Jerry Sehlke, Past-President AWRA
The United States is a country rich in natural resources which provide the basis for our nation’s health, security and prosperity. Water is one of our most critical and economically significant natural resources but it is one of the few resources for which we do not have a national policy, plan, or vision. While we have national energy, forest, agriculture and land management policies and plans little has been done to develop a national water vision.
Historically, we have developed energy and land use plans addressing resources that comprise a mix of private, state and federal ownership and jurisdictional issues. However, past attempts to develop regional and/or national water policies and plans were defeated by disputes over state versus federal primacy. This begs the question: if water is one of our most precious resources and many believe that that there is little coordination and focus in water resources management, shouldn’t we at least develop a national vision of how best to use, protect, and manage our water resources?
In the U.S., water-resources related roles, responsibilities and authorities are shared or divided between local, state, tribal and federal governments and the private sector. The federal government has more than 20 agencies responsible for understanding and managing water resources. Each state and many tribes have one or more agencies responsible for managing water resources within their areas of jurisdiction. And hundreds, if not thousands of private-sector water companies and organizations manage water resources within the U.S.
Clearly federal, state and tribal governments each have specific roles, responsibilities and authorities for managing water resources under their jurisdiction and, clearly, each entity must fulfill its jurisdiction-specific role, responsibilities and authorities. However, can/should water resources programs be managed independently from one another or can they be managed more efficiency and effectively for all parties concerned if we could collectively develop an overarching national water vision that promotes a better understanding and better coordination and cooperation among federal, state and tribal governments, and among the various states? Can we develop a “national” (a joint federal, state and tribal) water vision?
What are the arguments for and against a national water vision? One argument is that a national water vision is necessary to develop our water resources in a systematic, efficient, sustainable, and cost-effective manner. A counter-argument is that water resources are the purview of the states and no national water vision or policy is needed Another argument promotes a hybrid approach, e.g., a national vision relative to federal interests and independent visions or plans for each state, territory and tribe relative to the resources within its domain.
The American Water Resources Association has been involved in these and similar discussions for more than a decade through its publications, conferences and facilitation of four National Water Policy Dialogues (see http://www.awra.org/meetings/conference_series/policy_dialogue.html). These dialogues provided a means to hold open, transparent discussions on national water resources issues. Discussions and assessments focused not only on promoting cooperation and coordination among federal, state and tribal agencies, but also on whether the US should develop a national water vision, policy or plan. Other professional water resources associations (e.g., AWWA and ICWP) and federal agencies (e.g., the Corps’ National Collaborative Water Resources Conference) have also engaged in water policy related discussions and assessments.
AWRA and our sister national professional water resources associations are now combining our efforts to facilitate this most important discussion which gets to the very core of future water resources management in the U.S. That is: should there be a national water resources vision and, if so, what should that vision be? We seek the broadest possible involvement from the water resources community and others who are interested in and/or affected by water resources management decisions in the US. We have no preconceived notions as to what the final answer will or should be; we simply believe that it is in the best interest of the US water community and the nation as a whole to have this conversation. What we ask is that everyone to partake honestly, openly, fully and with respect for the opinions of others.
In keeping with the tradition of the National Water Policy Dialogues, the results of this discussion, whether a consensus is developed or if we just decide to “agree to disagree,” will be summarized, made available on the website for public access, and transmitted to the President and Congress for their edification and consideration.
We hope that you will participate in this discussion and invite your friends and colleagues to do so as well.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
I have recently completed 2 years as one of the CoChairs, EcoAction Committee, Green Party US. During that time, we drafted and secured the agreement of the National Committee, GPUS, for a policy on Water Management to be backed up by local and state wide actions. A copy of resolution passed in the spring can be downloaded (PDF) from the GPUS site.
Recently, the Green Party of California adopted a new platform position regarding Water Planning, quite in keeping with the national policy resolution since they were drafted by the same individual.
These two statements are based to some degree on the process that created the Middle Rio Grande agreement in New Mexico.
It should be clear to anyone living in California that the current situation can not last. It is filled with un-enforcable mandates and political power grabs, influenced heavily by whoever has the largest media budget, maybe even big enough to script a 60 Minutes presentation to their own liking.
There is significant work to be done all over the country and before it is over, everyone will cry that it their own ox that is being gored. I am not as concerned with the specifics of the policies as I am with the process by which each bio-region or watershed arrives at their own conclusions. The process we have now favors deep pockets.
I’m very concerned about the increasing buzz about the nexus between industrial renewable energy on public lands and water. I fear that infrastructure to move and further privatize water over the continent will be put in place in association with/under cover of -renewable energy and transmission projects on public lands, including several of the projects that are being fast-tracked by Ken Salazar.
A national water vision will be a tricky thing to decide upon. The goodness or badness of the effort will entirely depend on how it is phrased.
Realizing that water is currently the property of the states, and each state has to some degree already set state water policy, a national vision or policy that counters state visions or policies will be problematic. In this sense, the only national vision that would be acceptable would be a clear vision recognizing states’ rights in regard to water. Somehow, I don’t think this is what you are interested in, though.
Many states in the west have water rights that are property rights to the use of the states’ water. A national vision that does not clearly recognize and operate in this legal context will be problematic and undoubtedly challenged if it were to proceed. Any new water vision that is not constitutionally implemented will likely not survive.
It appears to me that the only acceptable national water vision will be one that accommodates the current systems. If this is the case, why bother? If the intent of a national water vision is to fundamentally change the water paradigm there will clearly be winners and losers. This brings up the question of who will decide what the new vision is to be? Public debate and discourse? I submit this approach is impossible and could never survive a legal challenge. I see no state agreeing that the federal government should craft and implement a new national water vision.
Some trial balloons. “A national vision for sustainable water use”. What happens to all the existing water uses that are not sustainbable? Are they regulated out of existance? Purchased? Eliminated by attrition?
“A national vision for the highest economic use of water (market allocation)”. Agriculture will never compete with municipal and industrial uses. It’s only a matter of time before irrigation dwindles accordingly.
