Water Policy Final
(Ecosystem Management) Ecosystem Management -subgoals -dominant themes -major programs/costs
"Ecosystem, management integrates scientific knowledge of ecological relationships within a complex sociopolitical and values framework toward the general goal of protecting native ecosystem integrity over the long term." Sub-goals: -viable populations of native species -represent ecosystem types -manage over long enough period of time to maintain evolutionary potential -allow for human use and occupancy (which generally means multi-stakeholder negotiations) Dominant themes: -Hierarchical context: Cannot work on just one level (e.g., species, population, landscape) -Ecological boundaries: Management must span administrative units -Ecological integrity: Native species and ecological processes for biodiversity (including natural disturbance regimes) -Data collection: Habitat and species inventories; baseline characterizations -Monitoring: Using data to track changes in key indicators over time. -Adaptive Management: Decisions must allow learning from mistakes -Interagency cooperation: Ecological boundaries requires integrating goals and procedures -Organizational change: Land management agencies need to change procedures and norms -Humans embedded in nature: Humans have a fundamental influence on ecological processes -Values: Human values and resolving value conflict is a central task 5 major programs: -Chesapeake Bay -Everglades -Columbia River -Gulf of Mexico -California-Bay Delta (signs of decay in each case: environmental, administrative, political)
(California Ag and Water Quality/Nitrogen Management Guest Lecture) Human Right to Water
"the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights" "it is the established policy of the state that every human being has the right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessiblewater adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes." "require all relevant state agencies, including the Department of Water Resources, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the State Department of Public Health, to consider this state policy when revising, adopting, or establishing policies, regulations, and grant criteria when those policies, regulations, and grant criteria are pertinent to the uses of water described above."
Columbia Basin Fish Accords -Recovery Teams -Recovery Domains
(-Context--> massive decline in salmon and steelhead (overfishing, water pollution, habitat destruction, dams) -Context--> Federal Columbia River Power System (extensive) requires BiOp -Context--> ACOE implements fish mitigation plan, GAO finds significant problems -Context--> More BiOps done- challenged for not including 'no dams' scenarios -Context--> Judge orders BiOp to include 'no dam' scenario, recovery as a goal -BiOp calls for multi-stakeholder process -Yurok/Umatilla/Warm Springs/Colville Tribes, ACOE, Bonneville Power, Bureau of Rec work together to develop plan for salmon restoration (includes $900M); BPA gains hydropower generation, Tribes agree not to litigate for 10 years) Salmon Recovery Teams: -26 of 52 ESUs of anadromous fish are listed threatened/endangered -development of recovery plans divided into geographically based "Recovery Domains"; each domain contains one or more ESU -Each sub-region has Technical Recovery Team to identify: 1) Population and ESU de-listing criteria 2) Habitat/fish abundance relationships 3) Factors for decline and limiting factors for each ESU 4) Early actions that are important for recovery 5) Research, evaluation, and monitoring needs; and 6) server as science advisors to groups charged with developing measures to achieve recovery -TRT are "Phase I" of NMFS recovery strategy; Phase II" will be some type of collaborative process for developing official recovery plans -TRT efforts not very far along; some TRT not even appointed; plans not completed; recovery plans still a long way off
(Aquatic Biodiversity) Threat/Stressors to Freshwater Species
(-habitat removal/damage -invasive species -altered sediment loads -altered hydrologic regimes -altered nutrient inputs -toxic contaminants) -20% of freshwater fishes extinct or in serious decline -extinct/at-risk salmon/steelhead runs outnumber healthy by 3:1 -In CA, 57% of fish species are extinct or declining -Aquatic species worse-off than terrestrial Top 6 stressors (most aquatic species face multiple threats): 1) Habitat removal/damage 2) Invasive species (limit recovery more than historical) 3) Altered sediment loads 4) Altered hydrologic regime (flow, depth, temperature) 5) Altered nutrient input 6) Toxic contaminants (limit recovery more than historical) -top 4 sources: agriculture; municipal land-use; power generation; exotic species -agricultural non-point pollution perceived as biggest threat in East; invasive species and loss of surface water biggest in West
