Tuesday Twofer Pubs: 1) Governance & USA Integrated Freshwater Management; 2) The Law & Policy of Hydrofracking

A couple of publications came across my screen yesterday, courtesy of Ken Reid of AWRA. Both look vary good.

If you have trouble accessing them here, you can find them on the 2013 Reports and Publications page of the Sustainable Water Resources site.

1) The Role of Governance in Shaping Freshwater Management in America: Toward Integrated Resources Planning, by Sarah Hughes and Robert Wilkinson

Download US_Freshwater_Management

Introduction

Freshwater is one of the world’s most precious resources, and managing it sustainably is a critically important goal. Fresh water and healthy aquatic ecosystems provide valuable services that society has come to depend on (Daily 1997). While many factors determine the outcomes of freshwater management in the U.S., the aim of this paper is to examine the extent to which we can attribute these outcomes to the operation and evolution of governance systems. In this paper, we refer to “governance” as the steering influence of the rules, decision making processes, and incentives provided by both governmental and non-governmental actors, including the private sector and civil society.

In short, while the principles and objectives for freshwater management have changed significantly over the last 100 years, governance has remained a key factor determining freshwater management outcomes in the U.S. Governance systems have helped to distribute authority and incentives in freshwater management; they shape our responses to social and environmental change, and they determine whose voices are heard, and in what decision making venues. In turn, governance systems have created freshwater management challenges and solutions, and they will continue to do so in the future. As society’s goals for freshwater management change, our governance systems may also need to be changed. New challenges and expectations are confronting local, state and national level agencies in the U.S. that are designed to execute basic service functions in a static environment (Gleick 2003; Christian-Smith et al. 2012). Governance innovations – such as integrated resources planning and collaborative decision-making – have important potential to address these new challenges.

 This paper examines the role of governance in U.S. freshwater management chronologically: first in the historic dam-building era of 1900-1970; second in the current demand-management era from 1970 to the present; and finally in the context of addressing the challenges of the future, including climate change and aging infrastructure. We conclude that innovations in governance are a key to achieving long-term freshwater sustainability in the U.S.

2) The Law and Policy of Hydraulic Fracturing: Addressing the Issues of the Natural Gas Boom, Case Western Reserve Law Review, Vol. 63, Issue 4, 2013

This issue of the journal contains a series of articles on hydraulic fracturing, some of which go beyond water resource concerns. The articles include such topics as state preemption, regulatory issues, horizontal drilling, water management, clean energy, climate change, the Gulf oil spill, and others.

Download 63CaseWResLRev4

Introduction

For at least four decades, energy and the environment have occupied important places in American policy and legal debates. At one time nuclear power played a central role in the energy field. More recently, advances in drilling technology and changes in energy economics have made the potential for obtaining oil and gas from shale formations around the United States increasingly attractive while provisions of the Endangered Species Act, which unlike other environmental statutes contains few if any exceptions. Professor Robbins explores a wide range of potential violations of the Endangered Species Act and their implications for the expansion of fracking.

The other piece that seeks to place hydraulic fracturing into existing regulatory frameworks is by Nicholas Schroeck and Stephanie Karisny. These authors emphasize provisions applicable to the Great Lakes that might have implications for the regulation of fracking in the region: the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement, which was negotiated by the eight Great Lakes states in the United States and the two Great Lakes provinces in Canada, as well as the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact, which was endorsed by the legislatures of the Great Lakes states and approved by Congress. In particular, provisions that restrict new and increased diversions of water from the Great Lakes could serve as the predicate for restrictions on fracking. Further, Schroeck and Karisny propose new binational regulations to supplement the provisions of the Compact.

Our third broad theme picks up on Professor Merrill’s second question, about the risks of hydraulic fracturing. Joseph Tomain takes a less sanguine view of the risks and a more pessimistic view of the implications of fracking for the development of clean energy. In addition to the prospect of water pollution that Merrill emphasized, Tomain notes the threats of air pollution and community disruption. Indeed, he warns that the growth of the shale industry could reinvigorate the dominant hydrocarbon-based energy system at the expense of less polluting energy sources. Tomain concludes with a series of suggested regulatory initiatives at the federal and state levels.

Elizabeth Burleson also casts a skeptical eye on fracking. She emphasizes that in many places the combination of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling results in the emission of large quantities of methane, which contributes to the problem of greenhouse gas emissions and aggravates the problem of climate change. To address this concern, Burleson emphasizes the potential for ameliorating the consequences of methane emissions through a combination of monitoring, technology-forcing measures, cap-and- trade mechanisms, and other devices that could enhance the prospects for mitigating climate change.

The last paper exploring the risks of fracking comes from Heidi Gorovitz Robertson, who analyzes the implications of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico for regulations of hydraulic fracturing. She focuses on three principal aspects. First, she emphasizes the inherent conflicts of interest that undermined the effectiveness of the Minerals Management Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior. This agency had primary responsibility for regulating offshore drilling but also was in charge of leasing offshore drilling locations. Second, regulators gave insufficient attention to knowledge gaps in understanding the risks of offshore drilling and did not adequately factor known risks into their approach. Third, authorities were not adequately prepared to address emergencies that might arise from the use of this technology.

The final piece in the symposium focuses on economic issues. Timothy Fitzgerald addresses three different aspects of this subject: the extent to which the new technology enables substantial productivity increases, the growth in energy supply arising from this technology, and the tradeoffs between increased energy production and environmental quality. He emphasizes the continuing uncertainties in our knowledge that prevent us from accurately assessing the costs and benefits of the new technology.

This remarkable set of papers and the symposium itself were the result of initiatives undertaken by the editors of the Law Review. Particular credit belongs to Paul Janowicz, the symposium editor, and Benjamin Ristau, the editor-in-chief. As faculty advisor to the Review, I am delighted to have this opportunity to honor their extraordinary work on this project and to recognize the remarkable work of the editors of Volume 63 throughout their tenure on the board. 

Excellent! Enjoy!

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things we know that we don't know. But there also unknown unknowns. These are things that we don't know we don't know." - Donald Rumsfeld (thanks to Bill and Rosemarie Alley, Too Hot To Touch, p. 272)

Comments

[geohydro2011]

Re Miller comment---agreed with key word "sustainable" as I have seen where some resource managers try to maximize water consumption for just a few chosen clients (big ag, industry, etc.) even as their decisions harm the public at large. If people only knew; segue to Rumsfeld. As for the Rumsfeld comment, I think it's okay syllogistically, although for some reason he sounded stupid saying it--anyway the idea preceded Rumsfeld as I understand.

[PAUL F MIILER]

I find it revealing discussion about WATER center around input from government regulators … NGO … academia … water purveyors … leaving a vital sector outside this closed door environment without a seat at the table … PUBLIC … remember them … there appears to be a fundamental belief in the water industry the public does not and cannot make viable contributions to solving our water dilemma … the reality is … without them and their support there is no sustainable water solution