Laserfiche WebLink
Revised: 7/26/2007 <br />frameworks (Institutional Analysi s and Development, Advocacy Coalition <br />Framework, and a framework for understanding the role of social capital); 4) to <br />provide guidance to agency managers about how they might assist local <br />partnerships; and 5) to identify which watershed characteristics are most <br />amenable to rehabilitation. <br /> <br />The work of Leach and Pelkey under WWP has examined what makes <br />partnerships work and the social and environmental factors that promote new <br />partnership formations. See http://wpp.uc davis.edu/ . <br /> <br />White, M. D. The Lower Colorado River Multi - Species Conservation Program . Ogden <br />Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc. [online] <br />http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/salton/L owerColoradoRiverMSCP.html . <br />This paper describes the institutional framework of the MSCP. <br /> <br />Zanetell, B. A. Consensus - based Collaboration in Watershed Management: Quixotic <br />Notion or the Environmental Pot of Gold? Human Dimensions research Unit, Departmen t <br />of Natural Resources, Cornell University. HDRU Series No. 01 - 3. <br />This report examines the appropriateness of stakeholder collaboration in natural <br />resource management with the intent of clarifying both the potential benefits and <br />risks involved. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Intersta te Compact and International Negotiation Literature <br /> <br />Copas, D. N. 1997. The southeastern water compact, panacea or pandora’s box? A law <br />and economics analysis of the viability of interstate water compacts . William and Mary <br />Environmental Law and Policy Revi ew, 21: 697. <br />The paper applies economic theory to interstate compacts. Under this analysis, <br />federal - interstate water compacts emerge as the most logical choice for solving <br />interstate water conflicts. The paper also argues for a compact commission to be <br />e stablished in order to achieve flexibility. The compacts examined in this paper <br />include: the Colorado River Compact, the Upper Colorado River Compact, the <br />Rio Grande Compact, the Delaware River Basin Compact, and the Southeastern <br />Water Compact. <br /> <br />Featherst one, J. P. 2001. The national water crisis: A great lakes response symposium: <br />Existing interstate compacts: The law and the lessons . Toledo Journal of Great Lakes’ <br />Law, Science, and Policy. 4: 271. <br />This paper examines four approaches to resolving interstat e water conflicts. <br />These include litigation in the Supreme Court, interstate water compacts, informal <br />associations, and federal - interstate compacts. It examines the benefits and <br />drawbacks to these approaches. The paper also outlines the structure of typ ical <br />compacts, and examines concepts of federalism in interstate compacts. It argues <br />that the lack of direct federal participation in compacts limits their usefulness and <br />3 <br />