Evolutionarily Significant Units
(-substantially reproductively isolated from other populations -important component of the legacy of a species) -collection of one or more salmon populations that share a similar genetic, ecological, and life history traits and have a different evolutionary trajectory from salmon in other ESUs -Salmon ESUs are considered to be "distinct population segments" under the federal ESA -the biological definition of ESU set up by NMFS; biological definition for "runs" (although some ESUs encompass multiple runs)
Chesapeake Bay Strategies
(aka ches bay program structure?) -built on interstate Chesapeake Bay Commission -agreement of 1983 (hella updates) -seats goals, objectives, and commitments for Bay restoration -partners include EPA, Chesapeake Bay Commission, state governors, other agencies, academic institutions, interest groups -Chesapeake Bay Executive Council oversees partnership -Also includes Implementation Committee, Local Government Committee, and Citizens Advisory Committee -Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Program collects and analyses environmental data
Minute 319/323 of the 1944 US-Mexico Water Treaty
(shorter version): -signed in 2013 in context of International Boundary and Water Commission -Most significant agreement since 1944 (1.4MAF to Mexico) -Incldues Mexico in shortage guidelines; e.g. reduce Mexico's allocation by 50 thousand acre-feet when Lake Mead is below 1075 ft elevation -"Intentionally Created Mexican Allocation" allows Mexico to store up 1.5 MAF in Mead for later delivery -SoCal water agencies pay for Mexican infrastructure in return for some water -Establishes program to restore Lower CO river delta in Mexico -Context--> 1944 US-Mexico Treaty apportions 1.5MAF of CO River to Mexico -Minute 319--> Intentionally Created Mexican Allocation- Mexico can temporarily reduce CO River water but request balance in the future -Minute 319--> Ecological concerns allowed pulse flows to help restore the Delta and allow CO River to reach the Gulf -Minute 319 set to expire December 2017 (Obama term ended with no resolution but partisan politics put aside and Minute 323 signed in September in Mexico -Minute 323--> extends and expands Minute 319 -Lake Mead storage continues -Binational Water Scarcity Contingency Plan (Mexico agrees to reduce water pull from CO in concert with US-lower basin drought contingency plan) -US pledges $$ for Mexico infrastructure (lining canals/etc)--> in return US gets a portion of the water saved -Extends environmental directives- Delta restoration -there are also programs outline to help reduce salinity -Set to expire in 2025
California Water Fix
-$17B to build WaterFix (~10.8M from MWD--> approved by board April 2018) -MWD: ~$4.80/month increase vs Critics:$16/month increase DW Bills -Original plan was 2 tunnels with 4500cfs capacity; Feb 2018--> DWR issued statement calling for a single tunnel with 6000cfs capacity -*however--> 'single-tunnel plan' allows for construction of a second tunnel at some undetermined point in the future when $$$ available-->staged construction in response to water agencies failing to commit to cost -MWD voted 27-10 to fund about 70% of the project (also recently back and forth over 1-2 tunnels)
1994 Bay Delta Accord
-$1B in state/fed funds -Cooperation of 15 fed/state agencies -3 main goals: water quality standards to protect the estuary, coordinate operations of state/fed water projects, develop long-term plan for the Delta The Accord calls for: -rules on how much fresh water to be left in the Delta for Envi. needs -3 years of certainty about water supplies for Farms/Urban users -cap on MWD water loss during the drought years (5% of its supply) -salinity standards for Delta (fish) -payment by the feds if more water needed to help species that become endangered
US vs Florida Water Mgmt District
