H2ONCoast

Back in the 1990s, I was a graduate student studying the social and behavioral science behind how people managed natural resources.  I had lots of company, some of it quite a bit more visionary than this particular grad student. But part of the benefit of being a graduate student is the chance to study along side some of these visionaries. One of them was for a brief period in the summer of 1999 with Dr. Lin Ostrom of Indiana University. I was attending a summer exchange program at the Center for the Study of Institutions, Population and Environmental Change at IU.  I’m pretty sure I didn’t make any impression on her, but her work was monumental for me. Ostrom studied something called “common-pool resources.”

I was thrilled this morning to hear that Dr. Ostrom (along with another economist named Oliver Williamson) won the Nobel Prize for Economics. It is much deserved because Ostrom’s work reworked an old tale that’s been bouncing around in natural resources theory and economics for a long time.

So what is a “common-pool resource“?  To simplistically put it, a resource is common-pool if it is either too big, costly, harmful or difficult to manage by a single individual or firm.  Examples include the atmosphere, streams, oceans, the Internet, highways, police and fire services, broadcast airwaves, irrigation systems, forests, soils, or fisheries.  Another name for these special resources is “common property.” The problem of managing common property is an important one in economics. When common property is poorly managed, it can be over-exploited, leading to conflict.  Economists, ecologists, anthropologists and historians have written extensively about how over-fishing, pollution of lakes and streams, or over-grazing of rangelands can be caused by poor common property management. This problem is referred to as the tragedy of the commons.

Common-pool resources are global. Photo courtesy of NASA.

The tragedy of the commons is commonly invoked to describe all kinds of resource abuses.  But a BIG assumption follows that there are no institutions, ethics, or regulations to govern that commons or common-pool resource.  Dr. Ostrom as well as a raft of others who followed in the economics and allied fields showed that this was simply not true. Instead, societies around the world have governed common pool resources more or less effectively based on the strength and flexibility of their institutions. In some cases, these institutions are not just governments or markets but also religious in nature.

A communal irrigation system in Sonora, Mexico. Photo by R. Emanuel.

For example, irrigators in Bali, New Mexico, and Chile have effectively regulated their scarce water resources through various social institutions with minimal conflict.  [This was the topic I worked on for my graduate research in Mexico a few years ago.]  In another example, lobster fishermen off of Maine have managed their fishery without collapse for decades using a careful system of seniority and self-regulation.

Meanwhile, other systems have collapsed under their own weight, abuse, or ineffective governance. A classic example is the nearly complete loss of the cod fishery off the New England and Maritime coast. Other examples include the excessive extraction of water out of Lake Baikal in the former Soviet Union or unsustainable groundwater mining from any number of Western U.S. aquifers.  Look at the unfolding fight over water in the Georgia, Florida and Alabama as another text-book example of common-pool water conflicts (thanks to OSU colleague and WaterWired’s Mike Campana for keeping us up to date on that opera).  Last but not least, one could easily make the argument that a lack of regulation or global market institutions is behind the “tragedy of the commons” that is human-induced climate change.

So, congratulations to Dr. Ostrom for the long overdue recognition of her vital work. And if anyone would like to see the vast amount of publications on the subject of common-pool resources that she and others have gathered together at Indiana, check out the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis as well as the Digital Library of the Commons hosted there.

Tags: Common-pool Resource, Economics, Elinor Ostrom, Irrigation, Nobel Prize

A sad note this Friday the 13th: my colleagues at the OSU Institute for Water and Watersheds will have to seek other opportunities starting July 1, 2009. As the yawning budget chasm threatens to swallow all of the Oregon University System, budget axes are swinging hard and fast. IWW—an unfortunately short-lived institute headed by visionary fellow water blogger Michael Campana—was deemed expendable. See Michael’s WaterWired post for details.

My sincerest condolences to Michael, Todd, Julie, Maria, Kathy, and Shawn. Sympathy is also deserved for those in the water and watershed management community who have used IWW’s products such as the Water Collaboratory. I too can gratefully claim to have benefited from IWW. I know there are many others in my circle of water wonks.

One can only hope that the budget axe will spare some of the other water-related programs and wonks at OSU. Without IWW to help string us together, we have  pretty big gap in that complex.

