University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons

Resource Law Notes: The Newsletter of the Natural Resources Law Center (1984-2002) Newsletters

Fall 1995

Resource Law Notes Newsletter, no. 35, fall issue, Sept. 1995

University of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/resource_law_notes

Part of the Energy and Utilities Law Commons, Energy Policy Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Environmental Policy Commons, Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, Oil, Gas, and Energy Commons, Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons, Public Policy Commons, Water Law Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons

Citation Information Resource Law Notes: The Newsletter of the Natural Resources Law Center, no. 35, fall issue, Sept. 1995 (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law).

RESOURCE LAW NOTES, no. 35, fall issue, Sept. 1995 (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law).

Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School.

u111? it . H 1 1 e n

Number 35 Fall Issue, September 1995 Fall Lands Conference October 11-13 to Address: Challenging Federal Ownership and Management: Public Lands and Public Benefits

In the face of numerous propos­ als for privatizing, marketing, and November Hot Topics changing the management of public to Consider Tribal Oil lands, the Natural Resources Law Center will hold its third annual fall and Gas Development public lands conference October 11- 13, at the CU School of Law in and the B abbitt v. Boulder. For a full agenda, see page 2. Sweet Home Decision A panel of public land users and The Center’s popular Continuing neighbors, including timber, Legal Education lunch series in Denver grazing, mining, recreation, and resumed September 18 with a look at the environmental interests, will address aftermath of the Supreme Court decision current discontent with public land of Kansas v. Colorado regarding regulation policy and management. There will of well pumping in the Arkansas Valley. also be discussion of proposals to The series is held in the 32nd floor dispose of federal public lands, conference room of Holland & Hart, 555 alternatives to disposal, and 17th St. Cost of each program is $13 if rationales for retaining public lands received 3 working days in advance or under federal ownership and $16 thereafter, with an additional charge management. Another topic that of $5 to register CLE credit. Please call will be addressed is shared public the Center to register. land decisionmaking in which Two more Hot Topics will be held in traditionally governmental decisions November: and policies are made with local, • November 1: Environmental private people and groups taking Regulation of Oil and Gas Develop­ leadership. ment on Tribal Lands: Who Has Thirty four speakers representing a How land is managed does make a difference. Authority? wide variety of perspectives will address In some cases, ownership o f land may be less Jurisdiction to regulate the environ­ such questions as: Is the original purpose important than how land is managed. Photo by mental impacts of oil and gas develop­ Dan Daggett. of producing public benefits being ment on the reservation has been con­ realized by keeping lands in public Senate Energy and Natural Resources tested by tribes, the state, private land ownership? Can this purpose be better Committee. owners and federal agencies. Should the achieved by changing the ownership of The program carries 22 credits of state be able to regulate the environmen­ lands? Or is the real question.how the Continuing Legal Education in Colo­ tal consequences of this development? lands are managed? rado. Registration is $425 until one week Should the tribes? What is the role of the Lunch speakers include prominent law prior to the conference. Employees from federal government? These questions will pp^irofessor Jose ph L. Sax, now Counselor any level of government may attend for be addressed by CU Law Professor to the Secretary, U.S. Department of the $350; full-time employees from academ­ Richard Collins, Durango attorney Tom Interior; John D. Leshy, Solicitor, U.S. ics and not-for-profits groups may attend Shipps, and Marla Williams, Colorado Department of the Interior; and Senator for $225. Call Kathy Taylor, Conference Oil and Gas Commissioner. Frank H. Murkowski, Chairman, U.S, Coordinator, at (303) 492-1288. continued on page 2 Fall Lands Conference Challenging Federal Ownership and Management: Public Lands and Public Benefits

Wednesday, October 11 Thursday, October 12 Friday, October 13

A History of the Public Land Debate — Rethinking Federal Ownership of Public Sharing Public Land Decision Making Patricia Nelson Limerick, Professor, Lands — Disposal Proposals Department of History, University of Public-Private Partnerships — Mary Colorado Back to the Future: Privatizing the Federal Chapman, Delta-Montrose Partnership, Estate — Terry L. Anderson, Professor of Delta, Colorado; Mike Jackson, Quincy Discontent With Public Land Policy Economics, Montana State University and Library Group, Quincy, California and Management Senior Associate, Political Economy Watershed-Based Efforts — Teresa Rice, Research Center, Bozeman Why We’re Unhappy — A Panel of Public Senior Staff Attorney, Natural Resources Land Users and Neighbors, moderated by Can the States Do a Better Job?: What We Law Center, University of Colorado; Jack Michael Gheleta, Natural Resources Law Can Learn From Management of State Shipley, Applegate Partnership, Applegate, Center Lands — Sally Fairfax, Associate Dean, Oregon College of Natural Resources, University Nadine Bailey, Women in Timber, Cooperative Federalism as a Model — Hope of California, at Berkeley Hayfork, California Babcock, Professor of Law, Georgetown Thinning the Blood of the National Parks University Law Center Bill Dvorak, Dvorak Expeditions, — James Ridenour, Director, Eppley Nathrop, Colorado What the Federal Government Can and Institute for Parks and Public Lands, Cannot Abdicate: Two Perspectives— Tom Hendricks, Hendricks Mining Co., Indiana University, Bloomington George C. Coggins, Frank Edwards Tyler Caribou, Colorado Privatizing the Public Lands: A Bad Idea — Professor of Law, University of Kansas; Louise Liston, Garfield County Scott Lehmann, Associate Professor, Margaret Shannon, Associate Professor of Commissioner, Utah Department of Philosophy, University of Public Administration, Center for Connecticut Environmental Policy & Administration, Jim Martin, Environmental Defense Syracuse University. Moderated by: Betsy Fund, Boulder Lunch talk: The Clinton Administration and Rieke, Director, Natural Resources Law Privatization: Public Benefits and Public Mark Pifher, Special Water Counsel, City Center. Responsibilities — John D. Leshy, of Colorado Springs Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior Lunch talk: The 104th Congress and Ken Spann, Spann Ranches, Gunnison, Changing Public Land Policy, — Senator Colorado Alternatives to Disposal: Frank H. Murkowski, Chairman, U.S. Using Market Forces to Improve Public Senate Energy and Natural Resources Public Land Policy is Ripe for Change — Land and Resource Management Committee (confirmed subject to U.S. James Huffman, Dean, Northwestern Senate Calendar) School of Law, Lewis and Clark College Reforming Public Land Management with New Incentives — Randal O’Toole, Lunch talk: Proposals for Public Land Director, The Thoreau Institute, Oak Reform: Sorting Out the Good, the Bad, Grove, Oregon and the Indifferent, Joseph L. Sax, continued from page 1 Counselor to the Secretary, U.S. Charging Public Land Users for Recreational Department of the Interior Uses — William Chandler, National • November 29: A Sweet Home No Parks and Conservation Association, More? The Future for Habitat Protec­ Why Do We Have Public Lands? Washington, D.C. tion Under the Endangered Species Act” Values and the Public Lands — Professor Critique of the Proposals — Panel of The 1995 Supreme Court decision in Dale Jamieson, Department of Commentators, moderated by Betsy B abbitt v. Sweet H ome Chapter o f Philosophy, University of Colorado Rieke, Director, Natural Resources Law Communities for a Great Oregon held that Economic Rationales for Continued Center the Department of the Interior reason­ ably construed Congress’ intent when it Government Ownership of Land — Stanley Dempsey, Chairman and CEO, Professor John B. Loomis, Department of Royal Gold, Inc., Denver included habitat modification that injures Agricultural and Resource Economics, protected wildlife within the definition of Colorado State University Charles Howe, Professor of Economics “harm” prohibited by the Endangered and Director, Environmental and Species Act. Speakers include Professor The Benefits of Professional Public Land Behavior Program, University of Colorado Management — Elizabeth Estill, Regional Federico Cheever, University of Denver Director, U.S. Forest Service, Denver Dale Oesterle, Montfort Professor of College of Law; Paul Seby, attorney with Commercial Law, University of Colorado the Mountain States Legal Foundation; Public Lands Are Essential to Our National Heritage — Professor Charles F. Jerry Taylor, Director of Natural Resource and Paul Gertler, Assistant Regional Wilkinson, Moses Lasky Professor of Law, Studies, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C. Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Center Director Betsy Rieke will moderate University of Colorado Johanna Wald, Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C.