-1988: Federal government sues South Florida Water Management District and Florida Department of Environmental Regulation -Alleges state failing to enforce water quality standards for discharges into Everglades National Park -National Park and Loxahatchee NWF visible proponents of suit; lots of political implications (change in governor; SFWMD board appointments) -Reached a settlement agreement requiring clean-up of agricultural discharge into Everglades -Leads to 1994 Everglades Forever Act, which mandates BMP in Everglades Agricultural Area -Construction of Stormwater Treatment Areas by SFWMD -These settlement agreements involved a lot of conflict resolution and mediation; helped establish the idea of multi-stakeholder negotiations, ecosystem thinking; also showed worst-case conflict
Endangered Species Act/Biological Opinions
-2005: US Fish and Wildlife service issue a Biological Opinion about Central Valley and State Water Project Long Term Operations and Criteria Plan -2007: US District Court (Oliver Wagner) says BiOp is arbitrary and capricious; delta smelt risk analysis strategy is insufficient including not looking at climate change -2008: New BiOp issued; CVP and SWP jeopardise Smelt, and "reasonable and prudent alternatives" defined management -2009: BiOp issued for salmonids; jeopardy and RPAs -2011: Series of lawsuits driven by water users culminate in remand of both BiOps
Bay Delta Conservation Plan (2012)
-2006--> BDCP planning begins -BDCP wants to improve water delivery to SoCal, supply water to Ag in Delta, and Restore Delta ecosystem -Aims--> restore tidal marsh, riparian habitat and add 3 intakes to divert Sac River water south of Hood-->move water through tunnels under the Delta and into SWP and CVP -2013--> Draft BDCP release with an EIR (CEQA/NEPA) -a lot of feedback and angst on both sides (not environmental enough/too environmental, etc.) -2015--> BDCP broken into "California Water Fix" and "California Eco Restore"- Fix: two tunnels 150ft. underground; Restore: 30K acres of habitat
Quantification Settlement Agreement
-Context--> Ag in SoCal has decimated Salton Sea -Context-->Seven Party Agreement failed to establish specific number for IID and Coachella Valley -Users in CA debate over distribution/use of water -Eventually develop this agreement between IID, SDCWA, and several other water agencies -Result--> 3.1MAF IID; 0.33MAF Coachella -Result--> IID transfers irrigation water to SDCWA and provides portion of water to Salton Sea to replace irrigation runoff -Result-->Lining of All American and Coachella Canals
Arizona vs. California (1952-1964)
-Context-->AZ never ratified the CO River Compact/Boulder Canyon Project Act -Context-->CA growing rapidly, AZ wanting to get in on the action and build Central AZ Project to start pulling its full allocation from the CO -Remember the BCPA (authorised DOI as sole water master) -Court case-->CA argues they're been using water under prior appropriation -Supreme Court ruled in favour of AZ --> CA in 1960 was using ~5.36MAF (4.4+50% surplus) -70% of the CA reduction came from the MWD (junior water rights)
California Seven Party Agreement (1931)
-Long-standing disputes of water priorities in California (Ag vs. Municipal) -7 users: Palo Verde Irrigation District, Yuma Project, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley Irrigation District, Metropolitan Water District, City/County of San Diego -establishes water rights priority (ag first, urban second) but does not quantify
Peripheral Canal (1965)
-Second phase of state water project -intent to reduce saltwater intrusion into Bay Delta and at same time provide more water to SoCal -Eventually defeated (1982) when voters approve referendum repealing Periph Canal legislation- 1st big defeat of CA water project
South Florida Ecosystem Task Force
-Task Force first developed as Federal interagency working group in 1993 -Water Resources Development Act of 1996 gives Task Force statutory authority, defines duties -Advisory role to Army Corp of Engineers development of Restudy and eventually CERP -Supported by Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida -Governor's Commission creates a "conceptual plan" directly integrated into CERP; integration required by WRDA of 1996 -The "Working Group" does policy implementation -Working Group consists of members from many different federal and state agencies; also Native Americans -Main goal of Task Force is to provide a forum and support for Everglades restoration -A collaborative process; individual agencies are not legally committed to Task Force strategic plan -CERP is largest component; but many other state and federal agencies have projects (e.g., multi-species recovery plan by FWS; land acquisition under Florida Forever Act).
