flows in the river was provided by the City of Seattle. Even though other 

 agencies had data on stream flow, the city maintained the most comprehensive 

 record of historic flows and current conditions. It was thus the city to whom 

 agencies had to turn for reliable information on which to base their individual 

 negotiating positions. The flow regime established by the Department of 

 Ecology has not been maintained for a number of reasons. Primarily, the city 

 adjusted outflow from its impoundments on the basis of natural inflow, water 

 quality, and consumptive demands on the water. The city was unwilling to 

 release more than the natural inflow and reluctant to retain turbid water. 



These conditions led to confrontation at the semiregular low-flow-period 

 meetings. Representatives from both the city and the Department of Fisheries 

 indicated that the Department of Fisheries is frustrated by the inability of 

 the city to meet the flow regime and the unwillingness of the Department of 

 Ecology to enforce compliance. The city's position is that the Departments of 

 Ecology and Fisheries could purchase water to meet their flow needs. The two 

 departments, on the other hand, insist that the city must provide the flows. 

 There appears to be no practical way to reconcile these demands. The results 

 of these negotiations are that the city usually releases water in a pattern 

 that is generally parallel to, but less than, the flows specified in the DOE 

 flow standards. At the bargaining sessions, the problem tends to be dealt 

 with by continually settling for a flow somewhere between the city's offer and 

 the legal requirement (Beckett and Lamb 1976). 



It would seem that passing a State law designating a single State agency 

 to establish flow standards may not always provide the solution necessary for 

 instream flow protection, especially if that agency is subject to political or 

 other pressures. Even though the agency may initially set flows, confrontation 

 frequently continues between interested organizations, as the parties negotiate 

 on the specific releases. In the present case, the parties have formally kept 

 the controversy open. The city, for example, still threatens a lawsuit to 

 establish its rights and commissions studies to refute the findings of the 

 State departments. 



The Department of Ecology was placed in a difficult position from the 

 outset. On the one hand, it was charged with establishing and enforcing flow 

 regimes but, on the other hand, its only attempt to do so has led to continued 

 controversy. The Department of Fisheries has requested that flow regimes be 

 established on 14 other streams under RCW 90.22, but the Department of Ecology 

 has failed to act on a single one of these requests. It was only much later, 

 under a different statute, that the Department of Ecology sought to set flows 

 on other streams. 



In this case study, two agencies, the City of Seattle and the State 

 Department of Ecology, seem to have the most potential influence. Seattle 

 owns the impoundments that control the water and, more importantly, owns a 

 majority of the watershed. Seattle could demonstrate the economic benefits to 

 be derived from continuation of past practice and it has staff and research 

 support adequate to support its claims. The Department of Ecology, on the 

 other hand, has control of issuance of water rights in Washington and the 

 statutory responsibility for establishing flow regimes. Neither has been able 

 to force the other to accept a flow policy, yet they must reach agreement on a 



13 