2 Gheleta Joins Center Staff As Associate Director Michael Gheleta, a 1988 alum of the University of Colorado School of Law, ^come Associate Director of the Center m July. While in law school, Gheleta authored a CU Law Review article on “Water Use Efficiency and Appropriation in Colorado: Salvaging Incentives for Maximum Beneficial Use.” He was an Associate with McDonough, Holland & Allen in Sacramento from 1988-90 before joining the Environment and Natural Resources Division, General Litigation Section, of the U.S. Department of Justice. He served as a trial attorney in both the Sacramento and Denver Field Offices from 1990-95, with an emphasis on water law, federal reclamation law and water issues concerning public lands. Gheleta enjoys rafting, kayaking, and other outdoor sports, and has worked as a whitewater river guide in California, Idaho, and Oregon. He has just returned from a trip to Peru, which included a trek Mike Gheleta on trail above Machu Picchu. on the Inca Trail to the lost city of Machu Picchu, as well as a jungle expedition by motorized canoe to the Manu National law school to try to address environmental coming to law school. Her most recent Reserve in the Upper Amazon Basin. problems at a more comprehensive level. positions include Director of the Commu­ Mark Held is originally from Seattle, nity Development Department and Town Research Assistants Enrich and after a long stint in Vermont, came to Planner for the town of Vail, Colorado. Center Summer Colorado five years ago. With an under­ Prior to working for Vail, she was involved This summer the Center has enjoyed graduate degree in geology, he has worked with several community development the services of four enthusiastic, highly as a hydrogeologist, an environmental centers in the Denver area. Her experience capable CU Law Research Assistants. Our litigation support team member, and a includes developing plans and planning research projects are always enhanced by full-text database specialist for a law firm. documents, and public speaking and student work, and we’d like to introduce His interests are in natural resources and public relations with citizen groups and and thank them: Native American law. He is co-chair of the local boards. Her hobbies and interests Bob Barrett spent a couple of years Environmental Action Committee of the include backpacking, mountaineering, teaching English in Taiwan, along with his student Environmental Law Society. travel, modern dance, skiing, fly fishing, wife Sandi, before starting law school in Kristan Pritz worked for 14 years in cooking, and reading. fall 1994: He grew up in Chicago and St. the area of land use planning before Louis, and after taking a journalism degree from the University of Illinois in 1991 he worked for a Missouri congresswoman until 1992. He chose Colorado because of Center Welcomes Tom Galloway as Fellow, its environmental law reputation and because of the mountains. He wants to Adjunct Professor practice public interest law. J. Nicole DeFever majored in Environ­ Thomas Galloway, attorney from pursued a public interest practice in mental Studies and Geography at the Galloway & Associates in Washington, Washington, representing environmental University of California at Santa Barbara, DC, will be a Fellow with the Center for organizations, citizens groups, and with detailed study in snow hydrology and academic year 1995-96, addressing the workers. He has worked extensively on the remote sensing. After school she became a history of the regulation of coal mining in Surface Mining Act, the Clean Water Act, world traveller for seven months in Europe the United States, and the environmental CERCLA, RCRA, and the 1872 Mining and Southeast Africa, coming back to regulation of hardrock mining on both Law, litigating environmental and natural work as a backcountry ranger with the federal and non-federal lands. He will also resource issues in the federal courts. He U.S. Forest Service, producing maps of be teaching Mining Law as a adjunct has worked with Congress in drafting wilderness areas for Environmental Impact professor at the Law School. several of the statutes and worked with Statements. After also working with the A 1972 graduate of the University of various states and federal regulatory California State Parks, she was ready for Virginia School of Law, Galloway has agencies.

3 June Conference Addresses Sustainable Use o f West’s Water, Draws 175 People 4 ◄ Janice :------♦ ------Vi Brown (left) Donors Invited to from the H enry’s Fork Associates Breakfast Foundation, Thursday, October 12, Island Park, During Lands Conference Idaho, chats with Michael Donors to the Center are cordially Brophy o f invited to breakfast with speakers Ryley, Carlock and Center personnel on Thursday dr Applewhite morning during the conference. If in Phoenix, you haven’t yet joined our Associ­ and Betsy ates program, please use the Rieke, new donation form on page 11 to do so. NRLC W e’ll send you details about the Director. breakfast. ------♦ ------

Jim Enote (left) o f the Zuni Conservation Project in New Mexico exchanges views with Larry EchoHawk, former Attorney General o f Idaho, now teaching at J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University.

