8001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

for fish, wildlife, and recreation is legislative reform. Such reform can come at either the state or federal levels. Let's look first at the state level. In a number of states, recreation and tourism have assumed an unprecedented role in fueling the state economy. With economic transformation comes momen- tum to change the predominant sway that agriculture and livestock grazing have held in water policy. It is now common wisdom to predict a gradual increase in legal recognition of instream-flow needs for fish, wildlife, and tourism. A number of strategies are available to accelerate legal recognition of instream-flow needs for fish, wildlife, and recreation. First, resource valuation is now an accepted subdisci- pline of economic analysis. To be successful, however, resource valuation must look beyond immediate impacts, such as increasing sales of fishing licenses and tackle, and address secondary benefits to tourism and commerce on a statewide or regional level. Second, coalition-building among sometimes disparate interests is an often necessary predicate to success in the legislative arena. Effective participation in a coalition requires that each coalition member know as precisely as possible its desired outcome. Successful coalitions do as much internal negotiation as they do external advocacy. In the instream-flow context, coalitions involving Native American tribes, conservation organizations, and recreation interests are becoming increasingly prevalent. Some problems remain, however. Whitewater rafters and fish conservationists need to be more flexible and work harder to overcome their differences. Third, bear in mind that compensating losers is often necessary for success in the legislative arena. Don't be afraid to support appropriations for irrigators to assist in making the adjustment necessary to live with less water. Use of resource valuation and coalition building for instream-flow enhancement is really no different from advocacy for any other cause. In most states, instream-flow advocates have attempted to secure passage of minimum- flow and water-reservation legislation and will continue to do so. With the economic and social transformation of the West, we can expect better prospects for success than has been the case in the past, but don't look for radical change anytime soon. In addition to seeking legislation, instream-flow advo- cates should look to the initiative and referendum process. A number of state constitutions provide a process for citizen ballot initiatives. Such initiatives would be a more expeditious means of directing state agencies to develop biologically and recreationally friendly minimum instream flows. On the federal level, there is one statute of more or less general jurisdiction, which offers some hope. The Clean Water Act, which is up for reauthorization, could be a useful tool for effecting water-law reform throughout the West. Currently, the Act expressly prohibits EPA from altering water allocations under state law. Nevertheless, fish, wildlife, and recreation enhancements are central to the Act's purpose. Under Section 303, EPA reviews state water-quality standards for compliance with the Clean Water Act. In one case, EPA has taken up the cause of instream flows. EPA Region 9 and the California Water Resources Control Board are engaged in a debate over flow standards for the Sacra- mento River, which EPA argues are necessary for saving the delta smelt and the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook. With proper guidance from Congress, states could begin incorporating fish habitat-based instream flow standards in their water-quality standards. This is already under way in Maine, Vermont, and Washington state. What is necessary, however, is for Congress to clarify state authority to do so. 39