While federal stimulus package(s) may help the aging infrastructure of the country—including some needy water projects—ill-conceived cuts to research, education, and outreach related to water will surely set us back if they are deep enough. In a time of climate change, rising demand and increasing pressure on water quality, those resources will be as ultimately critical as the infrastructure.

Tags: IWW

The February 2nd edition of High Country News published a great story related to the Rapanos v. United States decision to declare that rivers without navigable status are not subject to the regulation of the Clean Water Act.  This U.S. Supreme Court decision was a hugely important one for those interested in the regulation of pollution in rivers and other U.S. waterbodies.

So what do I mean by navigable rivers? The Clean Water Act protects all waters of the United States from excessive pollution and destructive development for agriculture or urban uses.  Rapanos essentially removed those waters that were not deemed navigable—or unable to accommodate boat traffic—from protected status. In parts of the west that aren’t as blessed with free flowing surface water as the maritime PNW, this is a critical issue.  Desert washes and even tiny trickling streams (in our region) still provide innumerable benefits to their surrounding environment, but might not be navigable, except in cases of flooding.  Wetlands too are affected by the decision, though they often directly connect to rivers during flooding.  This is also frequently the case with most streams in the desert Southwest (my home turf).

The court case revolved around a Michigan shopping center developer named John Rapanos who filled in 50 acres of wetlands without a permit.  He was taken to court and found guilty of violating the Clean Water Act.  The fines were huge.  Rapanos appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion took the U.S. Army Corps to task for “stretching the term [navigable] beyond parody.”  As a result of the split decision, the two federal agencies with the most power to regulate U.S. waters—the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps—devised a highly technical process for determining the relationship between smaller tributaries (even dry ones) and the mainstem of a stream.  This is known as the “nexus test” (or showing a “significant nexus of relationships between a distant tributary and a receiving water body).  As a result, the agencies have to do a very difficult analysis that has left developers such as John Rapanos scratching their heads.  Rather than clarifying things, the Rapanos decision made the waters considerably murkier.

Once the Rapanos decision became case law, however, the Army Corps was able to remove many streams from protection, meaning that developers could build in the channel itself, and upland pollution sources that affected it would not be governed by the same legal tools as those provided by the Clean Water Act. The EPA too dropped many cases of Clean Water Act violations it had been pursuing because they could not prove a “nexus.”

One Army Corps biologist, Heather Wylie, joined a group of kayakers and canoeists to travel down the largely concrete Los Angeles River in Southern California after it too had been declared non-navigable by her agency.  Their journey was meant to highlight that “navigable” was a more flexible category than the feds had applied to the LA or other major streams in the arid West. For that act, Wylie was suspended and then laid off.  She has since become a symbol to environmental and property rights activists alike.  The story of this relatively obscure court decision and its repercussions for both sides of the debate is worth a read. You can view it by clicking here.  Heather’s story also appears in a short YouTube video titled “Heather and Goliath”.   Below are some other links to the Clean Water Act and the Rapanos decision:

The actual U.S. Supreme Court decision:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1034.ZS.html

National Public Radio story: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5226083

Understanding the Clean Water Act (River Network): http://www.rivernetwork.org/rn/cwa/aboutcwa

U.S. EPA Clean Water Act website: http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/lcwa.html

One thing is as certain as death and taxes: whenever the federal government proposes new spending, whether realized or not, there will be a veritable chorus of voices informing the public and elected officials about where and how to allocate that spending. This is certainly the case with the incoming Obama Administration’s proposed “largest investment in infrastructure since the National Highway System.” Groups ranging from American Rivers, Save Our Environment, the American Automobile Association, America 2050, and the National Academy of Sciences have all rolled out talking points to guide the new push to dole out something near $600 billion in proposed spending.

The motivations of these myriad groups varies widely.  Some are quite ideological in bent, others may have their hands out, while others are claiming logic is in their favor.  One group that seems to fall into the last category is American 2050, which is composed of a coalition of regional planners, scholars, and policy-makers.  The groups mission is “to develop a framework for the nation’s future growth that considers trends such as:

• Rapid population growth and demographic change
• Global climate change
• The rise in foreign trade
• Sprawling and inefficient land use patterns
• Uneven and inequitable growth within and between regions
• Infrastructure systems that are reaching capacity
• The emergence of megaregions” (mapped out here)

As Wired Magazine put it, American 2050 has urged everyone with their hands on the purse strings to slow down, take a deep breath, and do the following:

1. Fix what’s broken – Before we start dumping money and resources into splashy new  projects, repair what we already have. Fixing decrepit bridges and crumbling roads isn’t as sexy as building a high-speed rail line or water treatment plant, but it must come first.
2. Phase it in – Just as you can’t run a marathon without training, you can’t spend hundreds of billions of dollars without planning. Although there are many “shovel ready” projects we must tackle, Obama must consider the big picture. Establishing clear goals, setting timelines for reaching them and building capacity before digging in will increase the chance of project success.
   