Lucy Moore from Western Network in Santa Fe. A Center Completes Study of the Colorado Land Board

This summer the Center was awarded contract with outside consultants to The final report from the Center is a contract to conduct a review of the conduct such a review. due in September. Some of the questions Colorado State Board of Land Commis­ State trust lands are a unique form of that will be addressed are: For what sioners’ policies and practices with respect public lands. Most of Colorado trust purposes should the Colorado state trust to state trust lands. lands originated as land grants under the land be managed? How can the State Colorado Governor Roy Romer, 1876 Enabling Act from the United Land Board better achieve trust purposes? through the Colorado Department of States to the new State of Colorado. What level of public involvement is Natural Resources, asked a Steering Today, approximately 4.5 million appropriate in SLB activities? Committee, consisting of Department of mineral acres and 3 million surface acres To answer these questions, the Center Natural Resources Executive Director of Colorado State lands are held in trust interviewed approximately 60 people James S. Lochhead, Land Board Com­ for beneficiaries that include the public with a stake in trust land management. missioner John S. Wilkes III, State schools, state colleges and universities, the The Center also reviewed background Senator Don Ament, State Representa­ state penitentiary, state parks, and public materials describing State Land Board tive Lou Entz, and Commissioner of buildings. The State Land Board must programs and policies and examined trus Education William T. Randall, to manage these trust lands for the benefi­ law relevant to the management of the 1 ciaries. trust lands.

4 The Bay-Delta Accord: A Stride Toward Sustainability Betsy Rieke, Director habitat for numerous fish species. Natural Resources Law Center In the 70s, 80s and early 90s, indig­ enous fish species in the San Joaquin- Sacramento system experienced dramatic At the June 1995 conference o f the declines due to large diversions of fresh NRLC on “Sustainable Use o f the West’s water, prolonged drought and marked Water, ’’Betsy Rieke gave a speech on the increases in populations of introduced fish Bay-Delta accord announced on December species. With reduced freshwater outflows 15, 1994. As Assistant Secretary for Water through the Delta and westward into the and Science in the Department o f the bays, the low salinity transition zone is Interior, Betsy led the federal team that compressed in size and moves upstream participated in development o f the accord. into areas unsuitable for nursery habitat Following is an edited transcript o f her and evolution of new tidal marshes. speech. The huge pumps of the federal and I will present today a personal view of state water projects located in the southern the events leading to the Bay-Delta accord part of the Delta create a giant sucking announced in California last December effect, reversing flows in the San Joaquin 15th and some observations about the River and entraining and killing eggs and process leading to the accord that might be young fish. By the spring of 1993, two fish applicable elsewhere. I will not attempt a species had been listed under the Endan­ full, objective presentation of the events gered Species Act (ESA), and petitions to and strategies leading to the accord NRLC Director Betsy Rieke, form erly Assistant Secretary for Water and Science in the list others had been filed. Through the because no one person who has been so Department o f the Interior. ESA consultation process, the listings had recently and intimately involved can ever resulted in restrictions on the operations of be truly objective, and because such a full the two major water projects, significantly discussion would take more than the time neighboring watershed. Coming in from affecting the amount of water they would allowed a luncheon speaker. the south is the San Joaquin River be able to export. Thus, it is clear: “From a gathering its flows from the southern water resources perspective, California’s The Bay-Delta: Where Sierras. Those two river systems plus some economy and environment meet in the California’s Economy and streams coming in from the east make up Bay-Delta....” Environment Meet the freshwater flows into the Delta. What is the Bay-Delta that was the Additionally, more saline flows come in Years of Inaction on Water subject of the December 15, 1994 accord? from the west, with the tides. Quality Standards A natural delta is an alluvial deposit at the The Delta provides 40 percent of the In the spring of 1993, when I was first mouth of a river that frequently takes the state’s drinking water supplies, serving drawn into the Bay-Delta issues, Califor­ shape of the Greek letter delta due to the over 20 million people in northern and nia agricultural, urban and environmental division of the river into an intricate web southern California. The Delta provides interests had fought for more than a of interlacing river channels. The Delta of irrigation water for 200 crops, including decade over water quality standards to the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers 45 percent of the nation’s fruits and protect the fish and wildlife resources of and the Delta’s neighboring bays (Bay- vegetables. the Bay-Delta. The fractious debate was Delta) have been massively altered by Massive pumping plants belonging to indeed over sustainability — over what human activities and are exquisitely two large California water projects — one obligations this generation has to protect complex hydrologic systems. The water state-owned and operated, the other at least some major remnants of the Bay- politics surrounding efforts to protect and federally-owned and operated — divert Delta’s natural resources for the use and restore the fish and wildlife resources that water directly from the Delta. Upstream enjoyment of future generations. reside in or migrate through the Bay-Delta diversions on the Sacramento, the San But the debate over water quality are equally complex. One of the major Joaquin and east side streams reduce the standards was not over the typical end-of- players in the Bay-Delta deftly capsulized amount of water that reaches the Delta. the-pipe restrictions on discharges into a the importance of the Bay-Delta as The Delta supports over 120 species of water body, but over salinity and flow follows: “From a water resources perspec­ fish and large commercial and recreational criteria that would require increased tive, California’s economy and environ­ fisheries. It contains the largest wetland freshwater outflows from the Bay-Delta. ment meet in the Bay-Delta ....” habitat in the western United States. A Those criteria would necessarily reduce The Delta is the hub of California’s critical natural resource in the Bay-Delta is water deliveries to central and southern water distribution system. It captures 47 the low salinity transition zone — a California users, if not also to northern percent of the state’s runoff. Coming in mixing zone of ocean water and freshwater users. Requiring increased freshwater w lfrom the north is the Sacramento River flows from the Delta’s tributaries. The low outflows would in effect reallocate water gathering its flows from the northern part salinity zone is important to the success of from agricultural and urban uses to the of the Sierras and from imports from a tidal marsh communities and as a nursery environment.

