WaterWired

Publication from Pacific Institute: 'Ending Conflicts Over Water - Solutions to Water and Security Challenges'

Hot off the press (2 September 2020) from the Pacific Institute, authored by Peter Gleick, Charles Iceland, and Ayushi Trived: 'Ending Conflicts Over Water - Solutions to Water and Security Challenges'.

Download Ending-Conflicts-Over-Water-Pacific-Institute-Sept-2020

From the website:

Water-related conflict and political instability are on the rise across the globe. But while intensifying water challenges and the threats they pose to security are well documented, relatively few solutions have been presented.

This report fills the gap by exploring several dozen strategies to reduce water-related conflicts in key water-insecure hotspots around the world. The solutions are organized into four broad categories: natural resources, science, and engineering approaches; political and legal tools; economic and financial tools; and policy and governance strategies. These solutions provide decision-makers with options for addressing unique water challenges and can help improve water resources management, drought response, flood prevention, and access to safe, reliable, and affordable water for all. The report also offers detailed case studies of key regional challenges including Iran, Iraq, sub-Saharan Africa, India, and elsewhere.

The report was produced by the Pacific Institute in collaboration with the World Resources Institute and the Water, Peace and Security Partnership.

Looks good!

Enjoy!

"Million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten." - Terry Pratchett

CRS InFocus Report: 'Klamath River Restoration and Dam Renewal'

From Charles V. Stern and Pervaze A. Sheikh comes this report about an important issue here in the Pacific Northwest - dams on the Klamath River. Here is their CRS InFocus report (7 August 2020): 'Klamath River Restoration and Dam Renewal'.

Download CRS_InFocus_Klamath_Restoration_Dam_Removal_7August2020

Here we go...

The Klamath River Basin (Figure 1 ) - a 12,000 square mile area on the California-Oregon border— is a focal point for discussions on water allocation and species protection. These issues have generated conflict among farmers, Indian tribes, fishermen, water project and wildlife refuge managers, environmental groups, hydropower facility operators, and state and local governments. This InFocus provides background on the basin, with a focus on the proposed removal of four Klamath River dams.

Background
Much of the Upper Klamath Basin relies on economic activity supported by irrigated agriculture and the Bureau of Reclamation’s (Reclamation’s) Klamath Project within the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). Other farmers and ranchers also rely on basin water supplies not associated with the Klamath Project (off project ). Further, six national wildlife refuges rely on basin waters to sustain migratory bird habitat, and several Native American tribes historically depended on lower and upper basin fish species.

Mitigating the effects of water management, habitat alteration, and other factors on listed species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. §§1531 et seq. ) is a perennial issue in the basin. Two species of upper basin fish are currently listed as endangered under the ESA— the Lost River sucker and the shortnose sucker. In the lower basin, the coho salmon is listed as threatened. Conflicts in the basin first came to a head in 2001, when, as a result of previous biological opinions, Reclamation severely curtailed water deliveries to the Klamath Project to provide more water for endangered fish. Subsequent issues, including a major fish kill of Chinook salmon on the Lower Klamath River in 2002, resulted in federally led settlement talks in the 2000s.

The basin contains seven dams on the Klamath River and its tributaries, built between 1918 and 1962. Six of these dams are owned by PacifiCorp, a regulated utility. These dams are known collectively as the Klamath Hydroelectric Project (KHP). Historically, all but one of the dams have produced hydroelectric power for the basin, including low-cost power for Klamath Project irrigators. The original Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license to operate the KHP expired in 2006. In 2004, PacifiCorp applied for relicensing of the project, and, in 2007, FERC staff issued a final environmental impact statement for the application. FERC analyzed various alternatives for the application, ultimately recommending a new license with mandatory prescriptions to create fish ladders that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to implement and result in net operating losses for the project. At this time, PacifiCorp entered into basin settlement negotiations with stakeholders and continued to operate the project under temporary annual licenses.

Cutting to the chase...

