In a previous study of hydropower project relicensing, the author
suggested that a consultative, consensus model of policy making, based on
extensive negotiations between stakeholder interests, holds the greatest
potential to achieve broadly conceived public policy goals. This article
examines the effort of Avista Utilities to relicense five hydropower
facilities on the Spokane River in Idaho and Washington using an
Alternative Licensing Process, or ALP. This effort was patterned after an
earlier one on the Clark Fork River in western Montana, where Avista was
able to negotiate with a number of different stakeholders a consensus
agreement that included changes in facility operation and mitigation of
adverse ecological effects. Yet in the Spokane River case, the effort to
reach a consensus agreement was unsuccessful. This article argues that
irreconcilable differences over the water resource created a
multiple-level conflict between stakeholders (Avista, upstream property
owners, downstream users) to protect or challenge the established
distribution of costs and benefits. The article suggests that a
consultative model of policy making may not be appropriate in all cases
and concludes with a brief examination of other models of relicensing
policy making—the Integrated Licensing Process, the traditional
model, and the political model.