5 The state had repeatedly failed over more than a decade to adopt a water quality plan adequate to stem the decline in fish populations in the Bay-Delta and Sacramento its tributaries. More than once, EPA had warned the state that protective new standards must be adopted, but EPA had never adopted standards of its own. Under the Clean Water Act, when a state fails to adopt water quality standards adequate to protect a designated use, such as fish and wildlife, EPA must promptly do so. EPA San Pablo Bay had repeatedly deferred to the state process The Delta that grappled with the issues on a regular cycle and continued to devise but not adopt new protective proposals. In addition to the water quality Marin Suisun Bay & Marsh standards debate, for years there had been Stockton north-south conflicts over wheeling water that falls on northern California water­ Central Bay sheds through the Delta to southern farms and cities. Southern importers had proposed facilities to improve the way Oakland water is moved across and exported from the Delta. In 1982, a statewide referen­ dum was held on a comprehensive water “reform” package, including a large canal, South Bay known as the peripheral canal, to move V. water around the eastern edge of the Delta, instead of through the Delta. Northerners saw the canal not as an improvement, but as a means to move ever increasing amounts of water from north to south, to the detriment of both northern economies and the health of the Bay- Delta. 1 The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. From the San Francisco Estuary Project, Let’s turn the clock back to the spring Conclusions and Recommendations o f Members o f the Scientific, Policy, and Management Communities o f of 1993 and survey the Bay-Delta situa­ the Bay!Delta Estuary, 1993. tion prior to the birth of an integrated federal Bay-Delta effort to address the total impact on water supplies, thereby shreds, the federal government was ready water quality standards and ESA issues. creating enormous uncertainty for water to step in, and the partisan rhetoric was On April 1, 1993, the Republican users. And his view of the ESA impacts flying back and forth across the country Governor of California, Pete Wilson, then had more than a little merit. from D.C. to California and vice-versa. rumored to have Vice-Presidential or even While the ESA criticism reflected a Presidential aspirations, ordered his state genuine concern of the Governor’s, water December 15, 1994: Principles water quality board to withdraw its most policy insiders and newspaper reports for Agreement recent proposal to establish new water suggested the Governor was also bowing Fast forward to December 15, 1994. In quality standards for the Bay-Delta — to pressure from the agricultural sector, a a triumphant press conference, Governor standards the Governor had called for critical source of campaign contributions Pete Wilson, flanked by Secretary of the barely a year before in a bold, comprehen­ and votes in his upcoming 1994 reelection Interior Bruce Babbitt and EPA Adminis­ sive Bay-Delta water policy initiative. In campaign. Agricultural interests had trator Carol Browner, declared that “peace the 1992 announcement of his initiative, criticized the proposed standards as has broken out” in California’s long- the Governor sounded the alarm of “fear unfairly favoring fish over farmers. running water wars and announced joint for California’s natural communities” and In short order, Secretary of the Interior state-federal Principles for Agreement to urged mitigation efforts worthy of “good Bruce Babbitt accused the Governor of protect the Bay-Delta’s natural resources stewards of our fish and wildlife.” having “chosen to abdicate responsibility” and to provide reliable water supplies to The Governor justified the precipitous to set protection standards for the Bay- farms and cities dependent on Delta change in his policy on the ground that Delta, creating a water policy leadership diversions. Joining in the announcement the ESA “permits the federal government vacuum that the federal government were representatives of the agricultural, to preempt the state in allocation of water would be forced by law to fill at least business, environmental and urban sectors. resources.” As he saw it, piecemeal, temporarily. The Principles for Agreement (Agree- . uncoordinated implementation of the ESA So, in the spring of 1993, the ment) represent a stride toward W1 was making it impossible to predict the Governor’s water policy initiative lay in sustainability in the Bay-Delta and for

6 water users dependent on the Bay-Delta into its rightful role in state water policy environmental voice was always to be and its tributaries. They guarantee more and adopt a new water quality plan for the heard and to be reckoned with in the fray. reliable supplies both for the environment Bay-Delta; and A second key factor leading to the Bay- and for cities and farms for a period of • A huge dose of good fortune, in part in Delta accord was the existence of a three years. Under the Clean Water Act the form of a savvy judgment call by the potential incentive for water users depen­ biennial review process, water quality environmental community. dent on the Delta to support reallocation standards must be reviewed every three I will turn first to the favorable interest of some of their diversions to environmen­ years. To protect Bay-Delta water quality group configuration. Certain urban users tal protection. In April 1993, when the and imperiled fish species, the Agreement dependent on Delta diversions had Governor abandoned the state’s effort to calls for enhanced fresh water flows demonstrated a commitment to protect set water quality standards, he also through the Delta and into the bays — the aquatic resources of the Bay-Delta if seriously jeopardized a second component 400,000 acre feet of additional flows in (and it was a big if) it would not cost them of his water policy initiative, a three-year normal years; 1.1 million acre feet of too much water. That group of urban effort to devise long-term Delta solutions, additional flows in critically dry years. To water users included Metropolitan Water including new facilities to reduce the giant provide greater certainty for agricultural District, the large southern California sucking effect of the Delta pumping and municipal supplies, any additional water wholesaler. Over the course of 1993- facilities. water needs due to any additional listings 94, a north-south urban coalition emerged -Shortly after the state’s draft water under the ESA must be met by water that developed its own proposal for water quality standards were withdrawn, purchases financed with federal funds and quality standards based on good science. . environmental members of the council undertaken on a willing seller basis. In By the fall of 1994, the urban coalition charged with overseeing the search for other words, the additional water needs and the environmental community in long-term Delta solutions either resigned may not be met through additional conjunction with EPA had developed a or suspended their participation, thereby regulatory reallocations of water. relatively solid consensus on water quality undermining the credibility of that effort. The Principles for Agreement call for a standards. Their message: No new water quality greater measure of state control over water The urban coalition then actively standards; no reevaluation of Delta allocation policies. Although EPA actually sought agricultural allies for a joint ag- facilities. Quid pro quo. adopted final water quality standards for urban package of water quality standards Both the urban water users and state the Bay-Delta on December 15, 1994, and ESA protective measures. A fragile ag- water officials were dismayed at the EPA committed in the Agreement to urban coalition emerged, leaving the prospect of incipient paralysis in their withdraw the federal standards as soon as environmental community on the search for a long-term “Delta fix” and the state water quality board adopted a sidelines, but bringing to the ultimate turned to the federal government to join final Bay-Delta water quality plan compromise agricultural support that in a state-federal partnership to help bring consistent with the Agreement. The state undoubtedly was a key factor in the the environmental community back to the board did so in May of 1995 in an action Governor’s decision to support the table. Many environmentalists, tired of that created hardly a ripple in the media. compromise. state indecisiveness, advocated a federally- So the accord heralded: The urban coalition had the financial led long-term planning process, if any • More water for the environment; capacity to hire its own experts and such process should move forward at all. • Less water but more certainty for generate its own alternatives. To put In any case, federal adoption of improved agricultural and urban users; and things in perspective, Metropolitan Water water quality standards was the first • A return to state primacy in water District has a budget significantly well in priority for the environmental commu­ quality decisions. excess of the Bureau of Reclamation’s nity. budget for the entire West. The federal government listened but The Making of the Agreement Business leaders in San Francisco, Los took no immediate action on the requests In this era of anti-fed, anti-regulatory, Angeles and San Diego also played a role for participation in a long-term Delta anti-ESA rhetoric and widespread discus­ in leveraging the ultimate compromise. planning process. Federal representatives sion of devolution of federal programs, The California business community’s did note the strong desire on the part of how did the Bay-Delta accord come relatively high awareness of and involve­ the state and water users for a long-term about? I would cite four major factors: ment in water issues is a component of the process. This potential incentive was a key • A favorable configuration of interest interest group configuration you don’t factor differentiating the Bay-Delta issue groups; typically find in regional water allocation configuration from other regional water • The existence of a substantial incentive disputes. disputes where ESA listings raise the for water user groups to support new water The strength of the California environ­ prospect of reallocating water from water quality standards in return for establish­ mental community and its long-term users to the environment. Generally, the ment of a long-term planning process to involvement in Bay-Delta issues was primary incentive for water users to reevaluate how water is moved across and another critical aspect of the favorable attempt to negotiate ESA-generated water diverted from the Delta; interest group configuration. An umbrella allocation issues is simply the hope that • The development of a federal strategy group, Save the Bay, with extremely broad they will lose less water than if the solution designed 1) to provide the California membership and a capacity for effective is unilaterally imposed by the federal water community with incentives to grass roots action is devoted exclusively to government. support a state solution to the water Bay-Delta issues. Although the collective Thus, we have a favorable interest quality problems in the Bay-Delta and its resources of the environmental commu­ group configuration and a potential * tributaries, and 2) to provide the state of nity pale compared to those of the incentive for water users to support California with incentives to step back agricultural and urban water agencies, the enhanced levels of environmental protec­