Significance of the Klamath Dam Removal
Removal of the Klamath Dams is a historic undertaking that has received widespread attention due to the project’smagnitude. Never before have so many large dams been removed from a single river, at one time. Many are interested in the project as a proof-of-concept for other complex dam removals. Some have expressed hope that the amended KHSA model— in which a private dam owner transfers dams for removal in exchange for liability protections— might be used for other dam removals. FERC’s ruling could render this less likely. However,PacifiCorp and other parties may yet come to a revised agreement to remove the dams within FERC’s conditions.Regardless, if the Klamath dam removal effort goes forward, the cost of the project and status of restoration are likely to receive close scrutiny.

Congressional interest in dam removal relates to what role (if any) the federal government should have in studying and executing specific projects, FERC’s role in approving theproposed removal of certain nonfederally owned dams, and what, if any, federal incentives or authorities should be available for the removal (or maintenance) of aging dams.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has asked investor Warren Buffett to support removing four PacificCorp dams (this is Iron Gate Dam, courtesy of the AP), which is owned by Buffett's Berksire Hathaway conglomerate.

Enjoy!

"We suffer into knowledge." - Aeschylus

Lisa Beutler: What to Do about Wicked Water Problems

Lisa Beutler is a friend and colleague of mine, a former president of AWRA, among other things. She is now at Stantec (formerly MWH Global) where she is a Senior Principal and executive facilitator. When it comes to wicked water (or other) problems I cannot think of anyone better. She's 'da one'. 

So why I am telling you this? Because in yesterday's post, another A-lister, Sharon Megdal, referred to Lisa's keynote address at the 2016 WRRC Annual Conference.

Here goes:

It’s a rare day when western water managers don’t check the weather. A defining feature of this geographic region of the United States is a lack of precipitation. A second feature is great faith by its people in a technical solution to whatever problem a lack of rain creates. 

Long before Europeans arrived, predecessors to the Hohokam people migrated from central Mexico to southern Arizona, bringing domesticated crops and their knowledge of irrigation with them. Their descendants constructed networks of diversion dikes to capture runoff rainwater and cultivate fields. Mission priests expanded and enhanced the historic systems, building new rock dams and small earthen reservoirs. In 1902, the U.S. Reclamation Service (later changed to Bureau of Reclamation) was created to advance a federal effort of “irrigation works for the storage, diversion and development of waters”— to irrigate arid and semiarid lands in 16 Western states and territories. 

It worked. The West bloomed. Planners and engineers crisply defined, understood, and fixed problems through technical solutions. It was not simple, yet problems were solvable. Either solutions worked or they didn’t. 

Lately, more and more water problems seemingly defy standard solutions. This typically occurs for four reasons: incomplete or contradictory knowledge, the number of people and opinions involved, the large economic burden, and the interconnected nature of these problems with other problems. These are wicked problems. Wicked problems are often hot potatoes tossed back and forth among policy makers, and decried as too substantial for grand solutions. 

Wicked problems are not solved—they can only be mitigated through an approach that emphasizes empathy, abductive reasoning, and rapid prototyping. It is not possible to present an elegant solution and be done. 

Horst Rittel, one of the first to formalize a theory of wicked problems, cites ten characteristics of these complicated social issues 

1. Wicked problems have no definitive formulation. The problem of poverty in Texas is grossly similar but discretely different from poverty in Nairobi, so no practical characteristics describe “poverty.” 
2. It is hard, maybe impossible, to measure or claim success with wicked problems because they bleed into one another, unlike the boundaries of traditional design problems that can be articulated or defined. 
3. Solutions to wicked problems can be only good or bad, not true or false. There is no idealized end state to arrive at, and so approaches to wicked problems should be tractable ways to improve a situation rather than solve it. 
4. There is no template to follow when tackling a wicked problem, although history may provide a guide. Teams that approach wicked problems must literally make things up as they go along. 
5. There is always more than one explanation for a wicked problem, with the appropriateness of the explanation depending greatly on the individual perspective of the designer. 
6. Every wicked problem is a symptom of another problem. The interconnected quality of socio-economic political systems illustrates how, for example, a change in education will cause new behavior in nutrition. 
7. No mitigation strategy for a wicked problem has a definitive scientific test because humans invented wicked problems and science exists to understand natural phenomena. 
8. Offering a “solution” to a wicked problem frequently is a “one shot” design effort because a significant intervention changes the design space enough to minimize the ability for trial and error. 
9. Every wicked problem is unique. 
10. Those addressing a wicked problem must have authority and responsibility for their actions. 

