My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Water Management Symposium 1994 Report
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Water Management Symposium 1994 Report
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2010 1:13:31 PM
Creation date
7/15/2010 2:02:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Endangered Species Act: Fisheries
State
AK
CA
CO
AZ
KS
ID
MT
NE
NM
NV
ND
OK
OR
SD
TX
UT
WA
WY
Date
10/5/1994
Author
Western States Water Council, Western Governors' Association, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Title
Water Management Symposium 1994 Report
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
330
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
i. ESA Impacts on State Water Management <br />is <br />Martha Pagel, Director of the Oregon Water Resources Department, initiated an overview of <br />ESA impacts on states' water management. She stressed the uncertainties which ESA <br />administration brings to state water management responsibilities. The first area of uncertainty <br />involves implications of the ESA for existing water rights holders: who decides; when is it <br />decided; and how much water is affected? The second area concerns evaluations of the public <br />interest and federal compliance: how are water administrators to know if granting a water right <br />will impede species' recovery? Third, she expressed concerns over the roles and responsibilities <br />of state agencies in compliance with state and federal law: who decides on particular issues what <br />should be done? Finally, she cited uncertainties over how state authorities interact with federal <br />agencies. Ms. Pagel indicated that the ESA can serve as a useful catalyst in bringing people <br />together to address a variety of challenges. In this context, she discussed Oregon's establishment <br />of public interest standards. Working groups have been created with representatives from user <br />groups, public interest entities and state agencies. Voluntary watershed -based councils have also <br />been created to deal with problems under a round table approach involving many state agencies. <br />Two pilot watershed programs for areas subject to federal listings are being developed for <br />multispecies management, which Oregon hopes will be recognized as Habitat Conservation Plans <br />(HCPs). Ms. Pagel also discussed Oregon's instream flow standards, stating that the minimum <br />levels authorized won't meet long -term needs and that the state is now therefore trying to <br />establish higher minimum instream flow standards. <br />Bob Potter, Chief Deputy Director of the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR), <br />next described major water supply impacts of the ESA on California's State Water Project. As <br />the only state in the nation which owns and operates a major water project (the California State <br />Water Project), California has experienced ESA implementation from the perspective of the <br />regulated community as well as from the perspective of ESA impacts on statewide water <br />management and planning. Federal intervention in California water management has completely <br />changed the fragile consensus which had existed with respect to meeting future water supply <br />needs, and has resulted in federal biologists dictating water project operations on a day -to -day <br />basis, he said.' The ESA's regulatory gridlock in the Bay -Delta has prevented CDWR from <br />moving forward with proposed solutions to meet future water supply needs. CDWR has had <br />numerous difficulties with federal ESA administration relative to aquatic species, including very <br />weak science, and the propensity of the regulatory agencies to focus their efforts on water project <br />' The supplemental section to these proceedings documents examples of ESA <br />implementation issues in California described in testimony from a 1993 field hearing held by the <br />House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, Environment and Natural Resources <br />Subcommittee. The included testimony of the Governor, the Director of California's Department <br />of Water Resources, and the President of a local water district, discusses needed changes to the <br />ESA, impacts of the ESA on the California State Water Project, and impacts on water supply at <br />the local level. 0 <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.