Integrated Water Resources Management
-Water development and management should be based on a participatory approach, involving users, planners and policy-makers at all levels. -Water is a public good and has a social and economic value in all its competing uses. -Integrated water resources management is based on the equitable and efficient management and sustainable use of water. Goals: develop and implement integrated management strategies and plans; protect and restore freshwater ecosystems and their services Indicators: progress made towards developing and implementing integrated water management plans Global trends: some progress in certain areas; insufficient data for others Most vulnerable communities: populations in developing countries directly dependent on freshwater systems for well being and livelihood Regions of greatest concern: developing regions, particularly those with water shortages and/or water quality degradation
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
-largest/most diverse estuary in the US -claims that it is the most biologically diverse US estuary -very high land-water ratio so land use decisions have a huge impact Faces many problems including -overharvest of fish -point/nps pollution -urbanization/habitat destruction -loss of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) -toxic pollution
Projected California Impacts -Snowpack -Runoff -Precipitation -Drought -Agriculture
-less snowpack -models tend to agree that temps will increase, but less agreement on precip -temp change in snow-dominated systems means less snow and more rain, change in runoff timing, making it early spring and winter instead of summer—out of sync with demand -decrease in snowmelt relative to storage capacity means less water captured for use by human populations—within the red lines on this map
(Global Water Issues) Global Water Problems
-water and sustainable development -international marine resources -water and international conflict -transboundary watershed management -climate change There is a lot of debate over the role of water in conflict. Some argue that wars of the future will be fought over water. Others argue that water is the only thing not fought over. Gives 2 reasons for both sides: -Scarcity, number of sharing nations (transboundary) -A large number of treaties (3600) have been signed; many treaties survive conflict over other issues The world water council vision outlines 6 principles for solving global water problems: -integrated/collaborative water management to alleviate fragmentation and accurate measure of the economic value of water -accurate assessment of temporal/spatial distribution of freshwater -developing common vision among stakeholders -ensuring representation of disadvantaged stakeholders in international forums -consideration of ecosystem functions
Everglades -3 defining features
1. Large spatial scale -evergaldes itself 3 million acres historically -entire set of South Fl wetland ecosystems, 18 million acres 2. Mosaics of habitat/species (naturally low nutrient) -mosaics of vegetation regimes -naturally low nutrient (oligotrophic) -ridge and slough sawgrass system , tree islands, alligator holes -habitat mosaic, hydropatterns, and sub-tropical/temperate mixing zone produces high biodiversity and rates if endemism 3. Hydrologic regime-dynamic storage and sheet flow -"Rivers of Grass": downward gradient of 1-2 inches per mile -sand, limestone aquifers, vegetation, Lake Okeechobee: natural stage system
principles of EJ
17 principles 5) Environmental Justice affirms the fundamental right to political, economic, cultural and environmental self-determination of all peoples. 7) Environmental Justice demands the right to participate as equal partners at every level of decision-making, including needs assessment, planning, implementation, enforcement and evaluation. 8) Environmental Justice affirms the right of all workers to a safe and healthy work environment without being forced to choose between an unsafe livelihood and unemployment. It also affirms the right of those who work at home to be free from environmental hazards. 11) Environmental Justice must recognize a special legal and natural relationship of Native Peoples to the U.S. government through treaties, agreements, compacts, and covenants affirming sovereignty and self-determination. 10) Environmental Justice considers governmental acts of environmental injustice a violation of international law, the Universal Declaration On Human Rights, and the United Nations Convention on Genocide. 9) Environmental Justice protects the right of victims of environmental injustice to receive full compensation and reparations for damages as well as quality health care. 15) Environmental Justice opposes military occupation, repression and exploitation of lands, peoples and cultures, and other life forms. 16) Environmental Justice calls for the education of present and future generations which emphasizes social and environmental issues, based on our experience and an appreciation of our diverse cultural perspectives
EO 12898
