I just realized I'd never commented on the original question...no, as it's being enforced, it seems pretty inadequate.

The problem is, WHO gets to make the judgement calls on what gets protected, and what is a reasonable level of protection? It can't be a farmer dependant on irrigation, and it can't be a sportsman, it can't be a commercial fisherman, it can't be the BPA, and it can't be a logger. Who DOESN'T represent a conflict of interest? Who DOESN'T have his own agenda? It's a tough call.