Water planners and managers play a central role in mitigating the negative consequences of wicked problems. They will be required to position efforts in new and more desirable directions. This will not be easy, quick, or solitary. It requires methodical, rigorous iteration focused on the system qualities of the problem. Interdisciplinary collaboration that captures a broader knowledge of science, economics, statistics, technology, psychology, politics, and more is necessary for effective change. 

Water managers and planners will also need to more actively utilize abductive reasoning in addition to deductive  and inductive approaches. 

Abductive reasoning begins with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the set. This method yields the kind of daily decision-making that does its best with the information at hand, which often is incomplete. In court cases, judge and jury consider whether the prosecution or the defense has the best explanation to cover all the evidence. While reasonable, it is subjective. 

Whereas deductive reasoning creates certainty and inductive reasoning quantifies uncertainty, abductive reasoning attempts to create meaning when uncertainty exists. 

Managing wicked problems is a new kind of work. It requires changing the questions, managing uncertainty, and creating resilience. It does not solve existing problems but instead drives to a desired future state. 

Reframing water issues as wicked problems will be essential for moving forward to a healthy water future. It begins with considering issues and solutions at the system scale. Water projects can no longer be solely the domain of the water community. Creating a change in one part of the water system will change the entire system, including the dependent social and environmental systems, sometimes in unexpected ways. This will require yet another solution to address that situation. It is an adaptive, iterative exercise. Solutions to wicked problems are never one and done. 

Traditional approaches that focus on solution-proposing will need to transition to a process that defines a desired state. Solutions then balance and reconcile tradeoffs while considering self-interests of the parties. 

Given that issues must be addressed at the system scale, collaboration and interdisciplinary approaches are key. The way the parts work together are as important as how they work individually. While this degree of upfront engagement may seem time consuming, it takes far less time than the rework required when a lack of integration creates problems. 

The largest hurdle may be reframing the public’s perception of water management. The faith in the technological solution and the ability of the water professionals to create certain outcomes, while well deserved, does not match the emerging reality. 

Introducing a wicked problems framework and the need for adaptive management is key. Also needed is an understanding that solutions for wicked problems are only good or bad, not true or false. This requires a change to previous approaches for defining success. 

Moving forward, water managers will continue looking at the weather. The good news is, there are new ways of thinking about how to manage what it brings. 

Enjoy!

“Managing wicked problems is a new kind of work. It requires changing the questions, managing uncertainty, and creating resilience. It does not solve existing problems but instead drives to a desired future state.” - Lisa Beutler

More Sharon B. Megdal Reflections: On Wicked Water Problems

Dr. Sharon B. Megdal, Director of the University of Arizona's Water Resources Research Center and a friend and colleague, published this piece earlier this month and I am repeating here.

She also asked if the Water Buffalo symbol should be retired and would like your opinion by 24 August. What are we talking about? Go here,  

Download Reflections-wicked-water-problems_August 2020

Hare is Sharon's piece:

Although my spring-summer sabbatical lecture tour did not take place as planned due to COVID-19, I did deliver more than a dozen lectures and participated in several programs and interviews. My topic of wicked water problems was the most requested and one on which I will continue to focus. Not only does this topic afford me an opportunity to explore significant water challenges at varying geographic and geopolitical scales, it enables me to focus on the process for forging pathways to addressing them.

