in which they are embedded, to assume leadership in environmental 

 management and responsibility for future environmental planning 

 (Rosenbaum 1985:25-26). 



The above paragraph suggests a high degree of complexity not only in 

 major policy decisions, but also in small choices made at all levels of govern- 

 ment. Governments, whether Federal, State, or local, are involved in defining, 

 implementing, and adjusting policy; the bureaucratic activity that results is 

 confusing to observers and participants alike. Focusing on the decision-making 

 process on a project-by-project basis does little to relieve this complexity. 

 This is more true today, in the 1980' s, than ever, and it is as true regarding 

 instream flow protection as any other resource issue. In the instream flow 

 arena, of course, conflict develops over what users get the water that is 

 available — and for what purposes. 



An "instream flow" can be defined as that amount of water that is left 

 flowing in a stream or river system. "Instream values" include the following: 

 navigation, water quality, recreation, fish and terrestrial wildlife 

 protection, and aesthetics. Instream flow decisionmaking is characterized by 

 the diversity of organizations that hope to benefit from the development and 

 implementation of policy. Many organizations, both public and private, attempt 

 to influence the outcome of instream flow program implementation efforts in 

 such a way that their respective concerns are addressed; these concerns may be 

 economic, technical, environmental, political, or social. These concerns are 

 frequently misunderstood, even by those directly involved. For example, many 

 applied scientists, involved in collecting and analyzing data, ignore the 

 context in which their recommendations will be considered. Project builders 

 focus on the purely economic costs and benefits involved. Politicians 

 frequently are not instructed by the confusing technical and scientific 

 elements of proposals. And each group has a hard time communicating with the 

 other, while all participate in determining the degree to which a particular 

 river system receives protection. 



Three facts seem to stand out amid the confusion that results. First, 

 science or technology alone cannot be depended on to develop all of the 

 necessary solutions. Many di scipl ines need to become involved in a cooperative 

 effort to resolve the problems associated with instream flow protection. 



Second, all environmental policy administration has both technical and 

 political aspects associated with it (Ingram 1984; Lamb 1984a, b). Indeed, 

 some observers suggest that policy implementation is more political than 

 technological (Mann 1982a; Yaffe 1982). Environmental policy implementation 

 occurs in an environment in which "...the medium of exchange. .. i s power and 

 the mode of interaction is negotiation" (Yaffe 1982:7). In spite of all 

 evidence to the contrary, many applied scientists and technicians still believe 

 policy implementation is a fairly simple technical matter (Mann 1982a; Lamb 

 1984a, b). They frequently do not recognize the political aspects of conflicts 

 in which they become involved. One must understand the political environment 

 in which programs are created and implemented. Technical issues, at this 

 level, are usually less complex than the political and institutional problems 

 involved. Implementation is ultimately a product of interorganizational 

 negotiation (Mann 1982a; Yaffe 1982; Lamb 1984a). This being the case, it is 



