Jun
5
Are Red States Better at Managing Water Than Blue States?
June 5, 2010 | Posted by Michael "Aquadoc" Campana
3 Comments
What started out as a blockbuster post has wilted in the past week or so. But here goes – you can categorize this in the ‘food for thought’ category.
Had an interesting chat (as always) with Todd Jarvis a few days ago. We were talking about water planning and particularly, my recent visit to Oklahoma, where I waxed enthusiastic about the way that state was developing its water plan.
I compared Oklahoma’s effort with that here in Oregon, where the Oregon Water Resources Commission (OWRC) and Water Resources Department (OWRD) are in the process of developing an Integrated Water Resources Strategy (IWRS). In comparison, Oregon’s process is more top-down than Oklahoma’s, and it lacks an honest broker. Oregon also lacks money, which helps with process.
It’s ironic that Oregon, known for process, is ceding that ground to Oklahoma.
Todd then posited that it seemed that in the West, ‘red’ [i.e., those that are more politically conservative and vote Republican] states are better at water management than ‘blue’ [those that are more liberal and tend to vote Democratic] states. He cited Wyoming and Utah, two states with which he’s had a lot of experience.
Utah has a stronger exempt-well policy than any other Western state and it is experimenting with groundwater basin self-governance in the Escalante Valley.
I cited Oklahoma, because planning is an element of good management. I also think of Kansas as doing a good job managing water. [Wayne?] Texas is experimenting with groundwater management and has revised the way it manages surface water over the past 15 years or so.
Some clarification is in order. By ‘managing’ I mean such functions as: planning, developing, assessing, allocating, measuring, adjudicating, protecting, regulating, and conserving. Not all management entities perfom all these functions. Water quality would be included as well as water quantity, but I realize that is a stretch.
After thinking about this ‘red vs. blue’ hypothesis I realized that in the West there are really only three blue states – the COWs – California, Oregon, and Washington (I have conveniently excluded Hawai’i). The accompanying 2008 electoral map notwithstanding, Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico are not really blue states like the aforementioned. New Mexico is more purple than anything else. So maybe we need a ‘purple’ category.
But statements such as the title of this post are simplistic. Some states have multiple personalities. Oregon and Washington are blue in the west, red in the east. They are blue overall because the western portion of each state has more people. It’s interesting to note that the most aggressive drive for water self-governance in Oregon comes from the red part of the state, the Umatilla Basin near Pendleton. That drive could arise from the attribute that ‘red staters’ are portrayed as distrusting central governments and have a greater desire to do things themselves.
Another complication is that within a state, a number of entities perform a number of the management functions listed above: Federal agencies; conservation, water, and irrigation districts; and municipalities all come to mind. The state itself might not be managing that much of the water within its borders.
Perhaps this hypothesis might be better tested in the Eastern USA.
I suspect there are some theses and dissertations embedded in all this.
Your comments are appreciated.
“The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men gang aft agley.” – Robert Burns, To A Mouse (1785) [Translation: The best laid schemes of mice and men go often askew."]
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Comments
3 Comments so far
Subscribe
Instead of trying to find divisive red-state-vs-blue-state differences you should be concintrating on the coming world water crisis and the international cooperation that will be needed to manage world water resources. Read my article Water Is Not The New Oil on The Resilient Earth website. Here is an excerpt:
“In the midst of the clamor over global warming, greenhouse gas emissions and world energy supplies another, perhaps more immediate, environmental catastrophe is gathering momentum—the world wide shortage of fresh water. Though eclipsed in America by pictures of oil-soaked pelicans and fouled coastal wetlands, this potentially more disastrous and more permanent problem has been ignored by politicians and the public for decades. Experts are warning that by 2050 fully 45% of humanity may be chronically short of water. Unlike the eventual depletion of the world’s oil supplies, there is no substitute for H2O.”
I certainly would have thought the other way around since it seems Dems are generally more environmentally concious. You have some definitely eye opening information.
Dear Dr. Hoffman:
Thanks for your comments. – much appreciated.
As for tackling (or not, as the case may be) the global water crisis: this particular post deals with one issue. I invite you to peruse my personal blog, WaterWired (aquadoc.typepad.com/waterwired) where I have over 1,300 posts dealing with virtually every aspect of world water, including those you mention.