Water resource planning in Washington State has been characterized by long-standing disputes between water users and the administrative and legislative branches of the state government. These disputes revolve around a myriad of issues, including the recognition of tribal rights to water for fisheries habitat protection, the need to protect existing water rights, the threat of federal intervention in state activities to protect fish under the Endangered Species Act, and the tremendous growth in the state and associated demand for water by the agricultural, domestic, municipal, commercial and recreational sectors (Nelson, 1994). Attempts by the Washington State Department of Ecology to manage the resource met with opposition frorn all sides, including the state legislature. In the 1980s, a lengthy impasse over water policy resulted in a standstill in water resource planning.

Out of this impasse, discussions emerged that focused upon the notion of a more cooperative approach to water resource planning. Instead of competing with one another, water-related interests converged and forged the Chelan Agreement in November 1990. Based on the watershed planning model, the Chelan Agreement was designed to bring together state, local, and tribal governments and other interest groups to make recommendations for managing water resources. Its overall purpose was to establish procedures to cooperatively plan for the management of water resources in Washington State to best meet the goals and needs of all citizens. In addition to forming the basis for state water resource planning, the Chelan Agreement was intended to serve as a process for implementing the general objectives set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental Protection between the tribes and the state government. The Chelan Agreement required that decisions be made using consensus and encouraged the use of mediation for the resolution of policy disputes. To test the "viability of local water resources management as a tool to reduce water conflicts" (Lemelson 1996: 1), the legislature funded two pilot projects, one in the Methow basin, and the other in the DungenessQuilcene basins. Both pilot projects generated water resource plans, which are currently in various stages of implementation.

This thesis represents the first in-depth analysis of one of these pilot projects since the creation of the Chelan Agreement. Of the two projects, the Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources Management Plan (DQ Plan) was selected to examine the effectiveness of environmental dispute resolution techniques in resolving natural resource disputes. Crafted within the framework of the Chelan Agreement, the DQ Plan represents a radical departure from the more traditional, agency-directed approach to water resource planning. Although devised at the state level in collaboration with water-related interests, the Chelan Agreement relies primarily on the participation of local interests for policy development and implementation.

Using measures of success defined by practitioners in the environmental mediation field, the planning process was evaluated to identify what did or did not work in resolving water resource issues in the Dungeness-Quilcene basins. Based on participants experiences in this process, the analysis revealed that successful outcomes can be generated in the absence of a successful process. The experiences of those who participated provide valuable lessons for other communities who wish to undertake a similar approach to water resource planning. However, this inquiry resulted in unanswered questions about the reconciliation of conflicting values in natural resource disputes and whether the Chelan Agreement can be effective in solving water resource conflicts on a state-wide basis.