1994 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations: -Directs federal agencies to make EJ part of their mission, identifying and addressing the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. The order also directs each agency to develop a strategy for implementing environmental justice. -Established an Interagency Working Group (IWG) on environmental justice chaired by the EPA Administrator and comprised of the heads of 11 departments or agencies and several White House offices. -Promoted public participation and access to information
Social Networks and Governance
A method for analysing and understanding water government that may involve looking at the relationships between stakeholders to understand things like: cooperation, coordination, central stakeholders, or multi-level partnerships
Alsea Valley Alliance vs. Evans
AKA ESU and fish hatcheries: -should hatchery fish be included in population assessments of evolutionarily significant units? -hatchery fish can increase harvest of wild fish stocks, reduce genetic diversity, lower reproductive success -hatchery fish make up largest portion of ESU in many cases (approximately 80%) Timeline: -2001 Alsea Valley Alliance vs. Evans: District Court says ESU is legit, but NOAA must consider influence of hatchery fish -2001 Alsea decision officially delists coho salmon and requires NFMS to develop new hatchery policy -2001: Environmentalists appeal Alsea, get temporary injunction on delisting -2004 court appeal upholds Alsea; court has not yet issued "mandate" for delisting -2005: NMFS recently released new hatchery policy and listing determinations-reinstates Coho listing and maintains most listings -2007: US District Court throws out 2005 decision; hatchery fish not allowed- risk assessment should be focused on natural populations -2009: 9th circuit reverses the District Court and upholds NMFS; so 2005 listing policy is still in place; NPFS has discretion in the worry but environs have more faith in Obama
Climate Adaptability -Multilevel Cooperation -Interdependence -Lake Victoria (Network) -SanFran Bay (Network) -California (Policy Examples)
Adaptation-a process, action, or outcome in a system in order for the system to better cope with, manage or adjust to change (related to the California Water Plan; Urban Water Conservation Regulations; and IRWM) Adaptation policy in California: -California Water Plan -State agency work groups: Climate Action Team (and working groups), CAL-Adapt, Integrated Climate Adaptation and Resiliency Program -IRWM and climate adaptation -Urban Water Conservation Regulations
Soft Path for Water Development
As compared to centralised infrastructure and agencies that distribute and treat water/wastewater, this way of thinking about water development describes complementing centralised systems with decentralisation and efficient technology -The "hard" path: Centralized infrastructure and agencies deliver potable water and treat wastewater -The "soft" path: Complements centralized structure with investment in decentralized facilities, efficient technology, human capital 1. Focus on how water is used, not just amounts (efficiency) 2. Different water qualities for different uses 3. Decentralized infrastructure supported by human capital 4. Water agencies engage community groups 5. Water users care about services provided by healthy ecosystems 6. Take into account economies of joint decision-making (e.g., conjunctive use)
Central and South Florida Project
Background: -First authorized in 1948; in the wake of two big hurricanes in 1947 -Built by the Army Corp of Engineers -1000 miles of canals, 720 miles of levees, almost 200 water control structures -Owned by Army Corp; operated mostly by South Florida Water Management District under contract Historical Purposes: -Reduce flood damages and open land for development -Control groundwater levels for ag. -Store excess flood water for beneficial use -Reduce salt water intrusion in coastal well-fields -Preserve fish and wildlife -Enhance navigation Major Accomplishments: -Channelize Kissimmee River -Dikes on Lake Okeechobee -Drain Everglades Ag. Area -Make Water Conservation Areas for storage
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project (CERP)
Background: -Water Resources Development Acts 1992: Authorizes the Army Corp to conduct a feasibility study (RESTUDY) about re-plumbing CSFP -WRDA 1996; ACOE directed to develop restoration plain in consultation with Task Force and Commission -WRDA 2000: CERP plan becomes law, receives Federal dollars -CERP really focuses on all of South Florida, starting at Kissimmee river and going to Florida Bay and Ten Thousand IslandsSome Details -Cost: $7.8 billion; $182 million in annual operating expenses (new figures say $11 billion) -50% Federal/50% state cost-share -"Getting the water right":Main goal is to restore the hydropattern in Everglades to as close to original conditions as possible -Based on 13 broad-scale concepts (e.g., Lake Okeechobee operational plan) and over 60 specific projects -20-year implementation time table, with Design Agreements between Army Corp and SFWMD for construction -RECOVER teams track implementation through development of success indicators; adaptive management
Anadromous Fish Governance
