Laserfiche WebLink
<br />onl71 ' <br /> <br />to be addressed. First, he inquired what kind of recommendation~ should come out of these -'" <br />discussions, regarding, in particular, how state resource agencies hhould work together and fund *tJ <br />their programs, and what proactive approaches should be taken. Second, he asked how best to <br />address the sometimes arbitrary process by which the ESA is implemented, identifYing the lack <br />of consultation with state agencies and F ACA's limitations on state involvement. Third, he <br />questioned whether the ESA should be amended, or whether the new policy initiatives will <br />adequately address states' concerns. <br /> <br />Following Mr. DuMars' summary of issues, the attendees developed a list of problems which <br />they believe need to be addressed to resolve problems with ESA implementation. About thirty <br />issues emerged from the group discussion which were typed and distributed to participants the <br />following day for consideration during the remainder of the proceedings. (See List of Problems). <br /> <br />E. Case Studies <br /> <br />The participants spent the next morning listening to a number of case studies on ESA <br />management. The first presentations focused on intrastate issues involving effects primarily in <br />intrastate--within a state's borders. <br /> <br />1. Intrastate ESA Issues <br /> <br />Gerald Johns, Assistant Chief of the Division of Water Rights for the California State Water <br />Resources Control Board, addressed the Bay/ Delta situation, stating that 40% of California's <br />surface area is Bay/Delta watershed. He said that, as of1993, over one million acre feet of water <br />were impacted by the ESA in California. Problems he identified include the science involved in <br />recovering species, difficulties with modeling the life cycle of species, and with extrapolations <br />from other species. Time lags and differences between policy and operational standards are also <br />problems. He suggested that proactive approaches are best, that water development is possible <br />while meeting ESA goals. He stated that listings packages offer a good alternative to the single- <br />species ESA management of previous decades, and that partnerships between regulators and <br />regulated parties are needed to fmd workable solutions. He said that the unstable water supply <br />brought on by ESA management does not best serve the water community, but acknowledged <br />that shortsightedness and preservation of the status quo got California into the problems it has. <br />He suggested that states should retain authority and control over water use, and consider use of <br />the public trust doctrine, instead of relinquishing their authority to federal control. <br /> <br />Mark Jordan, Director of the Water Policy Division of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation <br />Commission, and Larry McKinney, Director of the Resource Protection branch of the Texas <br />Parks and Wildlife Department, ne~ described the Edwards Aquifer in Texas and the impacts of <br />ESA management upon it. They presented a film describing the aquifer and its management. <br />Mark Jordan described the doctrine of the rule of capture for underground aquifers adopted early <br />this century, and how the lack of state management under that doctrine has been a source of <br />controversy for years. Edwards Aquifer has been designated a sole source aquifer by the EP A. <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />~IJ <br />