3. Go green – Infrastructure projects that keep us chained to fossil fuels won’t do much good in the long run. Yes, we must fix our roads and bridges, but we also must prioritize initiatives that will protect the environment and push us toward sustainable energy and transportation.
4. Train the workforce – Creating jobs through infrastructure spending is more difficult than simply handing out shovels. America 2050 calls for a methodical job training program to provide workers with the skills they need to do the job and make sure we get top-notch work out of them.
5. Count – Developing metrics to measure the effectiveness of completed projects will help ensure smart spending on future projects. This one seems like a no-brainer.

All of these points are good ones from the perspective of this specialized perch on the North Coast of Oregon. There is a point to be made however: what about the rural areas outside of those “megaregions”? Tillamook and Clatsop Counties, as well as the rest of the Oregon coast are struggling to meet infrastructure needs, including crumbling roads, strained sewer systems, aging water treatment facilities and abundant problems managing stormwater runoff and floods.  These counties have felt the sting of declines in timber receips, while at the same time seeing a housing bubble burst as beach homes lag on the real estate market for years. And already these communities were distressed. Check out the new OSU Rural Communities Explorer website for more information on the state of rural (and coastal) Oregon.

While there is no arguing that cities with large numbers of constituents can lay rightful claim to much of the money and projects that will help their sagging economies and sagging infrastructure, denizens of the rural hinterlands around them will likely request a share of the pie, especially as these communities now feed the urban centers with in-migrants, while urbanites use the hinterlands for recreation, food and timber production. So the quandary is thus: can $600 billion be spread broadly enough to raise the fortunes of the cities AND the towns surrounding them? Or will we see a further nourishment of the megaregions while the economic losers in the game will continue to be the periphery? Time and politics will tell.

And by the way, water-focused environmental group American Rivers has put out “A New Agenda for Water” that makes some interesting points, a couple of which I disagree with, but many that seem spot on for any water wonks to consider in the newly appointed ranks of the departments of Interior, Transportation, Commerce, Energy, Agriculture, or the Environmental Protection Agency.  Check it out.

Tags: Add new tag

At the end of October, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released some last minute revisions to water quality permitting requirements for Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).  CAFOs can be found on a range of farms from small family-run dairies on the North Coast (primarily in Tillamook County) to huge pork, chicken and beef producers in places like Iowa, California, or North Carolina.  The EPA calls a farm a CAFO if it houses and feeds a large number of animals in a confined area for 45 days or more during any 12-month period.  Because of our wet winter weather, nearly all Tillamook area dairies are considered CAFOs.  These facilities are permitted and must document their manure management activities in order to reduce emissions of nutrient and bacteria loaded manure into U.S. waters.   States (here, the Oregon Department of Agriculture) are responsible for the enforcement of CAFO permits.

The new CAFO rules are generating some stink from some while others declared them a good idea.  Here’s the skinny from the blog eNews USA:

October 31 the U.S. EPA announced it has finalized a rule helping to protect the nation’s water quality by requiring concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) to safely manage manure. EPA estimates CAFO regulations will prevent 56 million pounds of phosphorus, 110 million pounds of nitrogen, and 2 billion pounds of sediment from entering streams, lakes, and other waters annually. Assistant Administrator for Water Benjamin Grumbles said, “EPA’s new regulation of animal feedlots sets a strong national standard for pollution prevention and environmental protection, while maintaining our country’s economic and agricultural competitiveness. This clean water rule strengthens environmental safeguards by embracing a zero discharge standard and requiring site-specific management plans to prevent runoff of excess nutrients into our nation’s waters.”

