Organizing for Endangered and Threatened Species Habitat Draft

Home Browse Search

Agricultural Water Users in Opposition Many agricultural water users also questioned the wisdom of eutering into basin discussions. Their discontent emerged soon after the 1994 pact was signed, but erupted most strongly soon after launching tlie 1997 Cooperative Agreement. Opposition of agriculturalists was different from that of the environmentalists in that, whereas the environmentalists were divided over whether or not to be at the negotiating table, agriculture had its representatives at the table. Governors of the respective states saw to that. Rejectionists in the agricultural water user communities stood in opposition to what they feared their representatives would agree to do. They became most vocal and disruptive in 1997-1.999 after the MOA was signed, after a Governance committee and its advisory committees had been established, at least on paper. Their story will be at least partly addressed in Chapters 15 (science and junk science) and 16 (land habitat). Despite the presence of rejectionists in each of the camps-water user and environmental- - the collaborative process was beginning to work The Babbit and Romer initiative that led to the 1994 agreement to talk was beginning to create a de facto coalition that could hope to provide and manage resources in the critical habitat over the long run. Sideboards, Milestones, and Relief'From Jeopardy By March of 1995 the negotiations had produced a preliminary vision, a rough outline of how a negotiated solution might look (LJ.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1995). Referred to as the "Sideboards Document" it envisioned ESA implementation in a fair and scientifically sound manner, emphasized the use of collaboration in adaptive management, and a comprehensive multi-species approach. It kept the; negotiators tugether, established a history, a justification for talks, and a vision of a direction that negotiators could follow and share with their constituents. The sideboards statement provided an essential vocabulary of concepts that would serve negotiators in the years to follow, iiefining principles for expenditure of federal funds, financial protocols, adaptive management, a route to the construction of a reasonable an prudent alternative that would provide quantities of land and water, and stipulated some essential milestones to be fulfilled, a list of issues yet to be negotiated. Milestones embodied the concept of "sufficient progress" as defined and required by the FWS. As a central component of adaptive management, milestones represent systematic checks on progress, allow adjustment for unforeseen circumstances, and create incremental goals that bring the process closer to the objective-i.e., construction of a viable reasonable and prudent alternative. Milestones would be assessed year by year, state by state, and organization by organization. If sufficient progress was not in evidence, the FWS could threaten to withdraw relief from jeopardy, and re-open any biological opinions that had been issued. Milestones would be negotiated, and employed, in the domains of water, land, research and monitoring, and program governance and administration. A significant concern for states and their water users centered on the possibility of not fulfilling a milestone due to circumstances beyond control, and the resulting consequences of that failure. For example, if budgets and market conditions would only allow acquisition of a portion of required land for habitat, how quick would the FWS be to withdraw the promise of regulatory certainty? Essentially, the FWS service walked a fine line between reasonable flexibility in an 57