7 tion for the Bay-Delta — the long-term protective measures, while simultaneously federal agencies in three separate units of planning process and the hope of a “Delta emphasizing that we unequivocally favored the federal government. The four federal fix”. a state solution. In other words, no agencies were: additional water quality protection was not • The Bureau of Reclamation, located in The Federal Strategy an option. the Interior Department, which operates a A third element that helped forge the The options were: federal water quality major federal water project (the Central ^ Bay-Delta accord was the development of standards with all their downsides or a Valley Project) diverting water from the a federal strategy to leverage a state state solution that met the criteria in Delta and its tributaries. solution to the water quality problems in federal law. We also actively sought • The Fish and Wildlife Service, also in the Bay-Delta and its tributaries. If an alternative approaches that would mini­ the Interior Department, and responsible urban Bay-Delta leader were before you mize the necessary reductions in water for implementing ESA protective measures today, he would focus on the urban diversions. for listed fish species that spend more than strategy, which was a sine qua non of the Federal water quality standards raised half their life cycle in fresh water. Bay-Delta accord. But I have chosen to tell the specter of further federal intrusion into • The National Marine Fisheries Service the story from the perspective I best an area of traditional state primacy — in the Department of Commerce, respon­ understand — the federal perspective. water allocations. Federal water quality sible for ESA implementation for fish The federal government did not lightly standards also brought with them the species that spend half their life cycle in or precipitously undertake a strategy to try enforcement dilemma and an almost 100 the ocean. (It must be noted that an to obtain a state solution. We had been percent certainty of litigation over both endangered fish’s life style determines told by one urban water leader that, the standards themselves and EPA’s agency jurisdiction under the ESA.) “[Governor] Wilson probably can’t be authority to set and enforce such stan­ • The Environmental Protection Agency, leveraged to do the right thing.” But we dards. responsible for approval of state water saw no realistic alternative to a state quality standards or adoption of federal solution. Our analysis had failed to water quality standards where a state fails identify another approach that would to adopt approvable standards. produce enforceable water quality stan­ Accountability for the federal coordi­ dards that just might evade a court Part o f the federal nated effort was centralized in the regional challenge. leaders of those four federal agencies and, Our conclusion was rooted in EPA’s strategy was a in an unusual move, in one Assistant probable lack of authority to enforce any Secretary under White House guidance. salinity standards it might adopt for the consciously non­ Among my indelible memories of Bay- Bay-Delta and its tributaries. Salinity Delta events are the cryptic words of standards, unlike typical water quality partisan effort Interior’s Chief of Staff when it was standards, require not reductions in decided to vest the Assistant Secretary- discharges of pollutants, but reductions in aimed at mutual level accountability in me. The words freshwater diversions. The authority to were: “Don’t ___ _ it up” I’m sure you can reallocate water supplies from California gains for state and fill in the blank. For a few seconds, I was water users to the environment was vested taken aback by the implication that I was not in EPA, but in the California water federal leaders. on my own in the Bay-Delta’s stormy quality board. waters. But then I realized those few words The federal strategy emerged in captured Secretary Babbitt’s belief that piecemeal fashion over the course of 1993 individual federal officials should be held and early 1994. Its primary components Federal standards appeared to lead accountable for resolving large-scale were: inexorably to continued uncertainty for natural resource management issues. So I • A clear federal resolve to implement the the environment and for water users. plunged in. federal mandates under the Clean Water Thus, the preference for a state solution. I brought to my team-leader role a Act and the ESA, accompanied by a strong Federal representatives also indicated that deep-seated commitment to candid message that we were seeking flexible if the state left the standard setting to the dialogue with all the stakeholders, open solutions that would minimize the impacts federal government, there would be no and inclusive processes with good lines of on water users and that a state solution federal support for the long-term Bay- communication and many independent was our first preference; Delta planning prbcess. sources of information, empathetic • A full-scale effort to coordinate federal _ I should acknowledge that the clear listening — not just active listening but activities; federal resolve to implement the mandates truly empathetic listening trying to • The development of a state-federal of the Clean Water Act and the ESA was understand and share what a speaker is collaborative approach; in no small part induced by a lawsuit filed feeling, team building and problem • The inclusion of stakeholders in a by environmental plaintiffs to force EPA solving. variety of forums; and to adopt water quality standards for the My team was staff with Bay-Delta • A concerted effort to build interest Bay-Delta. responsibilities from the Bureau of group pressure in favor of a solution, as The second component of the federal Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, opposed to further delay. strategy was a full-scale effort to coordi­ National Marine Fisheries Service and First, federal representatives articulated nate federal activities affecting water EPA. In the formal federal structure, only , a clear federal resolve to go forward with supplies from the Delta and its tributaries. the Bureau of Reclamation reported to me. ’ federal water quality standards and ESA The coordination effort involved four We developed a commitment to each