“A national water vision supporting water transfers from places of excess to places of need”. How can public debate and discourse make these kinds of choices? The lowest population areas will be out-discoursed every time. Their ability to grow will be taken from them every time.
“A national water vision to use water efficiently in every case”. This one may have a chance of survival, but most water managers recognize that increasing water use efficiency can in some cases increase consumptive use and not save any water at all – even when less water is pumped. Such a vision needs to have a lot of qualifiers attached to it.
It seems from my perspective that every time a new “national” water effort has been suggested, it is inevitably a different way for the federal government to gain more influence over water and its management. I’ll be surprised if this effort is not also aimed at this goal.
It seems that many of those who prefer federal water regulation over state regulation, profess this proclivity based on a belief that the state has not managed the water correctly – allowed overdraft, water quality issues, etc., etc. If I felt there were bad water management decisions being made, I for one would infinitely rather seek change through a state government than through the federal government. In other words, the only advantage to federal management is if they do it perfectly every where and every time and there is never an issue or a problem with their approach. Taking water resource decisions farther away from the people who use the water and depend on it is bad public policy.
It will be interesting to see the various responses to the need for a national water vision. I can envision no national vision statement that will be fair, locally approachable, legal, and will not increase the federal role in water regulation and management to suit the national goals over those of the state and local citizens.
Oh, and about the open and transparent discussions already held. I visited the website (http://www.awra.org/meetings/conference_series/policy_dialogue.html) and found none of the links working except the one where I could purchase the conference CDs for over $100.00. Less open and transparent than I would have expected.
Thanks for this opportunity to comment.
I am the mayordomo of a small acequia (irrigation system) in central New Mexico. I’m also very active in our regional water planning organization, the Middle Rio Grande Water Assembly. I don’t think that a national water vision would be of much use or effect. The differences between East and West are large, and cannot be fused. In the West, we have a priority water rights system. Water rights are held by individuals, corporations, and governments and are private property. This makes for huge legal snafus when trying to come to some kind of universal management scheme. Water must be managed at a local level. That’s where its ultimately used. Here in NM we have water use traditions that go back many centuries, predating the arrival of Europeans. These contain a lot of wisdom and experience that is essential. We who use the water traditionally are buried by modern growth ambitions and it’s only our strong legal status,(we are protected by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which is also contained in the NM state Constitution)that keep us alive and kicking. Our senior priority rights continually frustrate the State Engineer in his efforts to move agricultural rights into urban growth. These struggles have to play out locally, and no National Vision is going to be of much use. Some principles from our acequias to consider: “Water is Life”, “All Living Things Deserve Water”, “Water Belongs to the Land”, “Water is Sacred”, “Water Must be Used Carefully”, “We Must Leave a Healthy Water Resource for Future Generations”, “Water is a Community Asset and All Communities, No Matter How Small or Weak, Must be Free of Speculation and Exploitation”, “When it comes to Water, Small is Always Better than Large”, “Every Citizen has a Responsibility Towards the Water Which Cannot be Avoided by Paying Money”.
Thanks you all for all your great information and inspiration this past year and decade, and to all the people dealing with water issues worldwide. I desire nothing more than seeing a real and coherent water plan for the country. Water is our greatest and most abused resource as well as most neglected. It is past time to have a coherent and far reaching plan for the water in the country and the continent as a whole.
First part of the plan, Thousand or hundreds of thousands of medium and micro-hydro electric power systems all over the country. Most of these are just flow through systems. Mostly on private land to produce power for the grid. Power to the people not corporations. We know that Big Giant dams do not work. Three Rivers in China or the High Aswan as well as some of the dams of the Great Northwest as examples.
Tens of thousands of constructed wetlands for water purification. Purification ponds patterned on the plans of Bill Mollison the Father and founder of permaculture. As many of these as necessary to stop polluting the Gulf and the oceans.
A water transport system. Its time to start refilling the water tables. Even if it is just enough to move water up far enough to get it to the next watershed to start with. As climate change continues, drought and floods become more intense, and we lose useful lands near the coast; the land that we do have for agriculture will be much more important. Water is the most important part of agriculture.
Plant trees. Trees are one of the best systems for putting water in the air, and getting this water inland. Hedge rows around every big agricultural field to lessen loss of water from crops and along highways. Tree buffer zones around cites and towns of the dry west an Midwest. Fruit producing tree crops in parks and schools.
Second. A reversal of the supreme court case El Paso v Reynolds. The notion that water is an article of commerce is insane and water must be returned to the status of natural and absolute right. This case addressed the wrong issue.
If we do not ask the right question, we will not get the right answer.
Bill at paradigm change project
I am assigning the reading and commenting of the water vision statement as a class exercise in my water policy course. Thank you for considering my students comments in the thread.
In reply to Wayne Bossert’s comments about the dead links on the Policy Dialogue, thanks for pointing out the problem, these links have been fixed.
Gary Whitton
AWRA Webmaster
The need for a national water vision is critical if we are to ensure that use and management of the nation’s water and related land resources meet people’s needs, safeguard ecosystem function, preserve water quality and provide sufficient water for future generations.
To achieve the goal of sustainable water management, the nation must take proper precaution, yet be proactive in management, and act in an integrated and comprehensive manner, recognizing the clear linkages between land use and water, ground water and surface water, and water quality and quantity. The nation must employ every asset, tool, approach, organization and citizen possible to inform its management of water and do so in a relentless pursuit of this vision.
[...] and explain what will become of the results. At the top, just below the heading, you can click on Leave a comment to provide your opinion. When you do that, a new page will open up that will have Jerry’s [...]
The national water vision could best be exemplified in the water planning process of the Middle Rio Grande. The most fundamental principle that explained both its successes and its failures was the inclusion of the goal to: “Balance growth with renewable supply (approved by the Water Assembly Action Committee but not by the Water Resources Board).” Sooner or later sustainability needs to be defined regionally and diversions will have to take a back seat to options that address the growth issues.