EPA indicated that it is the first time it has required a nutrient management plan (NMP) for manure to be submitted as part of a CAFO’s Clean Water Act permit application. Manure contains the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus, which, when not managed properly on agricultural land, can pollute nearby streams, lakes, and other waters. Previous rules required a CAFO operator to use an NMP for controlling manure, but the regulation builds on that by requiring the NMP to be submitted with the permit application. The plan will be reviewed by the permitting authority and conditions based on it will be incorporated as enforceable terms of the permit. The proposed NMP and permit will be available for public review and comment before going final. Note: from a farmer’s perspective in Oregon, this is not a big change–a NMP was already required by ODA.

The regulation also requires that an owner or operator of a CAFO that actually discharges to streams, lakes, and other waters must apply for a permit under the Clean Water Act. If a farmer designs, constructs, operates and maintains their facility such that a discharge will occur, a permit is needed. EPA is also providing an opportunity for CAFO operators who do not discharge or propose to discharge to show their commitment to pollution prevention by obtaining certification as zero dischargers. Note: this is the rub for some in the environmental community. Many producers can show they have zero discharge, hence exempting them from some of the requirements of the original CAFO regulations.

In addition, the final rule includes technical clarifications regarding water quality-based effluent limitations and use of best management practices to meet zero discharge requirements, as well as affirming the 2003 rule requirement for reducing fecal coliform through the use of best conventional technology.

Like most regulation related to water, the new rules flew under most Americans radar as they were busy bundling up their kids for Halloween festivities. But they did generate comments from the producers most affected: The National Pork Producer Council (NPPC) called the new regulation “tough but fair rule” and said it sets a high environmental standard for livestock producers.

In the meantime, the environmental community found things to be a bit more odoriferous. In particular, the Natural Resources Defense Council called the final rule a “Halloween Trick from Bush Administration: Treat to Factory Farms.” NRDC declared that, “literally and figuratively, this rule puts the Bush Administration’s stamp of approval on a load of manure.”

Look out for more changes to water and environmental regulation as the Bush Administration heads for the door on January 20th.

The back and forth continues in Oregon over whether to sell some of “Oregon’s Oil” to the thirsty masses elsewhere. Presented here are the responses of the Democrats in the State Senate.

SALEM – Members of the Senate Democratic caucus Tuesday raised concern over a Republican plan to sell Oregon’s water to other states. The plan was released as part of the Senate Republican caucus’s agenda for the 2009 session.

“While the complexities of this proposal have yet to be vetted, it seems doubtful that this is the sort of idea that Oregonians could get behind,” said Senate Majority Leader Richard Devlin (D-Tualatin). “Democrats in the legislature would prefer to store our water here at home before shipping it off to California.”

The Republican plan, which calls water “Oregon Oil,” suggests that 70 million acre feet of water a year is “wasted” when the flow of the Columbia reaches the Pacific Ocean. They suggest that this water is in excess of that needed for farms, fisheries, and hydroelectric power.

“First and foremost, while not closing our minds to long-term viable solutions for state funding, we are committed to ensuring that Oregonians and our agricultural community have the stable and sufficient water supply they need” said Senator Alan Bates (D-Ashland), chair of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources. “We are in the middle of a state-wide water needs assessment and we will respond to those needs before we divert our water anywhere outside of Oregon. Senate Democrats have demonstrated leadership on this issue, and I’m confident that we will continue our record of smart and sensible water planning for our state.”

Democrats have a strong record of looking out for Oregon’s water needs. During the 2008 February Session, Senate Democrats in the legislature passed the Agricultural and Community Water Act, or ACWA, which expands options for developing a sufficient and sustainable water supply for Oregonians. Additionally, in 2007 Democrats passed the first broad state water study in recent history.

“Continuing our commitment to Oregon’s water needs for now and the future is a duty that we don’t take lightly,” said Devlin. “We’re not interested in the commoditization of a precious resource when our own water security is still an issue and priority to many Oregonians.”

I’m stealing liberally from my colleague Michael Campana’s Water Wired here.  An old friend argued to me once that all research is just stealing with citations, anyway. Yet, this topic was just too good to pass up, especially given my provenance as a Southwestern water geek now transplanted to the PNW.  Here’s the tale: long ago, in a galaxy far away, water managers in California tapped rivers far to the North of the state’s population bulges in the South and Central regions, built massive dams and aqueducts that dewatered whole valleys to fuel the booming megaregions.  Working with colleagues, water lawyers and politicos in seven states and two nations, they also successfully plumbed the mighty Colorado to supply over 30 million people with water.  The time was the early to mid-20th century and the “we can engineer a better future” mentality was riding high.  At the same time, a few water wonks speculated that the Columbia River–exceeding the Colorado’s flow by about 10 times–could play a role in future growth or drought scenarios. “Ridiculous!” many shouted, “that’s both unfeasible and unnecessary!”