Columbia River Compact (1918): -Interstate Compact between Oregon and WA creates Columbia River Commission -Sets fishing seasons from mouth of Columbia river up to McNary dam (280 river miles) Pacific Fishery Management Council (1976): -Set up by the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries act -Governs ocean fishing in the "exclusive economic zone"—3-200 miles Boldt Decision (1974): -Affirms treaty rights of Native Americans to traditional fisheries -Native Americans allowed 50% or more of runs within traditional grounds; co-managers of fisheries Pacific Northwest Power and Conservation Act (1980): -Sets goal of protecting anadromous fish co-equal with power -Creates Northwest Power Planning Council: Interagency partnership for implementing fish conservation; oversees Bonneville Power Administration operations US-Canada Salmon Interception Treaty (1985): -Abundance-based harvest limits on international stocks -Cooperative restoration efforts -Complements existing treaties about hydrosystem operations Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement (1964; renewed 1997): -Coordinates federal/non-federal annualoperating plans for the entire Columbia River Power System -System operation must be consistent with NFMS biological opinions; e.g., flow requirements; juvenile fish passage
Central Valley Improvement Act
Congress passed in 1992 because of various ecological impacts requires release of more water to rivers/wetlands, $ for habitat restoration (anadromous fish), fish passage, water temperature control, etc. Overview: -part of larger 1992 "Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act; included money for a lot of projects in other Western stated -Goal: Address fish/wildlife and enviro. issues, including doubling the population on anadromous fish in CVP watershed Water Management Provisions: -no new water contracts until EIS completed (done in 2001) -set asude 800,000 acres/ft annually of CVP water for fish/wildlife -renewals of existing contracts subject to additional fees for restoration -allows water transfers outside of CVP contractors; recipients must have water meters Fish and Wildlife Provisions: -structural measures (e.g.: temperature control device on shasta, fish screens) and habitat restoration (e.g. acquisition of riparian land, gravel replenishment) -restoration plans for San Joaquin and Stanislaus Rivers -Central Valley Project Restoration Fund; grants for restoration funded mainly by fees on uses of CVP water -water supply targets for National Wildlife Refuges
Decision-making Under Uncertainty -Heuristics/Biases (Kahneman Example) -Availability Heuristic -Psychological Distance -Robust Decision-Making
Daniel Kahneman researches the psychology of judgement and decision-making. In class we discussed two heuristics: 1. Framing-meaning that people make different choices based on whether it is presented as a loss or gain and 2. Availability- whereby people make judgements based on what they can most easily recall
Modeling Strategies
Emissions scenarios--> climate models: parallel climate model and...---->downscaled climate projections-->link to hydrological models -evaluate different scars -evaluate uncertainty
Large Scale Institution Emergence
Four factors support the emergence of large-scale institutions: 1. Widely acknowledge problems supports by science 2. History of cooperation 3. Leadership among federal/state actors 4. External policy triggers like CWA and ESA
Global Biodiversity -Aquaculture -Predatory Fish -International Fishing Agreements
Increasing aquaculture trends - especially in Asia Global Ocean has lost 90% of predatory fish biomass lots of international fishing agreements
drinking water disparities framework
Natural environment -->built environment-->sociopolitical environment
Chesapeake Bay Commission
Overview: -Founded in 1980; EPA study as catalyst -Three states as member: PA, MD, VA -Legislative advisory commission; recommends legislative action to member states for protecting Chesapeake Bay -Serves as state-level liaison (I.e., lobbyist) to U.S. Congress and Fed gov't -Composed of seven-member delegations from each of the three states -Delegations are 5 elected legislators, Governor (usually represented by Secretary of Natural Resources), and one citizen Activity Examples (implemented through state legislation): -1984: Ban use of phosphate detergents in all three states -1985: 5-year moratorium of on taking striped bass (major population rebound) -Pushing through state land-use laws that protect Bay resources -1994: Legislation in PA to requires certain animal operations to implement nutrient BMP -Creation of Bi-State Blue Crab Advisory Committee to make fishery recommendations (e.g., 15% reduction in fishing efforts starting 2001, establishment of target harvest levels; disbanded in 2003)
Chesapeake Bay Program
Primary goals: -living resource protection and restoration -vital habitat protection and restoration -water quality protection and restoration -sound land use -stewardship and community engagement
World Water Council Vision
Principles for Future—Towards Solving Global Problems: -Accurate assessment of temporal and spatial distribution of freshwater -Integrated (Collaborative!) water management to alleviate fragmentation -Accurate measurement of economic value of water -Developing common vision among global stakeholders -Ensuring representation of disadvantaged stakeholders in international forums -Consideration of ecosystem functions
Science and Water Policy