Should the USA Have a National Water Vision? An Invitation to Comment … I find is so open ended so as to invite one to write a response which may turn into a small book.
For me the question is more accurately phrased do “we” … that’s you and me … actually want a national water vision…? I find that before we can honestly make that assessment “we” need full, open, timely, honest disclosure and transparency about all aspects surrounding water. It is here where “we” encounter the first of the many obstacles and barriers deliberately placed to keep “us” from obtaining full, open, timely, honest disclosure and transparency about all aspect of our water.
Lacking honest disclosure and transparency, the decisions and choices presented are most often cleverly camouflaged to keep us from seeing the invisible hand of for-profit-corporate-interest$ purchasing and manufacturing the proof required to have “us” unwittingly endorse water policies most often not in our better long term interest.
I submit anyone who has actual hands-on experience and been a part of any endeavor seeking to attain honest “buy-in” from you and me (the public), is aware of how time-consuming and at times utterly frustrating this process truly is. I my more than 30 years dealing as a citizen with government regulators in numerous rules making endeavors, this is not a process into which any governmental agency willingly enters. And my experience is government will not spend the time nor make the investment to develop a policy under this format.
So for me the question posed leading into this article is from the perspective and background of the AWRA either naive or a bit disingenuous. I do not mock AWRA, I seek only to understand, what AWRA position is respecting providing to “we” … the people … full, open, honest, timely disclosure and transparency respecting all aspects of our water…? AWRA membership is as I read from your website limited and does not to my understanding include the “unwashed” ie … John Q Public…? Correct…?
So, who then does AWRA see inviting to their table to assist them to develop their version of a national water vision …? Should AWRA reply, “we” – the people – I ask then for your assessment of the time such an endeavor will require…? I want to believe, but call me a doubting-thomas as organizations while their intentions may be noble are not established nor operated to permit the luxury of inclusion which invites the “people” as a valued partner in developing a national water vision.
Respectfully,
Paul F Miller
http://waterman99.wordpress.com
We should remember that there was a National Water Commission in the early 1970s, and it concluded that water laws and policies were historically and best controlled at the state and local levels. I think much the same rationale applies today. However, there may be value in a national-level policy document that (1) sets forth clear and transparent policies to guide federal agency actions regarding water and (2) describes prudent water resource policies that could be implemented at the state and local levels, even though there is no compulsion. I am skeptical that we could truly reach consensus on a high-level water policy for the US. For example, for every water expert who argues for full cost pricing and use of economic incentives for rational resource protection (such as me), there is an advocate for providing water utility services free to all citizens based on tax collections, as a fundamental human right. I don’t think a national policy will be possible that makes even all reasonable people happy.
While I certainly favor a more progressive national guidance approach to water management, having lived in Texas for a number of years, I am quite confident that were such a national policy proposed, Texas would be the first out of the gate to oppose it! Anyone surprised?!
Accordingly, I am organizing a mini conference to bring the issue to the Texas table for discussion. The conference, “National Water Policy and the Future of Texas Water: A Local and National Debate,” will feature a number of prominant Texans and others as well as our friend Jim Thebaut, who will screen his documentary “The American Southwest: Are We Dry Yet?” Details on the conference can be found at: http://www.law.ttu.edu/acp/centers/water/conferences/2010/.
In a perfect world, a national water vision would clearly be an excellent venue to promote the most efficient, just, environmentally safe, and generally best ideas on how water should be used and controlled. A council of the most highly qualified individuals in our entire nation set out to coordinate efforts to distribute water in a way that is most beneficial to all would seem an ideal system. Our waters are, after all, connected in global hydrology and many water needs, uses, and policies are similar across the nation. We have national management policies for many other vital systems, even ones that are directly related to water management.
There are valid concerns, however, about how decisions would be made if the power over water use became regulated by government entities far from those who need to use it. Certainly, there are very great differences in water supplies, needs, and uses across the nation and it is vital that the people who make the decisions about any water rights be familiar with the area and current uses for water. It would be terribly important that bureaucratic processes, power struggles, and politics be prevented interfering with fair and timely allocation of water. There will be problems and politics to sort through, but they are not insurmountable.
History has shown that the most effective ways of managing precious, vital resources include national level, state level, and private level management. A coordination of ideas, goals, and responsibilities would be to everyone’s good.
Comments based on the previous comments,
Water issues have always been political and will remain to be so as the world population continues to increase. Developing a vision of water resources will be time consuming and frustrating, but still should be done, if for no other reason that to educate the Nation on the aspects of one of our most important resources. We need to have a complete scientific picture of how the various individual jurisdictional visions and policies are affecting the whole hydrologic system. Like every other aspect of a developed society, changing our past traditions, actions and practices for a better future is going to require a lot of work. The conversation needs to be started sooner rather than later.
I think that a good first step for an organization like AWRA is to consolidate in one place what the individual policies of all the jurisdictions are and where there are conflicts. The awkwardness of evaluating our past water management practices in this country needs to be accepted and dealt with as objectively as possible. Being able to assess the situation objectively, without assigning blame, is the first step in improving the management of water for every aspect of society. Without acknowledging the state of the resource, making a vision for the future is not a true vision, but more likely fiction.
Thanks,
Richard Ragan
Hydrologist
Perhaps the question should be rephrased: Should the United States Develop a SINGLE National Water Vision? Based on my experience with the Department of Justice, we have multiple National Water Visions. The Corps of Engineers has its vision, the Fish & Wildlife Service has a different vision, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a third vision, etc.
Without the Water Resources Council, there is virtually no way to coordinate the water visions (or policies or whatever you want to call them) of the various federal agencies. Though such coordination is within the authority of Congress, my recent experience with the ACF/ACT conflicts suggests that Congress wouldn’t touch such issues with a ten foot pole. In fact, our recent history displays a bipartisan lack of leadership on issues relating to water policy.