8 other and to a joint resolution of the Bay- A fourth component of the federal setting standards for the Bay-Delta. Delta problems we confronted. Many of strategy was the inclusion of stakeholders With assistance from various business the team members took responsibility for in a variety of forums. The processes we groups and urban water users, I traipsed solving the whole problem we jointly undertook were not formal consensus up and down California urging the faced, not just their agency’s portion of the building processes with all the players at business community to hold the feet of Iroblem. Although we were frequently the table on a regular basis, but ad hoc, both federal and state officials to the fire asked to “speak with one voice,” we relatively inclusive processes. They were to resolve the water quality issues in the recognized that agencies with such designed to identify flexible means of Delta. I vividly remember walking down a significantly different missions cannot do implementing the Clean Water Act and Los Angeles street shrouded by elegant so. We strove, however, to speak as a ESA mandates that would minimize skyscrapers and wondering aloud with my chorus in harmony. disruptions to water supplies, overcome female communications staff person, If the federal effort was to lead to a suspicions about federal science being “Who are we to think we can influence the state solution, a necessary third compo­ driven by predetermined policy decisions, giants of banking and industry housed up nent of the federal strategy was collabora­ and break the mold of closed ESA there?” tion with state of California water officials. consultations. But the business leaders responded with To achieve such collaboration, the state One of the shortcomings of the federal a series of letters to the President and the and federal representatives needed to strategy, as we learned late in the game, Governor. One letter declared: “The abandon the initial partisanship evident in was the failure to be sufficiently inclusive continued gridlock in setting standards for Governor Wilson’s charges of federal in our various forums. Omission of key the Bay-Delta is simply unacceptable.” It preemption of state water policy and stakeholders, especially water users north was signed by, among others, the heads of federal charges of state abdication of state of the Delta, jeopardized both the final BankAmerica Corporation, Wells Fargo responsibility to protect the Bay-Delta’s closure efforts and later implementation Bank, the Federal Reserve Bank of San natural resources. Thus, part of the federal efforts. The stakeholder groups have since Francisco, TransAmerica Corporation, strategy was a consciously non-partisan been expanded to be more inclusive. Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & effort aimed at mutual gains for state and Electric Company, and San Diego Gas & federal leaders to be achieved by collabora­ Electric Company. The Los Angeles Times tive resolution of the Bay-Delta problems. noted the “unusual alliance” on a water And, after our first forays in the name of issue and the prospect that the letter mutual gains, we received a cautiously The next chapter in would put election-year pressure on positive response from state officials. Governor Wilson, a prospect clearly State and federal officials began a the Bay-Delta will intended by the signers and the instigators. painfully slow march to a joint framework Our strategy was implemented in agreement signed in the summer of 1994 be a retrospective on political campaign style. Our vision of embodying a commitment to cooperate on state-federal cooperation in protecting the three levels in the Bay-Delta: whether the accord Bay-Delta with minimum adverse impacts • Day-to-day operations of state and on water supplies was articulated in water federal projects to accommodate water has been conferences, meetings with reporters and quality standards and ESA protective editorial boards and never-ending sessions measures; implementedfully with interest group leaders. • Water-quality standard setting, with But we fell short. In mid December, the state committing to reinitiate its state and effectively. 1994, just days before the December 15 standard setting process; and deadline on which the federal agencies had • Development of a joint state-federal agreed to announce a raft of Bay-Delta comprehensive long-term strategy for decisions, we faced the prospect of two better management of the Delta. The last component of the federal separate press conferences. One would be The day-to-day coordination of the strategy was a concerted endeavor to build led by a federal official — a regional EPA projects had actually been instituted many interest group pressure on Governor official announcing final EPA water years before. The agreement was just Wilson and President Clinton for approval quality standards and other federal actions; memorializing the practice. And by the and implementation of Bay-Delta water- the other would be led by a state official time the last of the many signatures was quality standards. We sought to influence — announcing a draft water quality plan obtained on the framework agreement, the the balance among the Bay-Delta interest for the Bay-Delta that contained, in the state had long since reinitiated its standard groups so that the weight on the “set the judgment of federal ESA scientists, setting process. standards” side was greater than the weight inadequate protections for listed species. Beyond mere expressions of agreement on the “delay some more” side. The federal and state proposals were still to work together more effectively, the The gridlock in the Delta was a threat many thousands of acre-feet apart. framework agreement institutionalized the to voluntary water transfers from agricul­ A separate environmental proposal state-federal collaboration in the form two tural to urban use, a water reallocation called for even higher flows for the Delta new entities: Calfed, a group of California strategy the business community had protection. We faced the prospect of and federal water officials charged with embraced. Interestingly enough, the further delay, further lawsuits and further overseeing the collaborative effort, and a gridlock was also a potential threat to the uncertainty for water users and for the ew planning entity, known as the Calfed ratings of southern California municipal Bay-Delta environment. ay-Delta Program, to undertake the bonds. So, the business community had a long-term planning process. clear interest in ending the gridlock on continued on page 11

