I wonder that if we continue to over harvest our fish resources and otherwise muck up the habitat that proposals like this may succeed because "you're not using the river to produce fish"

Back in the late 70s WDF developed a plan for Puget Sound salmon that require at least one species pf salmon (Chinook, coho, chum) to be managed on a wild basis in order to ensure the ability to protect habitat. I would not be surprised if a smart business looked at how a watershed is actually managed versus what it says on paper. They might even attack ESA. Say you listed a species in 1995 and the abundance has, at best, stabilized at what it was when listed. Might be able to argue that you really don't want to protect/recover so let "me" do my thing.