They say that "great minds think alike", although I suppose one could also say "small minds think alike". Either one applies in the case of this post, which I have been planning for many weeks. I'll get to the applicability of the aformentioned aphorisms in a minute. But let's get down to the land use - water use nexus.
One of my pet peeves is the lack of integration of land use planning with water planning here in the USA. Whether it's east, west, north, or south, more often than not, this is the case. It's a dysfunctional planning system, prone to failure from the start. The major (but not the only) reason is that water management/allocation in the USA is generally a state function, whereas land use planning and water distribution are left to local governments -- counties or municipalities. This is the so-called "governance gap".
Things are changing, to be sure. Here in Oregon, Umatilla County has taken a proactive role to integrate the two. Their efforts have not always been greeted with enthusiasm by state officials.
The land-water disconnect is not a Western USA phenomenon. A recent article in the Baltimore Sun illustrated this for Carroll County, MD, which held a water summit to address growth vs. water issues:
In the Carroll County case, Maryland's "Smart Growth" policy is colliding with the state's water policy. Municipalities are being told by the state that they don't have enough water for more growth, which encourages growth outside the urban boundaries, which means larger lots, wells, and septic tanks -- which promotes sprawl, which defeats "smart growth".
Impact, the excellent "theme" publication of the American Water Resources Association (www.awra.org), devoted its November 2005 issue to "Water as a Growth Tool". Michelle Henrie guest-edited the issue. Feature articles and brief synopses can de downloaded here:
AWRA members can read the articles online.
A former student of mine in the University of New Mexico's Water Resources Program (www.unm.edu/~wrp/), Kyle Harwood, now an Assistant City Attorney for Santa Fe, NM, discussed Santa Fe's adoption of a "wet growth" policy - integration of land use and water planning. Harwood explained that this action was in response to the severe 2002 drought (which is still continuing as far as I know). The implementation of its "wet growth regulations" now has the "City Different" balancing water rights, available water supplies, and the infrastructure needed to treat and move water around the city. Makes sense, right?
There are a number of other thoughtful articles in the issue. One described the case of the "use-it-or-lose- it" provision of prior appropriation water law, something with which we are blessed (I am being facetious) in the Western USA. The town of Waldport, OR, wanted to plan for its future growth by securing a permit to use water on a nearby stream to accommodate expected growth. Sound planning, right? Guess again - this is the West. Under Oregon water law, the town had to develop that permit (which was not a certificated water right) to use the water within five years or forfeit the permit. So Waldport was faced with the reality that it would have to develop the infrastructure to use the water, only to have sit unused till growth could utilize it. To shorten a long story, the Oregon Supreme Court and the legislature intervened to change the law.
The last Impact article I will mention is one by Lynn Markham et al. that discussed how Wisconsin communities are integrating ground water resource protection into land-use decisions. A 1999 Wisconsin law requires that land-use decisions be based upon a comprehensive plan. At the following WWW site you can read about community ground water planning and implementation and download five useful reports:
http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/landcenter/groundwater/
Finally - the "great minds think alike" thing. At a meeting this morning, I was just starting to launch my "we need to integrate land use planning and water planning" routine, when friend Paul Wichlacz of Idaho National Laboratory smiled and whipped out an article "Water the West" by Sarah B. Van de Wetering of the University of Montana:
http://www.headwatersnews.org/perspective.html
In it, Sarah (who as Sarah Bates, co-authored Overtapped Oasis: Reform or Revolution for Western Water with the late Marc Reisner), discussed the "governance gap", among other things, and also introduced her recent report from the University of Montana's Public Policy Research Institute, Bridging the Governance Gap: Strategies to Integrate Water and Land Use Planning, which you can download here:
Download Public_Policy_Water_Land_Report.pdf
It's not long - about 15 pages. Give it a read - you'll like it.
So what's next? How about the regulatory disconnect between water quantity and water quality? Coming soon to a blog near you!
"In the West, of course, where water is concerned, logic and reason have never figured prominently in the scheme of things." -- Marc Reisner
Kinda surprising more of this wasn't developed together earlier. This has been a problem in some areas for a bit. I am looking forward to more regional areas adopting open-space regulations to encourage satellite communities near water sources.
Posted by: Greg Touchton | Saturday, 24 March 2007 at 05:13 PM