From my perspective, the key issue focuses on the need to coordinate multiple requirements contained in multiple federal statutes. If a single national water vision could achieve that, it would be a Godsend. Achieving a single national water vision, however, might also require Divine intervention as it would take a miracle.
Dr. George William Sherk
Hydrologic Science & Engineering
Colorado School of Mines
I’ve frequently wondered about the use of water and who should have a say in what goes where. Current water rights laws, especially Prior Appropriation, are old an outdated ways of dealing with a problem that has overtaken society. Limits must be set and everyone should have equal rights to clean, sanitary water.
A national water vision is a wonderful idea for a place to start. It seems like there are too many laws and restrictions that are getting in the way of States being able to divide use. The Federal Government should step in and set up basic laws and rules for using water. This may be impossible however because each region of the US suffers in drastically different ways. Looking at different departments regulated by Federal Government such as Forestry and Agriculture, they also differ geographically across the US so setting basic guidelines may be a possibility. I think addressing water rights will need to incorporate all facets of life however. Since agriculture is the largest user of water, the USDA would have to be involved in a huge way to set up guidelines.
I agree with most of the comments listed in saying that a national water vision is a great idea, but may be hopeless. It seems like there are now too many problems to solve and the public would never agree to more government power.
As the previous comments illuminate, a national water policy first faces the task of defining itself as water is a ubiquitous presence across all resource use and management decisions. Water quantity? Instream? Withdrawals? Water quality? Watershed management? Inland navigation? Instream biology? Municipal supplies? Groundwater? Surface water? Conjunctive management? Water rights? Riparian rights vs prior appropriation? East or West? etc., etc. In an era of scarcity, they can not be easily teased apart.
Given the embedded vested interests and the Tenth Amendment, a legally binding national water policy is even less likely than a meaningful national health care policy. Even policy declarations seem to be a far hope: the resolution establishing access to water and sanitation as a basic human right failed to garner enough support to pass at the United Nations Istanbul Conference last March, with the United States actively voicing its opposition.
Mark Solomon
Water Resources PhD Candidate, University of Idaho
Transcontinental aqueduct system (surface and subsurface) utilizing open-circuit pumped storage systems linking feasible existing water sources. Such a massive project would likely involve planners, environmentalists, agronomists, water and waste-water treatment professionals, etc., for generations.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Senior Civil Engineer
City of Stamford Connecticut, Design Engineer
Consulting Engineer in heavy civil construction and design
I hope we Canadian members can participate. As I may have told some of you, about 20 years ago when I was VP Environmnet of a majoe Canadian consulting firm we were invited to California by a major US consulting firm to discuss joining them as partners in proposing a North American Water Plan. We declined. The first step as proposed would have been to bring Canadian water to water scarce areas in California – when it was clear to us that the resource available was being mismanaged. I’m happy to say that there have been great improvements in this regard! However the principle remains the same, whether in transbaoundary transfers or just inter-basin transfers. There should be no transfer to another basin if there is room to improve the management of the existing resource. If this is the case and the need is really there, then should begin a proper study of the costs and benefits in both the receiving basin and the basin from which the transfer is being made. How to do these calcualtions and how to achieve the appropriate participation in making the decision will I,m sure be subjects of discussion on this page!
I agree with what Wayne Bossert said regarding the inefficiency and potential for disaster of moving control over water resources further away from those who use it (ie state to federal control). State to state communication and water regulation could improve, especially within a single river basin.
Instead of nationalizing regulation or vision, why not regionalize it? America 2050 has used High Speed Rail as a way of delineating Mega-Regions of the US. Part of their boundary delineation included clusters of urban centers; many of which were formed around river basins to begin with: http://www.america2050.org/maps/ (Note: I am not affiliated in any way with America 2050).
Instead of a national vision, how about regional, interstate treaties that can resolve disputes over large river basins. The regions identified in the map above are also similar enough in climate to provide logical basis for their river management practices.
My two cents.
Page Weil
Water Resource Engineer
I find this site very interesting and am pleased to see such a number of responses with such a variety of opinions. After reading the comments above, I would emphasize the phrase “Think globally, Act locally” in preparing a national water vision. It is obvious that local issues will present problems & complications for developing a coherent national water vision. However, that should not stop us from trying to establish a national water vision. One thing that is essential to developing such a water-resource vision for the nation is accurate information concerning the quantity and quality of water, from the small to the large scale. We need detailed water budgets for small and large systems, groundwater and surface waters. We need to account for water use and return, and, the quality of the water. The vision must emphasize conservation even in areas where water is currently plentiful (think Atlanta, GA, 2007 versus 2009). The vision must be mindful of ecological systems that are dependant on specific hydrologic regimes, as well as, the potential that the hydrology will change with global climate change. This will not be an easy task, and will need to start with data that is reliable and similar from state to state. I know much of that data is out there (e.g., my textbooks have water budgets compiled by USGS hydrologists for certain regions of the country), but more information is needed and a national synthesis team is needed to see where there are holes in the data. I suppose that is the cry of all academic researcher – “we need more data!”. But the previous comments above seem to support that contention. Let’s continue the discussion, compile the data, fill in the holes, and move toward regional water vision. (Make sure those are hydrologic regions and not political regions.) Then, let’s move toward a national water-resource vision.
Tom Byl, Ph.D.
Civil & Environmental Engineering
Tennessee State University
It seems that many of the great points that are being made in this thread should not be considered limitations, but merely obstacles that could be re-phrased into objectives for such an effort. I’m VERY pessimistic that such an effort could ever be accomplished in a meaningful way due to the aforementioned financial interests and the power that they would wield over any policy making process. However, I think that the effort should, and will, be undertaken, if not now, then in the future (as the discussion of a national energy policy became real when oil reached $150/barrel). The difference being that when the process becomes indisputably necessary due to a critical lack of water resources, the financial implications of the process will be more of an issue, leading to a stronger “water-industrial-congressional” complex that will provide less of a chance to enact policy that would be objectively beneficial for water as a resource.
