WSP01444 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

O'~'. 7~'.~' ",. u" '..' u i .' 1. ESA Impacts on State Water Management fi~~ Martha Pagel, Director of the Oregon Water Resources Department, initiated an overview of ESA impacts on states' water management. She stressed the uncettainties which ESA administration brings to state water management responsibilities.. The first area of uncertainty involves implications of the ESA for existing water rights holders: who decides; when is it decided; and how much water is affected? The second area concerns evaluations of the public interest and federal compliance: how are water administrators to know if granting a water right will impede species' recovery? Third, she expressed concerns over the roles and responsibilities of state agencies in compliance with state and federal law: who decides on particular issues what should be done? Finally, she cited uncertainties over how state authorities interact with federal agencies. Ms. Pagel indicated that the ESA can serve as a useful catalyst in bringing people together to address a variety of challenges. In this context, she discussed Oregon's establishment of public interest standards. Working groups have been created with representatives from user groups, public interest entities and state agencies. Voluntary watershed-based councils have also been created to deal with problems under a round table approach involving many state agencies. Two pilot watershed programs for areas subject to federal listings are being developed for multispecies management, which Oregon hopes will be recognized as Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs). Ms. Pagel also discussed Oregon's instream flow standards, stating that the minimum levels authorized won't meet long-term needs and that the state is now therefore trying to establish higher minimum instream flow standards. Bob Potter, Chief Deputy Director of the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR), next described major water supply impacts of the ESA on California's State Water Project. As the only state in the nation which owns and operates a major water project (the California State Water Project), California has experienced ESA implementation from the perspective of the regulated community as well as from the perspective of ESA impacts on statewide water management and planning. Federal intervention in California water management has completely changed the fragile consensus which had existed with respect to meeting future water supply needs, and has resulted in federal biologists dictating water project operations on a day-to-day basis, he said.2 The ESA's regulatory gridlock in the Bay-Delta has prevented CDWR from moving forward with proposed solutions to meet future water supply needs. CDWR has had numerous difficulties with federal ESA administration relative to aquatic species, including very weak science, and the propensity of the regulatory agencies to focus their efforts on water project &f~t~ ::Zi.i~?"'.~ '''''li''' 2 The supplemental section to these proceedings docwnents examples ofESA implementation issues in California described in testimony from a 1993 field hearing held by the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, Environment and Natural Resources Subcommittee. The included testimony of the Governor, the Director of California's Department of Water Resources, and the President of a local water district, discusses needed changes to the ESA, impacts of the ESA on the California State Water Project, and impacts on water supply at the local level. 4