Peer Edited Developed Waters for Wildlife: Science, Perception, Values, and Controversy PAUL R. KRAUSMAN, 1 Wildlife Conservation and Management, School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA STEVEN S. ROSENSTOCK, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ 85023, USA JAMES W. CAIN III, 2 Conservation and Wildlife Management, School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA Abstract Human-made or -modified water sources (i.e., catchments) are widely used for wildlife management in the arid western United States, where thousands of such catchments have been built to enhance wildlife populations and mitigate for the loss of natural water sources. For decades, the need for and value of catchments to wildlife was unquestioned. Recently, however, the use of catchments has become controversial, particularly on public lands. Impacts to wildlife populations and wildlife habitats have been central to the debate, which has, in large part, been fueled by a paucity of scientific information. Value-based conflicts over management practices on public lands also have played a significant role. (WILDLIFE SOCIETY BULLETIN 34(3):563–569; 2006) Key words catchments, Southwest, water, wildlife. A Brief History of Wildlife Water Development in the Arid West Water is a welfare factor (Leopold 1933) and, when not in the proper proportion, can be a limiting factor to populations. For over half a century, humans in the arid western United States have provided water for wildlife. Where water was perceived to be limiting because of the scarcity or unreliability of natural sources, early resource managers focused considerable attention on developing water for wildlife. Such developments were first described in the 1940s, intended to benefit quail (Callipepla spp.; Glading 1943) and later mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus; Glading 1947, Wright 1959). The popularity of these systems increased as new designs were developed and established for chukar (Alectoris chukar; Benolkin 1990), lagomorphs (Cooke 1982), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis; Halloran and Deming 1958, Blong and Pollard 1968), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana; Sundstrom 1968), and other game species. In the 1980s, the focus for wildlife catchments expanded beyond enhancing populations of game species. Widespread urban, agricultural, transportation, and industrial developments across the arid West provided an incentive to use developed water sources to mitigate the loss of naturally occurring water sources (deVos et al. 1983, Messing 1990, Krausman and Etchberger 1995, Rosenstock et al. 1999). Along with this mitigation function was the need for catchment designs that were more reliable and accessible to the variety of wildlife species using natural free-water sources (Gunn 1990, Lesicka and Hervert 1995). To bolster wildlife water-catchment programs, state wildlife agencies partnered with federal land management agencies, sportsmen, and private organizations that could provide additional labor and capital investment. Such collaborations also served a social and networking function, providing opportunities for hands-on participation in projects of mutual interest (Broyles 1998). Wildlife water catchments remain a popular management tool across the western United States. In 1997, 10 of 11 western state wildlife agencies had ongoing water catchment programs, that collectively represented nearly 6,000 water developments (precipitation catchments [guzzlers], modi- fied natural rock basins [tinajas], developed springs, and wells) and annual expenditures of .$1 million (Rosenstock et al. 1999). The Controversy over Wildlife Waters For decades, the benefits of developed water sources to wildlife were unquestioned. Unfortunately, despite the tremendous capital investment in water catchments, relatively few resources were devoted to monitoring and studying their effects. Predictably, the absence of data created fertile ground for management uncertainty and, ultimately, public controversy. Sanchez and Haderlie (1990) noted that the pace of water development on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) refuges in Arizona, USA, had slowed, in part because of concerns that overabundant water supplies could adversely affect wildlife populations and habitats. This was supported by Broyles (1995) who questioned the benefits of wildlife water developments and hypothesized various negative impacts that could be caused by these facilities. Similar cautionary notes were raised by Brown (1998). Broyles and Cutler (1999) further challenged the efficacy of water catchments for desert bighorn sheep and stimulated a vigorous exchange in the literature (Broyles and Cutler 2001, Rosenstock et al. 2001, Krausman et al. 2003). Range managers have established numerous livestock water sources that also may be used by wildlife (Vallentine 1980), and these facilities, likewise, have been controversial (Scott 1998). Concurrent to the debate in the scientific literature, water catchments on public lands received greater scrutiny by interest groups and members of the public. Projects involving installation of new waters or renovation of existing systems frequently were challenged because of hypothesized biological impacts (Broyles 1995), economic costs and benefits (Brown 1998, Broyles 1998), and perceived incompatibility with areas managed for wilderness characteristics (Czech and Krausman 1999, Bleich 2005). Some 1 E-mail: Krausman@ag.arizona.edu 2 Present address: School of Animal, Plant and Evnironmental Sciences, University of Witwatersrand, Wits 2050 Johannesburg, South Africa Krausman et al.  Developed Waters for Wildlife 563