br />which tends to be very conservative. II will be a major
<br />challenge to enact laws necessary to address some of these
<br />ecosystems issues in a timely and effecLive manner.
<br />Also, the lack of grass roots suPPOrt is another big
<br />problem. The Colorado River endangered fish are nOt
<br />"charismatic" mega,fauna like grizzly bears and eagles, In
<br />fact, they are commonly regarded as trash fish in lot of rural
<br />areas of Ihe West. It is hard to implement real change On
<br />behalf of these fish "ithout public support. For example, you
<br />
|