A National Water Vision (Program?) should (must?) be developed because humans are not well equipped to think beyond our borders. In the absence of oversight from a greater authority, property owners are not concerned with downstream properties, City managers are not concerned with downstream Cities and States are not concerned with downstream States. Therefore, we cannot leave these decisions in the hands of state and local government and expect a sustainable solution to emerge.
The question I have is: “Should our National Water Vision be limited to our Nation?” Is it appropriate for us to pollute the Gulf of Mexico, such that dead zones grow to affect international waters or other countries? Is it appropriate for us to use all of the water in a surface or groundwater source before it flows into Mexico? As someone pointed out above, water is a global resource circulating through a number of phases that are not contained by our political boundaries. Perhaps the question should address our Nation’s Global Water Vision.
One last question regarding the conference, “National Water Policy and the Future of Texas Water: A Local and National Debate,” discussed above. Speakers include Dr. Rainwater of the Water Resources Center and Dr. Farmer of the Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics…Seriously??? Where do you get these guys?
David Powers
Water Resources Engineer
I welcome the opportunity to share in the discussion though I also share the views of many who have already posted that it if anything close to a policy, based on grounded theory, is formulated, it will be a Herculean task to establish details of implementation. I would like to suggest we look back to John Wesley Powell’s idea that we draw state lines according to the borders suggested by the catchment basins. Now, I don’t really think we can re-draw state boundaries (though that might not be a more difficult task than drawing new jurisdictional and ownership water demarcation lines) but I think we should consider regional control of aquifers and surface water and perhaps establish institutions that have the supra-authority to manage our water regionally. Clearly, water knows no arbitrary boundaries but water does recognize watershed domains and perhaps that might serve as a natural place to begin.
As the Project Leader for UNESCO-IUGS-IGCP project “GROWNET” related to water resources, and also as a Hydrogeologist working for farmers for past 57 years, I feel that the National Dialogue should aim at creating a “water sensitive society” in the US; a direction in which Australia has already proceeded well ahead of others, in view of the changing climatic pattern.
In a “Water Sensitive Society” water conservation, prudent use and quality protection of water, watershed development for reducing silt load in runoff water, become important issues in which the stakeholders participate in decision making process. This concept should reach all sectors of the society, from school children to senior citizens.
Management of “Virtual Water” is also a must in USA. The good old days of affluence and plenty are over. Out of all the food-stuff purchased from the market, about 30% goes as waste, either before cooking or as plate-waste. In a “water sensitive society” even the school children leave their plates clean after lunch and dinner. Reducing post-harvest losses is also part of conserving ‘virtual water’,so also is avoiding wastage of paper by school-children and teachers. Population control could also be viewed as reducing demand for water and virtual water.
I am a student just begining to learn how really fragile our world water supply is. The more I learn the more I realize that we are in serious trouble already. Many people are living with unsanitary conditions and there are people buying land purely for the water rights it has. Water is becoming more valuable than the land. Many hate the idea of more government control but clearly a National Water Vision should be established. As our population continues to grow the problems are only going to get worse. If we can gather the great scientific minds together to design the National Water Vision there may be hope for our future.
We do not need a “vision” for one of the most plentiful substances on this Planet and a substance that is fairly difficult to destroy. But I guess that is an opportunity for creating employment for people who have nothing to contribute other than to complicate matters.
Most of our water problems in the West are caused by concerted efforts by government to restrict the supply of water. If we were not so committed to have a tight water situation, we would not have it.
Anyone who wants to know what the problems are in New Mexico can contact me at ssilber1@juno.com and I will mail you a copy of my book on water issues.
While the development of a national water vision would be a good idea, the priority seems to be properly funding all Federal and State agencies relating to water and environment to a functional level. Many water/ environmental agencies such as USGS, US Army Corps of Engineers, US Bureau of Reclamation, US EPA have cut professional positions and activities even beyond the 1970’s levels when the US population was only about 205 million. Many of these agencies have reduced their scope of actions to match the meager funding dealt by Congreses over time. Congress is ever ready to “downsize” government without thinking through the critical service needs of people. Water is a shared resource and therefore a natural candidate for being subject to civil arrangements. It should get priority in par with national defense. As an example, USGS, who used to help us teach a field class in stream gaging for stduents in our hydrometry class since 1989, beacuse of underfunding has stopped this assistance since 2008. Positions in the water /environmental agencies have been cut and their scope reduced to a dysfunctional level. Disasters like Katrin aare mainly caused by irrational exuberance in reducing the size of the government. Priority shoild be for expanding water/environmental services by the governmental agencies in collaboration with academic institutions and private industry.
Subramania I. Sritharan PhD, P.E.
Professor and Chair/ Director
International Center for Water Resources Management
111 C. J. Mc Lin Center
Central State University
1400 Brush Row Road
Wilberforce, OH 45384-1004
At best, a National Water Vision would be a loose proposal created to provide guidance and suggestions without mandating specific action. It is impossible to create a single standard set of regulations regarding water resources and water use; water resources and climatic conditions vary greatly not only across the nation but also within states. Additionally, we cannot separate water policies or water use from the many connected area: agriculture, industry, urban development, rangeland management, and the like. In much of the West, water rights are allocated through centuries of tradition. Prior appropriations, use-it-or-lose-it policies, and allocations exceeding supplies all further complicate the problem of moving to ‘best practice’ policies. There are areas where water is free of cost and areas where citizens already pay high fees for water. So many differences exist within the realm of water resources and water use across the nation, it is impossible to synthesize a single best management practice.
Water is a commons good. It is difficult to exclude anyone from using it, yet use of the resource by one diminishes the resource for use by all others. The difficulties we see now with our water supply embody the tragedy of the commons because there is no single entity protecting our shared water resources. However, it would be next to impossible to have all water resources protected by a single entity. Historically, water has been controlled by state and local entities rather than the fed, and this should continue to be the case because localized conditions are extremely important in creating comprehensive water management policies.