9 Recent Publications

RR6A “Transfers of Water Use in Colorado,” States: Upgrading the System for the p To order or for more information, please call, MacDonnell, Howe & Rice, 1990 21st Century,” Snupe, 1990. $6. write, or fax the Center. Checks should be (chapter 3 from Vol. II above) 52 pgs. DP05 “From Basin to ‘Hydrocommons’: payable to the University of Colorado. $5. Integrated Water Management Postage and handling charges: Without Regional Governance,” $2 for orders $20 and under Policy Papers Weatherford, $6. PP01 “America’s Water: A New Era of $3 for orders $21—$50 DP06 “Water, The Community and Markets Sustainability. Report of the Long’s $4 for orders $51-$ 100 in the West,” Ingram & Oggins, $6. Peak Working Group on National $5 for orders over $100 DP07 “Water Law and Institutions in the Water Policy, ’ Dec. 1992. 12 pgs. Internadonal, rush, or especially large orders Western United States: Early Develop­ $ 10. may require additional handling costs. ments in California and Australia,” Sales tax (only within Colorado): Western Lands Reports Maass, 1990, $6. Tax, City of Boulder, 7.01% WL01 “The Western Public Lands: An DP08 “The Changing Scene in the American Tax, Boulder County (not City), 4.15% Introduction,” Bates, 1992. $8. West: Water Policy Implications,” Tax, Denver metro area, 3.8% WL02 “Discussion Paper: The Changing Schad, 1991, $6. Tax within the rest of Colorado, 3% Economics of the Public Lands,” DP09 “Using Water Naturally,” Rolston, Contact the Center for a full list of MacDonnell, 1993. $8. 1991, $6. publications. WL03 “Discussion Paper: The Changing DP10 “Implementing Winters Doctrine Management Philosophies of the Indian Reserved Water Rights,” Public Lands,” Bates, 1993. $8. Chambers & Echohawk, 1991, $6. Books: WL04 “Discussion Paper: Managing for Occasional Papers Series BK06 Controlling Water Use: The Unfinished- Ecosystems on the Public Lands,” Business o f Water Quality Protection, Bates, 1993.$8. OP34“ Deregulation of the Energy David H. Getches, Lawrence J. WL05 “Discussion Paper: Public Lands Industry,” Elisabeth Pendley, MacDonnell, Teresa A. Rice, 1991, Communities,” Bates, 1993. $8. 1995, $6. $ 22. WL06 “Discussion Paper: State and Local OP33 “Comparison of Coalbed Methane BK04 Proceedings o f the Sino-American Public Lands,” Rice, 1993.. $8. Statutes in the Federal, Virginia and Conference on Environmental Law, Conference Materials - Notebooks West Virginia Jurisdictions,” Eliza­ Beijing, 1987, 1989, $12. beth McClanahan, 1994, $5. BK03 Water a n d the American West: Essays in and Audiotapes OP32 “Conserving Biodiversity on Private Honor o f Raphael J. Moses, David H. These materials are certified for Home Study Land,” Prof. David Farrier, 1994, $5. Getches, ed. 1988, $15. CLE credit by the Colorado Board of OP31 “Towards Integrated Environmental BK02 Tradition, Innovation & Conflict: Continuing Legal and Judicial Education. Management: A Reconnaissance of Perspectives on Colorado Water Law, CF18“Sustainable Use of the West’s Water,” State Statutes,” Prof. Stephen Born, MacDonnell, ed. 1987, $12. 3-day conf. June 12-14, 1995, 1993, $5. Research Reports notebook $75, audiotapes $150. OP30 “Natural Resources Litigation: A Dialogue on Discovery Abuse and the R R l2“Water Banking in the West,” Lawrence CF17 “Who Governs the Public Lands?” 3- New Fereral Rules,” Lohr and MacDonnell, Charles Howe, Kathleen day conf. Sept. 1994, notebook $50; Gegenheimer, 1993. Paper only, $5. Miller, Teresa Rice and Sarah Bates, audiotapes $120. ’94, $15. . Paper with audiotape (carries one hour CF16“Regulatory Takings and Resources: CLE ethics credit) $12. RR11 “Agricultural to Urban Water What are the Constitutional Limits?” OP29 “A Decade’s Experience in Implement­ Transfers in Colorado: An Assessment 3-day conf. June 1994, notebook $75; ing a Land-Use Environmental Impact of the Issues and Options,” Teresa audiotapes $150. Assessment System in Israel,” Rice and Lawrence MacDonnell. 82 CF15 “A New Era for the Western Public Rotenberg, 1993, $5. pgs. 1993. $10. Lands,” 3-day conf. Sept. 1993, OP28 “Restoring Faith in Natural Resource RR10 “Instream Flow Protection in the audiotapes $100; videotapes $200. Policy-Making: Incorporating Direct West,” revised edition, Lawrence J. For Symposium Issue, contact Univ. of Participation Through Alternative MacDonnell & Teresa Rice, editors. Colorado Law Review, (303) 492- 1993. $22. Dispute Resolution Processes,” 6145. Cottingham, 1992, $5. RR09 “Recreation Use Limits and Allocation CF14 Water Organizations in a Changing OP27 “Contributions to Sustainable on the Lower Deschutes,” Sarah Bates, West, 3-day conf. notebook, June, 76 pgs. 1991. $8. Development from the Legal Commu­ 1993, $75; audiotapes $150 nity: Opportunity for International RR08 “Facilitating Voluntary Transfers of CF13 Groundwater Law, Hydrology and Cooperation,” Barahona, 1992, $5. Bureau of Reclamation-Supplied Policy in the 1990s, 3-day conf. Water,” Lawrence J. MacDonnell and notebook, June, 1992, $75; audio- others, Vol. I, 132 pgs. ($10) & Vol. tapes $150. One CLE ethics credit. II, 346 pgs. ($15), or both volumes for Two Center books have been published by $22, 1991. Western Water Policy Discussion and are available from Island Press, Dept. RR07 “Wetlands Protection and Water Series Papers RLN (1-800-828-1302). (Please do not order from the Center): Rights,” MacDonnell, Nelson & DP01 “Values and Western Water: A History Searching Out the Headwaters: Change and Bloomquist, a Report to EPA Region of the Dominant Ideas,” Wilkinson, Rediscovery in Western Water Policy, Sarah F. VIII, 1990, 50 pgs. $8. 1990, $6. Bates, David H. Getches, Lawrence J. RR06 “The Water Transfer Process as a DP02 “The Constitution, Property Rights MacDonnell, and Charles F. Wilkinson, Management Option for Meeting and The Future of Water Law,” Sax, 1993. Changing Water Demands,” Lawrence 1990, $6. Natural Resources Policy and Law: Trends and J. MacDonnell and others, Vol. I, 70 DP03 “Water & the Cities of the South­ Directions, ed. by Lawrence J. MacDonnell pgs. ($10) & Vol. II, 391 pgs. ($15), west,” Folk-Williams, 1990, $6. and Sarah F. Bates, 1993. or both volumes for $22, 1990. DP04 “Water Rights Decisions in Western