I begin my discussion of wicked water problems by citing Lisa Beutler’s excellent 2016 article, which was based on her keynote lecture at the Water Resource Research Center’s 2016 annual conference. I encourage all to read her concise exposition. These quotations are particularly salient. “Lately, more and more water problems seemingly defy standard solutions. This typically occurs for four reasons: incomplete or contradictory knowledge, the number of people and opinions involved, the large economic burden, and the interconnected nature of these problems with other problems.” Beutler points out that the necessary collaborations must involve more than water managers. She adds that “[i]nterdisciplinary collaboration that captures a broader knowledge of science, economics, statistics, technology, psychology, politics, and more is required…” to mitigate the negative consequences of wicked water problems. A key characteristic of wicked water problems, therefore, is that they are mitigated rather than solved, meaning that finding a pathway is the goal rather than trying to identify an ultimate solution. While partial or short-term solutions are implemented, the work continues.

(Click on the graphic to enlarge it)

Before fleshing out some examples, which I do not have space to do so in this essay, I point out the importance of context to analysis of wicked water problems. I often show a slide listing several of the factors that determine “on-the-ground” water policy and management. Among these are laws, regulations, and policies. The legal and institutional framework, including the degree to which decision-making is centralized, will be region-specific. Thus, maps always help clarify the geographic and geopolitical context for water issues of any kind, especially those that span

shared borders. In recent lectures, I have discussed four examples from the Colorado River Basin: overcommitment of groundwater in the Pinal Active Management Area; shortage of Colorado River flows relative to demands within Arizona and across the basin; limited consideration of water for natural systems; and the Navajo Nation’s inadequate water infrastructure, which has been spotlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Additional examples of wicked problems I mention involve water in the Middle East and include Lower Jordan River flows and the Dead Sea, water and wastewater services, and water scarcity, particularly in Jordan. While many more wicked water problems can be identified – and I ask listeners to think about what water problems they would identify as wicked – these examples enable me to discuss factors that contribute to mitigating them.

Process is very important to the search for pathways to solutions, which are often common across the regions I discuss. Solutions include conservation, augmentation, reuse, water transactions, and other actions at individual, community, and regional levels. Partnerships are critical to developing information collaboratively so that the parties can be “on the same page”. Whether within states and regions, across states, or across national boundaries, functioning cooperative mechanisms are critical. I emphasize the word “functioning” because it is not enough to have cooperative mechanisms on paper. Effective partnerships are built on respect and trust. Trust depends on mutually respectful, positive collaborative experiences. Stakeholder involvement is key. We are definitely seeing more inclusive processes, yet there is often room for improvement. Though live streaming of meetings had been increasing before the COVID-19 pandemic, since the demise of in-person meetings, meeting virtually has become the norm. Interestingly, this situation has enhanced participation of stakeholders who may not be officially “at the table” or able to travel long distances to in-person meetings. Good communication of all kinds is imperative to identifying and understanding the potential of alternative actions that contribute to mitigating wicked water problems. Because there are no quick fixes, both patience and persistence are necessary when working on complex matters over long periods of time.

For many years, I personally have had the opportunity to share lessons learned – both good and sometimes not-so-good – across different geographic and sociocultural communities. I have organized sessions for cross-regional learning and sharing, including but not limited to the 2009 Arizona-Israeli-Palestinian Water Management and Policy workshop in Tucson, the 2016 Middle East visit of the International Boundary and Water Commission commissioners, the 2017 Tel Aviv joint American Water Resources Association – Tel Aviv University conference on wicked water problems, and the 2019 Tel Aviv conference panel on implementing technologies across borders. All of these events are chronicled in previous Public Policy Columns and Reflections. During the 2019 panel, I asked panelists: What are the most important variables or factors that contribute to collaborating on implementing technologies across borders? Very high on their lists were functioning relationships. Several noted that being able to get to know your partners through sitting down together for meals fosters the friendships and relationships that can facilitate the work required to forge formal agreements. There can be peaks and lows. Identifying win-win opportunities can be difficult, and when working with neighbors of different cultures and languages, good communication, sincerity, and leadership are essential.