Science and Ecosystem Management: -ecosystem management built on scientific recommendations -science clarifies policy choices -science can reduce conflict-but not always -scientific advisory groups (national or watershed-level) mediate conflict Problems with science: -conflicts not always scientific; value differences -value differences disguised with scientific terminology -scientific uncertainty generally aggravates conflict -scientific uncertainty doesn't fit with politics (error terms vs. point estimates) -science if often long-term; politics short When does science work (debateable!)? -simple, sound, and peer-reviewed science -complex interests/environments and scientific uncertainty hurt -open discussion of values and goals -science should identify the effects of various proposals, not try to choose one
Social Capital
Social capital describes relations of trust, reciprocity, and exchange; the evolution of common rules; and the role of networks
water affordability
Some residents spend up to 10% of their household income on drinking water. AB 401 developed statewide low-income rate assistance SB 623 The Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Act
Climate "Whiplash"
Sometimes referred to as Climate Whiplash, CA is expected to experience a "back and forth" with wetter wet years and drier dry years (atmospheric rivers, frequency, etc)
State Water Project -Metropolitan Water District -Kern County-Ag -Lake Oroville
State water Project is responsible for providing drinking water to more than 23M people in CA and one of the largest power utilities in the world How it came to be: -Socal has insufficient supplies of water --> 2 efforts to address (dam North Coast Rivers like the Eel and Edmonton proposed damming Feather River) -Both would then build canals and pumps to move water South -Push for statewide water management plans which resulted in DWR (1956) -California Water Plan compiled studies of potential solutions -Decision to move forward on Feather River-->Burns-Porter Act (1959): $$$ -Tensions between N and S California -1961-Oroville Dam; 1963- California Aquaduct and San Luis Reservoir
Colorado River Compact 1922
The Colorado River has a storage capacity of 51MAF in two of its reservoirs: Lake Mead and Lake Powell Colorado River Compact: -agreement among 7 US states governing allocation of water rights to the river's water -divides river basin into upper division (CO, NM, UT, WY) and lower division (NV,AZ,CA) -Allotments split between the divisions -allows widespread irrigation of the Southwest -developed as 'insurance policy' for upper basin states worried that lower, faster growing states could have prior appropriation legal claims -agreement developed during a high water years so allocations are above what they should be
CALFED
The Delta-over time levees enlarged and water vital for CA. Reconciles 3 major water imbalances in the state --- seasonal snow and rainfall in winter while water demand higher in summer ---snow/.rain high in the North while demand is greater in the South ---Climatic patterns leading to periods of flooding and drought -1987-1992: 6 year drought: decrease water delivery/quality, Smelt and Chinook Salmon pushed to brink of extinction -Response-->CVPIA (benefits fish); also 4 Federal Agencies (Club Fed) agree to work together to solve the problem -1994: Club Fed and CA sign agreement to coordinate Delta Activities...CALFED (much of focus on water quality) -Result--> 6 months of work to develop science-based proposal for water quality standards...led to the Bay-Delta Accord (1994) -It took 4 years after CALFED record of decision (2000) to establish the California Bay-Delta Authority (governing oversight) and for Congress to authorise fed participation in CALFED -basic goals were water supply reliability; water quality including Delta salinity levels; maintenance of levee system; ecosystem restoration -early years of CALFED-lots of complaints that it wasn't accomplishing anything -lack of leadership to move forward -California-Bay Delta Authority lacked real authority to direct the other CALFED implementing agencies (all had different priorities and values) -2005: Schwarzenegger calls for independent review of CALFED and new plan emerges to try and refocus -2009: Water Bond --> replaces Bay-Delta Authority with Delta Stewardship Council (7 members +science board) -Delta Stewardship Council passed the Delta Plan
(California and Western Water) Hetch Hetchy
The city of SF obtains part of its water from Hetch Hetchy, located some 167 miles east. This is the story of how this came to be: -used to be a beautiful valley that rivalled Yosemite -tribes removed; miners and herders moved through -1906 SF experienced a major earthquake and fire that rendered water supply useless -SF applied to Dept. of Interior and was granted the rights to Tuolumne River; despite John Muir's efforts, proposal to build a dam was ultimately passed through the Raker Act by Congress (because it was at the time part of Yosemite NP)
Environmental Performance Index
Under the Environmental Performance Index, environmental governance correlates with GDP per capita Large portions of Africa tend to face larger challenges related to water and sanitation Global trends show overfishing of global marine fish stocks Global trends show increasing aquaculture
Water 'wars' and International Conflict