10 continuedfrom page 9 contains hardly a word about inclusive natural resource decisionmaking. The processes — even though it was passed in This is where Lady Luck in the form Bay-Delta accord demonstrates that an era of increasing mandates for citizen of a savvy call by the environmental governmental decisionmaking processes participation. The strident calls for community — in fact, by one indepen­ are not irretrievably broken. They may opening up ESA decisionmaking are the dent-thinking environmentalist — led to well need to be revamped. In the case of result of genuine frustration with ,nree days of non-stop negotiations and the Bay-Delta, the revamping took the relatively closed processes. form of a creative, inclusive team effort the triumphant announcement of the • Water users frequently need external Principles for Agreement by the Gover­ committed to solving human problems, incentives to put water on the table for nor, Secretary Babbitt and Administrator not just carrying out federal mandates. environmental protection — whether Browner. those incentives are federal mandates, On a more cautionary note, any The savvy call was based on the federal dollars or something else. In this accord that is just a piece of paper with following reasoning. Once the state had era of devotion to devolution and multiple signatures is not an end but a proposed its water quality plan, the shrinking federal budgets, we will need to beginning. It is the beginning of an effort environmental community would have look under every rock for creative to assure fair and effective implementa­ little ability to leverage any improvements incentives to assure that we satisfy our tion of the agreement of the parties. With in the plan. Thus, the environmental intergenerational obligation to leave for the winds of change in the Congress, the community needed to signal its willing­ the future some wild places and working December 15th Bay-Delta truce is fragile, ness to compromise before the December ecosystems to support human life. And if not already partially broken by 15th announcement, and nudge the we may not find enough. So, we should legislative efforts to revamp one of the federal ESA scientists to do the same. be wary of the haste to embrace devolu­ statutes assumed by all to be an under­ Out of that savvy call came the three-day tion and precipitous federal budget pinning of the Bay-Delta accord and to marathon of negotiations and the cutting. transfer the federal water project to user ultimate agreement. • There is a no one-size-fits-all process management. The statute where revisions Conclusions paradigm for watershed protection are sought dedicates water and money to What can we learn from the Bay-Delta efforts. For each watershed, the partici­ fish and wildlife restoration in the Bay- accord that might be applicable else­ pants need to evaluate alternative models Delta and its tributaries. where? and figure out what process fits the scale The next chapter in the Bay-Delta will • Open, collaborative, inclusive of the problem, the types of issues and be a retrospective on whether the accord processes are critical to making decisions the preferences of the interest groups, and has been implemented fully and effec­ that will have a reasonable shelf life. The what process will facilitate the types of tively, and whether it has brought on-the- Bay-Delta accord appears to be holding long-term outcomes and relationships the ground improvements to the natural with no significant legal challenges. As participants seek. resources of the Bay-Delta and increased the Endangered Species Act is revised, we • Finally, and not defensively, govern­ certainty for water users dependent on need to bear in mind that the ESA ment will continue to have a role in the Delta and its tributaries.

We’d Like to Hear From You!

Name

Affiliation

Address City State Zip (+4)

Telephone Fax I would like to join the Center’s Associates Program to support the Center’s Public education and research programs. Enclosed is my tax-deductible donation payable to the University of Colorado Foundation of □ $1,000 □ $500 □ $250 □ $100 □ $50 □ $25 ‘ □ Other ♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ Q I would like to order the following publications (please list by codes from publications page (page 10):

Q Enclosed please find $_ check payable to the University of Colorado. Or use my credit card number below to cover this purchase.

VISA/MasterCard Number Expiration date Signature

Q Please note new address marked on mailing label on reverse side Q Please delete the address marked on mailing label on reverse side

11 Natural Resources Law Center Advisory Board The Natural Resources Senator Don Ament Ken Spann Colorado State Senate Y Bar Ranch Law Center Denver, Colorado Almont, Colorado This publication is a product of the Natural Vicki Cowart Britton White. Jr. Resources Law Center, a research and public Geological Survey El Paso Natural Gas Co. education program at the University of Colorad Colorado Dept, of Natural Resources El Paso, Texas School of Law. The Center’s primary goal is tov ^ Denver, Colorado Charles B. White promote a sustainable society through improved Elizabeth Estill Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber & Strickland public understanding of environmental and natural Regional Forester Denver, Colorado resources issues. US Forest Service Timothy Wirth While the Center itself maintains a position of Denver, Colorado Under-Secretary of State neutrality on issues of public policy, it actively Dr. John W. Firor Washington, DC supports an uninhibited exchange of ideas as National Center for Atmospheric Research Marvin Wolf essential to achieve this goal. Interpretations, Boulder, Colorado Wolf Energy Company recommendations, or conclusions in Natural John Fredericks, III Denver, Colorado Resources Law Center publications or public Fredericks, Pelcyger, Hester & White Albert C. Yates education programs should be understood to be Boulder, Colorado President solely those of the authors or speakers and should Frances M. (Kelley) Green Colorado State University not be attributed to the Center, the University of Attorney Fort Collins, Colorado Colorado, the State of Colorado, or any of the Boulder, Colorado organizations that support Natural Resources Law David L. Harrison Center research. Moses, Wittemyer, Harrison & Woodruff Faculty Committee Resource Law Notes is the Center’s free Boulder, Colorado Gene R. Nichol newsletter, published three times a year—fall, Kit Kimball Dean and Professor of Law winter, and spring. The Jefferson Group Denver, Colorado Ann L. Estin Daniel F. Luecke Associate Professor of Law Environmental Defense Fund Ted J. Fiflis Calendar Boulder, Colorado Professor of Law Challenging Federal Ownership and Clyde O. Martz David H. Getches Davis, Graham & Stubbs Management: Public Lands and Public Den.ver, Colorado Professor of Law Benefits, October 11-13 Peggy E. Montano William T. Pizzi Fall H o t T opics Parcel, Mauro, Hultin & Spaanstra Professor of Law Denver, Colorado Charles F. Wilkinson Holland & Hart, 555 17th Street Clayton J. Parr 32nd floor Kimball, Parr, Waddoups, Brown & Gee Professor of Law Salt Lake City, Utah ♦ November 1: Environmental Regula­ David P. Phillips Center Staff tion of Oil and Gas Development on Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Tribal Lands: Who has Authority? Foundation Elizabeth Ann Rieke, Director Denver, Colorado Michael A. Gheleta, Associate Director ♦ November 29: A Sw eet H ome No Glenn Porzak Teresa A. Rice, Senior Staff Attorney More? the Future for Habitat Protection Holme Roberts & Owen Katherine Taylor, Coordinator Under the Endangered Species Act Boulder, Colorado Prof. William Riebsame Anne Drew, Word Processor v Dept, of Geography Inside University of Colorado The Bay-Delta Accord: A Stride Boulder, Colorado Toward Sustainability, John Sayre Davis, Graham & Stubbs Betsy Rieke, pg. 5 Denver, Colorado printed on recycled paper

Resource Law Notes KF5505-PI 5 R4 7 Natural Resources Law Center no, 35 University of Colorado School of Law Res 0un;e law not es 3 the Campus Box 401 new 5 leib t er of t he Nat ural Boulder, CO 80309-0401 Res oun2e s Law Center, Phone(303) 492-1286 FAX (303) 492-1297 Un i V eris i ty of Co 1orado, Sch oo 1 of Law ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED LJ. Colo,. Law Rec ei v