A Bush administration framework for Western water is drawing praise from some surprising circles, while normal administration allies are showing skepticism or outright hostility. At a July Bureau of Reclamation conference in Sacramento, Environmental Defense attorney Tom Graff offered the strongest endorsement of the administration's "Water 2025" report. Meanwhile, farming and irrigation district representatives gave the Interior Department report (it is not detailed enough to be called a "plan") a lukewarm reception. What sets Water 2025 apart is that it does not call for the construction of more federal dams. Instead, the report's four "key tools" are: • Conservation, efficiency and voluntary transfers • Collaboration • Improved technology • Removal of institutional barriers to increase interagency coordination. Although local efforts to build smaller dams might prove feasible, federal officials essentially say in Water 2025 that the West must make due with the water it has. Graff, a leading environmentalist water attorney, called Water 2025 a "reform agenda" and said during the Sacramento meeting that he agreed with everything in the document. For California, the document in part builds on an environmentally friendly 1992 overhaul of operations at the Central Valley Project, a reform from which both the Clinton and second Bush administrations backed away, he said. But Graff did question whether this administration would be willing to abide by Water 2025. Still, Graff's overall positive appraisal seemed to surprise some environmentalists. They had joined Indians in a sidewalk protest against the Interior Department, saying the agency did not provide enough water for fish. Others who joined Graff on a panel review of Water 2025 in Sacramento, and people in the audience of about 400, were more circumspect. Steve Hall, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), said the document reflects the reality that the federal government is no longer going to spend large amounts of money on new water facilities. But Water 2025 tools will be effective, Hall said, only if federal officials overhaul the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act and other regulations in a manner that benefits local communities. Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District General Manager Van Tenney and Dan Keppen, executive director of an agricultural water group in the Klamath Basin, both said there must be provisions for more surface storage. Furthermore, Tenney said his agency's experience with a large-scale water transfer to the Westlands Water District has been problematic. There are too many administrative rules and not enough trust between the agencies, said Tenney, who questioned whether water transfers could be a significant part of a near-term solution. "Where's the leadership to make this happen?" Keppen asked of Water 2025's tenets. Keppen might have more reason than most to be skeptical. It was the crisis in his Klamath Basin that spurred the drafting of Water 2025. Two years ago, the Bureau of Reclamation dramatically reduced water deliveries to farmers to provide water for two species of endangered sucker fish in Upper Klamath Lake and two species of salmon farther downstream (see CP&DR Environment Watch, October 2001). The various species of fish are very important to no fewer than four Indian tribes in California and Oregon. In fall of 2002, salmon in the Klamath River died by the tens of thousands, prompting the tribes, environmentalists and commercial fishermen to blame Bureau of Reclamation irrigation practices 200 miles upriver in the Klamath Basin. After two years of constant crisis and clashes, resolution appears further away than ever before. "We're all in our camps now," Keppen said. "We're fighting for our own clans." Protesters with picket signs drove home Keppen's point. But Assistant Interior Secretary Bennett Raley, the highest-ranking official at the Sacramento session, said he welcomed a dialogue with protestors. "In its own way, Water 2025 is our protest to having to go through the Klamath Basin tragedy over and over and over again," Raley said. Numerous other locations in the West have the potential for similar crises, said Raley, who called Water 2025 "an experiment in pragmatism." Raley emphasized the need "to manage what we have in the most effective way." That could mean investing in transmission facilities so that willing water sellers can get the resource to buyers, focusing on desalination technology, and simply repairing old infrastructure to prevent water loss. There is no shortage of studies, he said. What is in short supply is state and local consensus that allows the federal government to act, he said. Where the report will lead is uncertain. The Interior Department released the document in May and scheduled nine conferences (including the one in Sacramento) for this summer. Kirk Rogers, mid-Pacific regional director for the Bureau of Reclamation, said the conferences were intended to open a dialog and federal officials will revise Water 2025 after receiving comments. Jeff Loux, director of the land use and natural resources program at University of California, Davis, called the framework a "recognition of reality," but he was unsure what would come of the report and this summer's conferences. "It's a good thing for any government to go out in the field and make some noise and say we're on the case. And what they are saying sounds perfectly reasonable," said Loux, who is also a member of the Water Forum, a collaborative that has helped resolve Sacramento regional water issues. But, asked Loux, where is the federal money to implement Water 2025's tools? In recent years, Congress has not been willing to fund the Cal-Fed Bay Delta project, which embodies the collaborative and creative approaches endorsed by Water 2025. John Leshy, the Interior Department's general counsel during the Clinton administration and now a law professor at Hastings College, told CP&DR that he was pleased that the current administration recognizes that "pouring more concrete" is not the answer. "In the vast majority of cases, alternatives such as more efficient use, transfers away from inefficient to more efficient uses, groundwater recharge, more sophisticated management and something as basic as just measuring uses — which are not measured in many parts of the West — and enforcing existing water rights — which are limited by the beneficial use doctrine — will supply all the water needed for the foreseeable future, including for environmental restoration," Leshy said. The fact that Leshy, a Clinton appointee and former Natural Resources Defense Council attorney, would agree would the Bush administration's approach shows just how confusing water policy can be. But the Bush administration is echoing what the Clinton administration said about big dam building no longer being economically, politically or environmentally feasible, said Rita Schmidt Sudman, executive director of the Sacramento-based Water Education Foundation. And the Bush administration is actually going further by saying there is no more money to meet the water needs of farmers and property owners. That is a change from past administrations Republican or Democratic, and it is shocking for many Bush allies to hear, Schmidt Sudman said. But although Washington Democrats and Sacramento Republicans could agree on Cal-Fed during the 1990s, few entities have expressed more skepticism of Water 2025 than the Davis administration. In comments in the Sacramento Bee on the day of the Interior Department meeting in Sacramento, Resources Secretary Mary Nichols blasted the federal agency for failing to support Cal-Fed, abandoning endangered species recovery efforts and even for not inviting her to sit on the day's Water 2025 panel discussion. The Bush administration "is not at the table when key decisions are made," Nichols told the Bee. It was evident that many people at the Interior Department's gathering had read Nichols's comments that morning. "Until the state and federal agencies come together," warned ACWA's Hall, "I don't believe Water 2025 or any other initiative can work." Contacts: Tom Graff, Environmental Defense, (510) 658-8008. Steve Hall, Association of California Water Agencies, (916) 441-4545. Jeff Loux, UC Davis, (530) 757-8577. Rita Schmidt Sudman, Water Education Foundation, (916) 444-6240. Water 2025 website: http://www.doi.gov/water2025