In her article, Lisa Beutler states, “Managing wicked problems is a new kind of work. It requires changing the questions, managing uncertainty, and creating resilience. It does not solve existing problems but instead drives to a desired future state.” Technology and economics are determinants of pathways to solutions, as are processes for working with and through stakeholders. Efforts to educate at all levels will contribute to identifying and evaluating options. Good work is continuing. But my recent webinar lectures on wicked water problems (see, for example, my May 2020 WRRC webinar) ended with this question, which is reflective of the COVID-19 times in which we live: When will we be able to meet and eat with our partners?

Last month Sharon gave an AWRA webinar: Developing Pathways to Solutions to Wicked Water Problems. Click here to access this recording. Here is the PDF of that PPT: 

Download Megdal_AWRA_WIckedWaterProblems_15July2020

Good stuff!

Enjoy!

"It's so much darker when a light goes out than it would have been if it had never shone." - John Steinbeck

Sharon B. Megdal Reflections: Time to Retire the Water Buffalo Symbol?

Say what? So who's got a problem with the water buffalo symbol? Dr. Sharon B. Megdal, Director of the University of Arizona's Water Resources Research Centerand a friend and colleague, asked this question a month ago and I am repeating here.

BTW: She would like feedback - smegdal@arizona.edu by 24 August 2020. I will provide mine at the end of her article.

Here's the PDF: Download Reflections-water-buffalo_July2020

Sharon's Take

I am writing to invite your feedback on an important issue that came up at the Happy Hour discussion I hosted at the Water Resources Research Center’s 2020 Annual Conference, Water at the Crossroads: The Next 40 Years. On June 18 and 19, 2020, the audience heard distinguished speakers and panelists address the history, current status, and future of Arizona water policy and management. We are grateful for the many individuals who joined us virtually. Keynote addresses, along with panel presentations and discussions, are available at our conference website. In addition to the formal sessions, at the end of the first day, two of our sponsors and I hosted informal Happy Hour discussions. The conversation at the Happy Hour I hosted was quite lively and brought up a controversy that has prompted me to write this Reflections essay.

What was the controversial matter? Was it the potential transfer of water from the Colorado River communities to Central Arizona? Was it the role of the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District? Both were prominently discussed by Governor Bruce Babbitt in his opening keynote address. No, the controversial matter relates to something else Mr. Babbitt mentioned multiple times, namely, his reference to the water buffalo. He noted the more than 400 water buffaloes assembled for the conference at the very beginning of his remarks. In fact, he mentioned water buffaloes three times, and other speakers referred to the water buffalo as well. Some participants in our Happy Hour discussion, however, did not welcome the association. They did not interpret it as a term of endearment, as I have thought of it. I recall responding positively when I was seemingly welcomed to the water buffalo herd back in 2004. At the Arizona Town Hall held that autumn at the Grand Canyon, CAP General Manager Sid Wilson handed me a “Darned Proud Water Buffalo” pin. That pin is shown on the collar worn by the water buffalo pictured above. That wood water buffalo statue is one of my herd of four water buffalo figures, all of which were given to me over the years by a professional friend.

What associates a person with the water buffalo? In our Happy Hour discussion, some participants indicated that the water buffalo is not a pleasant animal; they did not consider being called a water buffalo a compliment. They were also put off by the sense that the water buffalos were members of an exclusive club. When searching online for something written connecting the water buffalo and water management in Arizona, I found the 2004 Annual Report of the Central Arizona Project. General Manager Sid Wilson’s letter to constituents opens: “The theme of Central Arizona Project’s 2004 annual report, Water Buffalos Undeterred, is kind of an in-joke among the water community. However, it is the kind of joke that should include the public. Since before Arizona was a state a small group of individuals has always been concerned with water issues. These people, who are virtually unknown to the general public, are responsible for what we are today.” A few paragraphs later, he writes: “Within the industry, those folks are called ‘Water Buffalors.’ There are a lot of theories about how the name evolved. Some say it’s because they were just a bunch of grumpy old men. Some say it’s because, like the water buffalo, these Water Buffaloes plodded along and would not be deterred from accomplishing their goals.”

