64 



waters" Is adwquat* but that goal is not claarly •stablishod by th« 

 ioplenenting regulations and pollciss of th« aganclas rasponslbla for 

 enforcing the Act. For years the Clean Water Act has been imp lamented as if 

 crystal clear diatilled water flowing down concrete channels is the goal of 

 the Act. 



The Endangered Species Act is inadequate beoauee, although it provides 

 an energency room for treatment of patients (listed species) , it does not 

 provide a hospital or a preventative care progran that prevents the need to 

 list and the listing process fosters legal impasses and extreme social 

 dislocations. The National Forest Management Act of 1976 states that 

 "management prescriptions. . .preserve and enhance the diversity of plant and 

 animal communities," a goal that is attained by few forest plans. 



Most past government programs have concentrated narrowly on issues such 

 as prevention of chemical contamination (pollution), flood control, 

 construction of fish ladders for adult passage, or harvest of wood. Often 

 those programs have stimulated resource degradation due to aecondary 

 influences or because they did not address all factors responsible for 

 degradation. 



Rather than programs designed to maintain the natural regeneration 

 capacity of these systems, we tried to substitute expensive, and usually 

 unsuccessful, technological fixes. Indeed, technological fixes often 

 contributed to the problem. Finally, current management programs require 

 increasing amounts of societal energies and scarce funds to protect what 

 remains and have little chance of succeaa . 



3b. If not, are there an v statutory or admlnlstratlvB barriers th at would 

 hinder thanpes in the manafgnieTit regime for rivers? 



YES I Current statutory programs and administrative structures are too 

 fragmented to allow anything but a piecemeal approach to the protection of 

 water resources. Statutes narrowly focus on individual problems such as 

 endangered species, soil erosion or water quality. For the past two decades, 

 wetlands have been the focus of major attention while rivers have been 

 deif^radcd by numerous human actions. Increased attention to old-growth forest 

 has not adequately incorporated the water resource impact of forest 

 alteration. Each habitat, species group (e.g. marine mammals), or resource 

 (soil, water) is treated independently in different legislative initiatives 

 and responsibilities are fragmented among agencies despite the broad 

 connections among these resources and the values they provide for human 

 society. Incentives for agencies to work In an integrative fashion at the 

 watershed level are nonexistent. 



One can conceive of legislation such as a Top of the Mountain Act or 

 Bottom of the Lake Act as we attempt to protect all environments important to 

 human society. Rather, we need a broad societal policy that protects 

 ecological integrity or health, and avoids biotic impoverishment, the 

 progressive erosion of Earth's capacity to sustain living systems, including 

 human society (Uoodwell 1990, Angermeier and Karr in review). 



