flow program. The Department of Fisheries has little money and only indirect 

 authority. For leverage it must rely on the general public interest in 

 protecting the environment and the State's fisheries. It is, however, able to 

 use the expertise of its fishery biologists to good advantage. The department 

 can specify the minimum needs for aquatic life and support its recommendations 

 with extensive field data. The city counters this advantage, however, by 

 hiring its own field researchers. Two different sets of recommendations 

 result, each supported by biological and other relevant data. Thus, the 

 struggle over policy is carried on through the bargaining process. 



The point here is that the ultimate flow regimes achieved are not those 

 promulgated by the Department of Ecology. Each agency recommends a flow 

 pattern for the period in question — the low flow period each year — based on 

 its individual perceptions of instream needs. The city uses an amended version 

 of its original estimates, adjusted on the basis of the precipitation 

 conditions peculiar to the period in question. The State departments use the 

 Department of Ecology standards, adjusted on the basis of local conditions. 

 The result is a negotiated settlement for the week, month, or season in 

 question. 



Commentary 



Although the Cedar River case is but one example, it is typical in many 

 respects. A number of observations can be drawn from Cedar River that apply 

 to other types of instream flow conflicts. 



Generally, the outer boundaries of a conflict such as this are set by 

 statute. In some cases, several potentially conflicting statutes are involved. 

 Here, the State legislature passed a law setting the stage for agencies to 

 apply for designation of minimum flows to protect an instream use of the 

 water. The State Department of Fisheries then chose to initiate the process 

 on behalf of the Cedar River fishery resource. Other State agencies supported 

 this move, and indeed it seems this particular case was viewed by the Depart- 

 ment of Fisheries and others as not only a test of the strength of the law, 

 but one that, if successful, would set a valuable precedent for similar 

 designations on other Washington streams and rivers. Furthermore, the hydro- 

 logic data were available regarding historical flows. It seemed the Department 

 of Fisheries simply needed to initiate the process, backing up its recommenda- 

 tion with technical information and field studies on the available habitat and 

 water requirements for maintaining the fishery. It seemed also that all that 

 was needed beyond this was to persuade the Department of Ecology to accept the 

 recommendations, in which two other State agencies concurred, and promulgate 

 them according to the specifications of the law. 



On the surface, success seemed clear — and the Department of Ecology did 

 "promulgate" an administrative rule setting the requested flow standards. 

 Other organizations, of course, were allowed to give testimony at the hearing 

 and to submit counter-recommendations, which the City of Seattle did not 

 hesitate to do. Given its interest in protecting the consumptive water rights 

 of the city, it was not surprising that the city's recommendation was substan- 

 tially lower than that proposed by the Department of Fisheries. What resulted 

 was a struggle between organizations with apparently conflicting interests, in 



U 