Well, to quote Bob Dylan, “the times, they are a-changin’.”  It seems that some would quite seriously speculate that we’ve arrived in one one of those scenarios. As the reservoirs in the mighty Colorado dwindle under the weight of 8 years of serious drought (a good winter notwithstanding) and even more serious population growth, it seems that the basin’s states are contemplating just this sort of action (among others that include giant plastic-wrapped icebergs).  Searching for answers to the persistent question of “where will we get our water from,” managers are dredging up ideas that seem at face value to be technically impossible,  politically unfeasible, and economically unpalatable: extending a giant straw to the Colombia (likely inserted at–forgive the pun–the mouth) in order to send some precious water southward.

And Oregonians are contemplating what the water could cost and how we might facilitate selling it to them.  Think this is politically wild science fiction?  Sound like something out of Robert Ludlum meets Marc Riesner? Think again and read Michael Milstein’s piece in yesterday’s Oregonian. While you’re at it, check out the Aquadoc’s word on it too. And don’t forget to take a look at the press release put out by Oregon State Sen. David Nelson (R-Pendelton)  who proposes to sell 1 million acre-feet to out-of-state communities (read: the thirsty Southwest).  While this is still pretty speculative, the times they are a-changin’!

Though you will generally not see me mention my family much in H2ONC, I have to note that my wife hails from the Southeast of the U.S. (South Carolina, in fact). Her extended and immediate family are spread throughout the region. So I tend to pay careful attention to water-related issues from the area, after all, I too have a stake in it. Which brings me to an important point: water is a unifying necessity. The availability of it in one region does not mean it is always present for the rest of us. And the demands for water in drier parts will eventually have repercussions for those of us more blessed with favorable hydrology–just look at 20th century speculation about piping the Great Lakes or the Columbia to the desert Southwest.

The New York Times has published a lot on the growing implications of drought in the Atlanta area and the watershed that extends from the city’s primary reservoir into Alabama and the Florida panhandle. Check out the original article by clicking here. The short of the article is that poor (i.e. to little to late) water planning has combined with surging demand, fueled by surging growth of the Sunbelt city, and some extreme climate variability to build a dire situation for Atlanta. The city and State of Georgia are now requesting that the agency in charge of water rights allocations across state boundaries–the Army of Corps of Engineers–should allow the upper end of the basin (i.e. Atlanta) to release less water to the lower end (Alabama and Florida). The Feds have yet to make a decision. Water attorneys, environmental groups, businesses, government agencies, and others are lining up to stake a claim in the fight.

Lastly, it is sobering to note that if the forecasts of prominent climate modelers summarized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report are correct, then the Southeast will continue to dry out. If that is the case, expect to see much deeper conflicts and more serious economic repercussions. People have done some amazing engineering feats to bring water to them, or in the case of the 1930s Dust Bowl, gone to where there was water. This is a good time, therefore, for Oregonians to refrain from being smug while other regions of the country grow drier.

As I said in the “About” section, you should expect to find news from areas outside of the North Coast. Well, here is your first dose of it: as reported August 1, in the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Southern Louisianna’s levee systems is again the fair game for a game of political football. The full details can be found here: http://blog.nola.com/times-picayune/2007/08/white_house_threatens_to_veto.html

Oregonians may feel blessed that hurricanes typically don’t reach our North Coast but we should be well aware that if other water-related disasters strike which deserve national attention (i.e., a tsunami), the aftermath can be painfully drawn out by politics. The stark lesson just below the surface: all water projects, no matter what the cost and the scope, usually have a healthy dose of politics behind them. And when large sums are involved in water-related public works, the politics can be fiercely fought. Gulf State residents who are still recovering from Katrina must feel pretty disheartened to find the debate extended.

On the other hand, before committing large sums to more levee work, there is plenty to be said about restoring other functions in the Mississippi Delta rather than creating more works to prevent normal river processes to return to the area. For more on this fractious debate, check out Michael Campana’s WaterWired, June 12 and 13th postings.