We examined consensus-based management through the lens of the Colorado River Recovery Implementation Program, a consensus-based plan that attempts to develop the Colorado River's water while protecting its endangered fishes. Because this management model has been touted as a preferred substitute to government-imposed regulation, we analyzed the recovery implementation program to determine its strengths and weaknesses. By reviewing secondary information and interviewing members of the diverse groups involved in the program, we gathered detailed information about the program's history, implementation, and progress. Our investigation revealed that the recovery implementation program has allowed development of the Colorado River's water and incorporated more voices into the decision-making process. But the program circumvented federal authority over endangered species conservation, which has proved detrimental to the fishes. Furthermore, we learned that the consensus-based model is vulnerable to control by special-interests and may be driven by bureaucratic procedural goals rather than species recovery. To ameliorate these concerns, (1) program success should be judged by species recovery, rather than political achievements, (2) the federal government should retain the power of issuing statutory sanctions in the event of continued population decline, and (3) funding should be provided by an agency with a clear species-protection agenda to reduce the disproportionate power of utilitarian interest groups. By incorporating these recommendations, conservation programs can better realize the benefits of a consensus-based approach without sacrificing species recovery.