WSP11889 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 don't get very far telling people Ihal sport fish will nol be stocked anymore, Ihat they are going to have to pay a bigger power bill, or that they may not have as good trout fishing in a river anymore because a dam's operation has been changed, especially when Ihey don'l fundamentally believe that saving endangered fish is a high priority. If this program is 10 be successful there needs to be a lot of education directed at building public support. Also, while the'Endangered Species Acllends a sense of urgency for solving the problem, il can also be an obstacle. Yet, a big water project comes in and has to be consulted on in 90 days, So, there is always the threat that if we don't make this process work, one evenl could come along and blow it all apart. One of the major players could walk out and thai would lead everybody else to quit 100. The fmal negative factor is cost. When we started out, we expected the program to cost about $50 million over fifteen years. Recent projeclions say that it could cost about $130 million to recover these fish. Where do you get that kind of money when the nalional focus is on reducing federal spending? That is a big question. Certainly if we don't get the money, the best laid plans will never be implemented. In summary, the Colorado River Recovery Program is a very interesting model. It's being touted in Washington as a model that needs to be applied in other parts of the country. It may be portrayed during the current reauthorization hearings for the Endangered Species Act as an alternative way of doing business, Whether it works or not will depend on how the negative factors or forces that I describe above are addressed. 2 Larry MacDonnell was another panel member on the Endangered Species/Habitat Protection Panel. His talk is available as Working Paper 93-11. 3 Curt Brown was another panel member on the Endangered Species/Habitat Protection Panel. His talk is available as Working Paper 93,13.