A central focus of Bruce Babbitt’s keynote address was the process for engaging in dialogue about difficult issues of water policy, such as the movement of water to Central Arizona from the Colorado River. The importance of process, particularly an inclusive process, came up many times during the conference. Process was vital for Arizona’s coming to agreement on the terms of our State’s participation in the Lower Colorado River Basin Drought Contingency Plan and will be critical to the renegotiation of the interim guidelines for sharing of Colorado River Shortage, both highlighted by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Brenda Burman in her keynote address.

In this time of national dialogue on the importance of inclusivity and rejection of stereotypes, I suggest it is time to retire the water buffalo as a symbol of those who care about and are involved in water policy and management. The Water Buffaloes of the past deserve great respect for what they accomplished; but as we remain aware of our water history, let’s think about a symbol that better captures the spirit of inclusivity, diversity, mutual respect, and general awareness of commonalities as well as differences in our perspectives. [Italics and emboldening mine.] While it may be unnecessary or too early to agree upon a replacement symbol, I know we can agree that our gatherings for debate and dialogue, whether in-person or virtual, will include more than the water buffalo.

Please email your feedback, including your suggestion for a new symbol, to smegdal@arizona.edu.

Sharon

My Take

I would like to note that real water buffaloes are amazing beasts of burden and food producers. They are quite different from the Cape (or African) buffaloes, dangerous beasts unable to be domesticated. So 'water buffalo" is certainly not a term of derision - far from it. If someone were to call me a 'water buffalo' I don't believe I would be offended.

I first heard the term 'water buffalo' while a graduate student at the U of AZ in the early 1970s. My MS advisor and founder of the UA's hydrology program, Dr. John W. Harshbarger (who could himself be described as a Water Buffalo) used it to refer to the legendary New Mexico State Engineer (the quintessential WB) Steve Reynolds. He had told John that if one drop of water left NM for another state, he would shut down John's consulting project. About twenty years later I met Steve, and yes, he was a WB. Urban legend had it that one of his joys was walking around pulling up phreatophytes.    

Is Pat Mulroy a WB? Yes, she is, as long as you don't mind one with gold lamé shoes. Fine with me! How about water author John Fleck, Not sure - not a classical WB but passes the knowledge test.

I have not thought about WBs in quite a while - not since I left the Southwest (2006) where WBs seemed to grow on things likely willow, cottonwood, saltcedar, etc. My image of a WB is someone from the US West who's been around water most of his/her adult life as a water resources manager/supplier/agency head/policy person or someone like that. That often (but not always) means an OWG (Old White Guy/Gal) - keep in mind my 'WB vision' is mired in the 1970s. Typical profession: lawyer, engineer, maybe economist, irrigator. A WB usually has 'curmudgeonly' qualities and knows a whole lot about water - his/her own plus that of surrounding states. They are often not big on 'environmental things.'

I generally exclude academics, but Sharon is a WB (because she has the credentials). I am not a WB; I'm old enough, among other things. Just a WaterWonk, I suppose.  

I agree with Sharon's text that I emboldened. That the qualities she espouses are the ones most needed today. We certainly need more D&I in the water world. 

The Water Buffaloes of the past deserve great respect for what they accomplished; but as we remain aware of our water history, let’s think about a symbol that better captures the spirit of inclusivity, diversity, mutual respect, and general awareness of commonalities as well as differences in our perspectives.

You got me thinking, Sharon: we could just ascribe the above qualities to WBs. Or WaterWonks.

But my old vision of the WB needs to be let out to pasture. Its time has come and gone. 

"If individuals salvaging public water lost to encroaching phreatophytes were permittted to create new water rights where there is no new water, the price of saltcedar jungles would rise sharply. And we would expect to see a thriving, if clandestine, business in saltcedar seed and phreatophyte cultivation." -- Steve Reynolds, former NM State Engineer