The next issue is associated costs. While I support education, the costs associated with educating all citizens about the importance of our shared resources would be high, to say the least. There are costs associated with research and development, water infrastructure, and rehabilitating water resources that do not meet safety standards. And should water itself have a price tag? As I see it, there are two approaches to funding the health of our shared water supply: through federal taxation or through market based approaches. This is, of course, oversimplified, but it leads to the heart of a larger issue. There are those who believe that water is a resource to be managed and those that believe that each person has a right to have access to clean water. Those who believe water should be provided to each person by right will favor government taxation and provision. Those who believe water is a resource to be managed will favor market based approaches. The difference between these two groups alone is enough to halt a united national water vision.
I believe in market based approaches. I understand that some people already pay a fee for water, but many people pay a flat rate fee or pay no fee at all. It is hard to encourage conservation or wise use of a limited resource when it is “free”. I think fees for water could be aligned with its relative scarcity in a given area. We could also have a graduated fee system where the amount of water needed for drinking, cooking, and washing is reasonably priced. There may be considerations for industry and agriculture. The fees collected would be used as local water organizations see fit. This is where the revenue would be generated for research and development, restoring wetlands, monitoring pollution, implementing new technologies, and the like. And growth and development will be hampered in water scarce regions. I support a policy such as that voiced by the Middle Rio Grande Water Assembly: balance water use with renewable supply (thanks to Martin Zehr for his post and the subsequent reading I found). I think a market based approach would be a means to this end.
Christine Hartman
Natural Resources Student and life-long water user
Conceptually this is an appealing idea. Practically a National Plan should be a non-starter.
In our small New Mexico County we have water drainages to both East and West (Colorado River Basin and Rio Grande). We have land managed by BLM, Forest Service, and 13 Native American Nations; we have a fast-growing city, 5 other municipalities, numerous traditional irrigation systems (acequias), and other agricultural users. We use domestic water from surface, from ground water (wells), and from infiltration galleries as well as springs.
In the Mid Rio Grande basin we have numerous planning groups and representatives of most of the communities of interest. As a participant in some of those groups, I would characterize the general areas of agreement as (a)planning is better than no planning, (b) communication is good, and (c) that we need to keep all interest groups represented. NM is (among many western states) a prior appropriation state (see Lynn M.’s comments above), so this makes the west fundamentally different from “back East”.
It is my belief that planning, and associated Vision, is a good thing. At a national level vision may be OK, but for effective planning, I am convinced that the regional approach has the most merit and potential (see the Colorado and Rio Grande Compacts as examples), and even then, there are lots of areas of contention (Google “Aamodt” to see how long a water case can stay in court: answer is > 40 years so far: filed in 1966). Take a minute to think of how many “Nations” we might be trying to plan or “vision” for. As a County water “planner” I find the work challenging and rewarding; it is also often frustrating that the constituent groups find themselves at odds over the issues we collectively face now and in the future. Previous agreements have not always enjoyed consistent interpretations and / or coherent actions; this has often engendered frustration, bad faith and subsequent confrontation. It remains challenging to move forward and address the interests of all, even at the regional (Mid Rio Grande, as an example) level. We (and I don’t mean to leave out the efforts of the State or other groups) continue to work at it.
My take is that regional / multi-state is the appropriate level for action. National may be OK for “vision”.
Yes, we need a national water vision that provides the baseline for local education and action. Water is a magnificent commons that creates the dividing line between states (like the Columbia does for Oregon and Washington) and so creates a subject for discourse that cannot be moderated by the two states. Groundwater passes freely below our made up geography and what one jurisdiction does to the resource affects the other. I am witnessing the ongoing plundering of some of the highest quality waters I have ever seen and, while people are arguing over whether the problem should solved, the problem expands. This discussion directly parallels the global climate change discourse where scientists study the problem, report on the problem, then engineers and others find a solution to the problem, meanwhile, a small cadre of disgruntled naysayers are still shouting that there is no problem. We need to elevate the baseline on a national level to elevate the baseline for discourse at the state or regional or local level.
Thank you to Jerry Sehlke and AWRA for raising this question and initiating a dialogue. The US absolutely should develop a national water vision as well as a plan for achieving that vision. Why? Because water, like virtually every other natural resource, is becoming scarcer and decisions will need to be made regarding its distribution. In the past, the lack of a vision and plan has resulted in both inequities in distribution and in mismanagement. Furthermore, water is inextricably tied to land use, food and energy. Irrigated lands are being fallowed due to diversions of water for urban drinking supplies and energy development. Will fewer agricultural acres be adequate to meet our need to feed our population? As we consider energy policy, is there enough water available to pursue large scale energy projects? Since consumptive use associated with gas development differs from that associated with solar and oil shale, shouldn’t we be considering the water consumption rate associated with these different energy sources in the face of water shortages? Without a vision and plan, random decisions will likely result in less efficient distribution. Also, as other commenters have noted, watershed boundaries do not necessarily coincide with political boundaries, therefore conflicts arise and are more challenging due to the lack of an agreed upon mechanism for achieving equity. This situation is evidenced in the conflict that arose between Kansas and Colorado, where the state laws followed the riparian and prior appropriation doctrines, respectively. The US Supreme Court invented the doctrine of “equitable apportionment” to avoid the elevation of one state’s legal framework above the other, and Colorado River Compact was developed. But what if Mexico calls their water rights on the Colorado? Will the US be satisfied with the application of international law? Finally, the conflicts over water do not plague only the US; they occur all over the world. The US should be leading the world by example toward a more robust strategy for managing water, lest we be drawn into international conflicts that erupt over this critical resource. The vision should be developed carefully, with input from people with different perspectives, but should most definitely be developed.
Judith Jordan
Garfield County oil and gas liaison/former executive director, PA organization for Watersheds & Rivers
Hydrogeologist/Lawyer
Hi,
I am a student of environmental science at Oregon State University. I also work for a non-profit environmental advocacy group, so environmental policy is both a part of my career and academic life.