Water as Source of Conflict: -Water is vital resource for national economy and biology -Water scarcity and unequal distribution leads to political pressures to secure water -Water ignores national boundaries and organizational concepts -Missing link between water quality and quantity decisions -Lack of specificity in water rights allocations -Poorly developed, contradictory, and unenforceable sets of international laws -International law generally focuses on nation-states; not lower political units or ethnic groups Water Wars in the Future? -Increasing populations -Increasing water scarcity and uses -Global environmental change -Will water generate more armed conflict? Water and National Security: -Water and water-supply systems have been the cause and instruments of war -Threats to security include resource problems that reduce quality of life and increase tensions within a country Factors that Increase Likelihood of Water War: -Scarcity (ratio of water demand to available supply—index highest in Middle East) -Number of sharing nations (% of water supply outside borders) -Power differentials between states -Reliance on hydroelectric power (creates economic dependence) -Availability of alternative water supplies -Lack of water for developing countries (destabilization) Little Conflict: -Armed conflict over water very rare (7/412 conflicts between 1918-94) -Appears most evident in Arab-Israeli conflicts -But author claims causal influence of water not clear even in those -Most incidents of water-related violence appear at subnational level (e.g., between states and cities, between different types of water users -Realize that database does not include navigation issues; navigation issues have had more conflict Prevalent Cooperation: -In contrast, since 805 AD, 3600 treaties have been signed regarding water (1984 FAO data) -150 in 20thcentury alone; majority deal with water supply and hydropower -Authors argue that most treaties are in infancy: 46% have no monitoring, 80% have no enforcement; 63% do not clearly define water rights Strategic Interests: -Strategic situation favoring a water war is rare -Author argues water war requires a "downstream hegemon"; no democracies in conflict -The small percentage of watersheds featuring this strategic situation have ongoing negotiations/treaties -Even when water is a major issue, the cost of war may be too high; resources better spent on acquiring new sources of water rather than fighting Shared Interests -Treaties generally show sensitivity to shared interests (CPR!) and reflect details of watershed -E.g., upstream hydropower and downstream flood controlInstitutional Resiliency -Treaties that are established are very resilient -Many water supply treaties and negotiation forums survive even through conflicts over other issues
Environmental racism
Whether, by conscious design or institutional neglect, actions and decisions that result in the disproportionate exposure of people of color to environmental hazards and environmental health burdens. race is the most significant predictor of a person living near contaminated air, water, or soil
(Climate Change and Water Management) Climate Change Impacts Locally
heterogeneous and uncertain
Endangered Species Act (1973)
involves critical habitat designation and recovery plans... ....which contains a specific provision prohibiting harassment, harming, and shooting species called "take"... ....if a project may adversely affect an endangered species or critical habitat a 'formal consultation' with Fish and Wildlife and NMFS (as appropriate) is required which results in biological opinion... landowners can receive an incidental take permit.....
Environmental Justice
is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.
Vulnerability
meaning the degree to which a system is susceptible to injury/harm (due to the system's sensitivity; capacity of response; and exposure)
Resilience
meaning the degree to which a system recovers
Adaptive Capacity
meaning the potential of a system to alter to better suit climatic stimuli
Boulder Canyon Project
or boulder dam project?? The Boulder Dam Project of 1928 authorised the Hoover Dam and the All-American Canal Boulder Canyon Project Act (1928): -ratified the CO River Compact (6 of the 7 states) -authorized construction of Boulder (Hoover) Dam -authorized canals and infrastructures to deliver water to CA (All-American Canal) -DOI as sole contracting authority for CO River in Lower Basin -Apportioned the lower basin's 7.5MAF to lower basin states (CA: 4.4MAF; AZ: 2.8MAF; Nevada: 0.3MAF) -Conditioned by Section 4(a)-CA passes a Limitation Act where the dam would only be built if CA agreed to "irrevocably and unconditionally" limit annual use to 4.4MAF and 1/2 surplus water
Anadromous Fish -History -Current Threats
special because they spend their time in both marine and freshwater, returning to their home streams to spawn. Related major policies include: Columbia River Compact (1918): sets fishing seasons from mouth of Columbia River to McNary Dam Boldt Decision (1974): affirms treaty rights of Native American to traditional fisheries Pacific Northwest Power and Conservation Act (1980): sets goal of protecting anadromous fish co-equal with power Current threats: -lots of regional variation -mining, agriculture, logging blocking and silting streams -surface water impoundments (flow and temp) -dams -NW hydropower is cheap but 75-85% loss of anadromous runs has major economic costs ($372 million annually)