It is clear that a lengthy review of America’s water resources, analysis of future demand and revision of water policy and infrastructure is going to be imperative to ensuring enough water for everybody. A National Water Policy should set priorities for water research and conservation efforts and infrastructure upgrades and collaborate with state Water Resource Departments to determine water resources and distribution efficiency.
I think it is important for governments to set leadership in the water management arena and provide incentives to consumers who utilize gray-water systems and implement other changes which promote water conservation. I would like to see a formalized tax-credit system that rewards efforts taken to conserve water, for example a tax credit for xeriscaping your yard, or for a farmer who improves his irrigation system. I would also advocate for penalties for water waste. Funds from penalties could be reinvested in mitigating water extraction and improving water quality. Another change that could be implemented is introducing a stepped-rate structure that rewards households/industries that take water conservation measures. I would also advocate for a priority distribution approach, where water is not a privilege, but is allocated based on need. Water resources should be prioritized for agriculture, municipal use, fish and wildlife, industry and very lastly for non-essential use.
thanks
Devon
Karen Collins
Natural Resource Student Oregon State University
It would be beneficial to all if we were able to develop a national water vision, yet there are too many different groups that have opposing opinions. Federal, state and tribal laws and beliefs on water do not all mesh into one neat little package. Would it be possible to create just one vision that everyone agrees too? This is a situation that needs to be dealt with at all levels and not just put into the governments hands to flop back and forth with each political team making changes when they come into office.
Start at the state level, charge people for water just like for gasoline! Each state and every city in the state needs to develop a vision for that location. Educate children and the public through media, schools and etc. Impose fines for misuse of water, or offer incentives for conservation of it. Require agriculture to install more efficient irrigation instead of handing out money for systems that let water evaporate.
Yes there should be a national water vision, yet it needs to start small and work towards a larger vision.
Thank You,
Karen
I would also like to comment on the amount of responses on this discussion forum. There is some great information here and I am too a student trying to make a difference with our worlds water situation. I am in favor of a water plan. I agree with Mark Solomon, Univ of Idaho, that it is not as cut and dried as we may want it to be, due to water being of great importance and such a precious commodity. There are so many different areas of water use that the plan will have to address all avenues. A very difficult, challenging and long process. Although, I think that if there is a will there is a way. This is not the first joint venture the world has taken part in nor will it be the last. Thanks everyone for all the great information.
Generally I think that the less the federal government is involved in anything, the better. But, I do believe we need a federal water policy. We need guidelines for sustainability for our entire country, and I think we need to work in cooperation with Canada and Mexico. Realistically should we continue to grow crops in the desert? Should development continue for large cities in the desert without a plan as to where water will come from for the people living there? If we leave policies up to the state or local governments, will they make tough decisions based on the big picture? Or will they do what’s best for their local economy or follow their history and the way “it’s always been done”? What happens when an area runs out of water due to poor planning? Will the areas that conserved water and planned for sustainability have to share with those who didn’t think ahead? If water is a right for all of us, then we all need to have strict guidelines that eliminate the excessive, unreasonable use of our water resources. I think those guidelines need to come from our federal government.
A National policy is needed, and for the very reasons we see demonstrated in all of these comments – there are many great ideas, but there is an apparent lack of sharing and implementation of these ideas beyond state borders, not to mention lack of education of water management as a precious resource among the general population. Many people fail to realize (or know or care?) that surface water and groundwater stretches beyond state borders, as well as our country’s borders. It doesn’t stand to reason that a single state could make the best water management decisions without taking into account what is going on upstream and downstream. That being said, we should work toward developing a National policy that also has open dialogue with at least Canada and Mexico.
The primary reason for my position is that it is critically important for every U.S. citizen to have equal access to clean drinking water. Apparently some areas still do not have access to clean drinking water (http://nationaltribalwatercouncil.org/issues.htm). Although many of us believe we do have access to clean drinking water, some states do fail to meet all EPA standards for water quality (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ccr/whereyoulive.html?OpenView).
As with many things, education of the public is key. This would also include accurate measurement of water use. For example, within the city of St. Louis, water usage is not measured and everyone pays the same cheap rate, thus there is little incentive for people to conserve and no way for them to tell if they are making a difference. If water usage were measured, those individuals or businesses that are not using water in a sustainable manner could be charged an additional fee in order to encourage them to find a better way to manage this precious resource. Those that do use less water, obviously are charged far less.
I could also add many common sense ideas to be included in a National policy like maintaing or reparing riparian areas, no clear cutting of forests, using pervious surfaces for new roads and parking lots, maintaining and repairing wetlands, reducing waste discharged into waterways, conservation education, financial assistance or incentives for those that decide to stop unsustainable practices (i.e. farming arid land, lush golf courses in Las Vegas, using old septic systems), etc. I have hope that we will be able to get around our differences in order to move our country forward to a more sustainable future.
Sometimes the ends do not justify the means. This is one of times. While I agree that the US needs to protect and manage its water resources better. I fear the creation of another federal agency which, would need broad powers to effectively create a national water policy. This agency would be the most monumental and all powerful entity ever created in this country. It would have the ability to determine the appropriate size of cites; in other words it could determine where you may live. Also when and where irrigation should be used. Thereby, giving it the power to determine your diet. Basically it could control every aspect of American life, as water is such a vital resource. Finally let’s not forget that China’s three gorges dam was a result of a national water policy.
I definately agree that the federal government could play an important part in eliminating excessive, unreasonable use of water. It could also set mandates for conservation and better water management practices from the states. In this way, conservation would be required but the states would have the freedom to decide how that’s going to happen.
Education is huge in order to eliminate excessive use from the public. I think a charge on water would go a long way towards getting the public to sit up and take notice on just how much water they are using, as well as provide money for better water management practices. Incentives could also play a part here by charging a reduced or eliminated fee for households that use below a certain amount of water.
After reading the article and all the posts, I think that Bill Bradshaws ideas resonated the most with me, although many contributions were informative and interesting. Reversing the Supreme Court decision that allows water to be perceived as an economically exploitable resource is really important to me as part of a Nation Policy, which I do think that we need sooner, rather than later, when the battles over water are in full swing. I think we all know that time is coming and if we, as a Nation can work toward a plan that puts people and ecosystems above private companies, we would be making a smart move that will more than likely pay off in the future. Since each region has its own unique water issues, I think that local control is a crucial part of a National Policy. I think the National policy should encourage sustainability as the key to a successful program.
I think a national water Policy should be utilized as a vision geared towards conservation and specific to geographical locations. I live in the southern part of the country where water and mineral rights are tied into property rights and there are no restrictions on pumping. A large portion of these landowners live off of royalty checks for leasing their pumping rights to major municipalities. By leasing these rights local city governments are able to grow and keep pace with the demand of a rapidly growing population. I think state and local governments should examine the needs of their own regions and set forth policies that will help preserve existing ecosystems. If conservation and reuse are the driving force of this policy then surely with the help of technological advances we should be able to ensure not only the quality of water but also strive to ensure every single person has their basic needs met.
The water sources of our nation need to be treated as an exhaustible resource and not as if it limitless in supply. With increased water scarcity in many parts of the country, the effects of climate change upon us, and a population that continues to surge in growth we cannot afford to continue down the path that has been followed by the generations before us. While each state has established laws and follow their own respective water rights systems the federal government has failed to define a national water rights system. As a natural system water is not something that can be simply confined within human made sociopolitical boundaries so when claims are made to the same water by two different entities with opposing water rights systems the issue proves its complexity. I believe that input and decisions should still occur at the state level because the water issues are not uniform across the nation but by having a National Water Vision I believe conservation and efficiency could be improved. The National Water Vision need not be oppressive, which would likely be counter-productive due to the diversity of water issues as mentioned before, but instead could help set best practices, standards, and guidelines that could be followed in any state and help to improve water rights for everyone instead of only a select few.
I think the US is in dire need of a water vision. This of course needs to be coupling of planning long term clean water to citizens and reducing the waste. One of the biggest issues we face now I think is that the water standards that are currently in place were those that were places some 25 or more years ago. While we have cleaned up a lot of things and become more efficient, the growing population as a whole produces more waste in general. We also have more toxins produced as a result of industry. The initial provisions put into place did not take into account some elements which today if not monitored can lead to serious side effects. Of course, it has taken time and research to reach these conclusions – but now that some are evident, the time could not be better to develop now a better vision for our future.
A national water vision would provide better direction to U.S.regulators in regards to meeting goals of sustainability. This vision should include guidance and enforcement at the local level to ensure protection of watersheds as well as the amendment of water rights and allocation at the state and federal and tribal levels. Further research from an multidisciplinary panel to assess water markets as potential solutions to water conservation is needed so that this vision considers various schools of thought. Finally, and most importantly,this vision should allow for public input from stakeholders that would be drinking this precious resource.
I am currently a student at Oregon State University but I grew up in the Bay Area California so I have some experience in being a everyday consumer of water and not necessarily as an advocate for water rights growing up.
I believe that it is very important for the Federal Government to establish a National Policy or at minimum a guideline for all the states to follow. I think it is a gross over-use of our Nations Policy makers to have more than 20 separate committees (as Mr. Sehlke pointed out) working on water resources/usage. There is no possible way to establish a common thread of interest to follow through on policies if there are that many “cooks in the kitchen.” Within each one of those committees there are several people and those several people all have different agendas. If you combined all those committees with all of those people, you have a massive amount of agendas to shift through in order to make headway on a very important American topic. And that is just on the National Level!
I believe the first steps to take place would need to be to establish just a handful of committees that all specialize in one aspect of water usage. (IE: Water allocation, sewage systems, watersheds, and River Health, State to Rivers Liason) Establish these committees with experts and the heads of these committees get together to establish the best policies to take America into the future. These should actually be experts on the committees not just a bunch of government bureaucrats that got a brief overview of the situation that is going on with America’s water supply from their assistants the morning of the actual meeting. Be concise about the sub-committees or else we will just run into the same problems as we have now.
A National Dialogue on Water Resources: Should the United States Develop a National Water Vision? If So, What Should That Vision Be?
I think there should be a concensus national water vision, but it would have to be vague enough for different areas of the country to handle water right issues according to their different state laws. I believe that to work most effectively, the actual water policies should be done on a watershed by watershed basis with all interested parties in that specific watershed involved (including tribes, municipal governments, state regulators, farmers, other countries, etc.)
Jess Smith
Environmental Science Student
Oregon State University
My personal hope for a National Water Vision includes many of the ideas mentioned above. Scope for the vision should include components of cohesion, cooperation, conservation, leadership, education, arbitration, research, remediation, and respect. This unified federal vision for our water resources will tie all the disparate goals of various agencies together. A national water vision could be used as a guide for federal land and infrastructure managers to develop water wise practices that lead the nation toward conservation and best use practices by example. This vision must not infringe on state’s rights, but should help enforce them.
The vision should include developing education to value the resource across the country.
Water technology development must also be a part of the vision, so that managers and users have alternatives to limited existing ground and surface waters. This development should include better desalinization plants and practices to deal with the resulting brine along our coasts and saline aquifers. Investigaton into condensers and new technologies to pull water out of the air where available and from innovative sources should be a collective effort to provide other possible options that will meet the increase and variations in water demand. Conservation practices will be researched at the national level and globally to spread innovative and economical practices across boarders and bring the best available knowledge to our citizens and neighbors.
The vision must include an equity component. This should help define the national role to arbitrate water treaties between states, study and monitor groundwater across political boundaries for “plunder prevention”, and develop regional or national water and water reuse networks that can facilitate water exchange and best use. National participation in large-scale resource remediation efforts that prevent or reverse dead-zones and degradation would be an important component of the vision, protecting our water resources locally, regionally, nationally, and as a part of global cooperation efforts.
There definitely is a use and a need for a national water vision. Thanks for this discourse.