WaterWired

Paper: 'The Implementation of the Western Climate Initiative - How North American States and Provinces Lead International Climate Negotiations'

Whatever happened to the Western Climate Initiative (WCI)? Initially, 25 jurisdictions expressed strong interest in the WCI. It was a pretty ambitious plan, what with 7 US states and 4 Canadian provinces ultimately pledging to do something about climate change. But in the end (?), just California and Québec remained. 

What happened? This paper by Annie Chaloux of the Université de Sherbrooke will help you understand: The Implementation of the Western Climate Initiative: How North American States and Provinces Lead International Climate Negotiations by Annie Chaloux, International Negotiation 22 (2): 239-258 (2017) doi 10.1163/15718069-22021113

I posted one her other papers a dew days ago: Green Paradiplomacy and Water Resource Management in North America: the Case of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin. Another very good read.

Download The_Implementation_of_the_Western_Climate

Abstract
The Western Climate Initiative is internationally recognized as a success story in global climate negotiations. However, between the first expression of the idea of a cap-and-trade system in 2007 and the launch of carbon trading in 2013, the number of participating Canadian provinces and us states fell from 11 to 2, and important hurdles risked derailing the project completely. The trajectory of this innovative cross-boundary policy holds important lessons for the prospects and pitfalls of green paradiplomacy in North America. This paper examines the impetus for subnational efforts to combat climate change in the face of federal inaction, and, through detailed examination of the wci, looks at jurisdictional, administrative, legal, political, social and economic factors that complicate the implementation of these initiatives. The analysis enables a better understanding of prospects for the establishment of norms, rules and institutions among North American federated states that can provide durable environmental regimes.

Conclusion
The 2007 plan for a multisectoral cap-and-trade system at subnational level was an ambitious idea put forth by subnational actors to counter what they saw as federal inaction on an important issue. However, despite strong initial interest from 25 jurisdictions, and early adhesion by 11, most states and provinces then abandoned the WCI, leaving California and Québec alone in the elaboration of what would become the largest carbon market in North America. These actors might have followed the pack and abandoned the idea as less relevant or impactful without other members. They also might have succumbed to the political, administrative, legal, social and economic challenges to implementation of the WCI. In short, the initiative could well have resulted in failure. In fact, it has done the opposite, overcoming obstacles that produced delays and officially launching the cap-and-trade system in 2013. Most importantly, the achievement of early targets and buy-in by affected GHG emitters in these two jurisdictions has sent strong encouraging signals to other potential subnational partners.

While it remains impossible, for the moment, to thoroughly evaluate the robustness of this cap-and-trade system, this article has highlighted some key elements that further studies might pursue in analyzing the implementation of subnational initiatives to combat climate change. It is evident that states and provinces want to be at the forefront of climate action, and implementa- tion of the WCI demonstrates the potential of green paradiplomacy to durably reconfigure North American climate and environmental governance.

Close, but no cigar...yet. Still a good idea...

Enjoy!

"The climate system is an angry beast, and we are poking at it with sticks." - Wallace (Wally) Broecker of @Columbia at @UNM E&PS seminar, c. 1991

'CRS Report: 'Water Resource Issues in the 116th Congress (Updated 7 February 2019)

Updated on 7 February 2019: Water Resource Issues in the 116th Congress by an all-star CRS team: Nicole T. Carter, Charles V. Stern, Pervaze A. Sheikh, Peter Folger, Eva Lipiec and Anna E. Normand. 

Download CRS_WR_Issues_116Congress_7February2019

This short report deals with a plethora of water resource issues: USACE projects and activities; Western water and USBR; Indian water rights settlements; Canada and Mexico (Great Lakes; Columbia River Treaty; Coloriado River, Rio Grande); USGS water resource science; aging and new water infrastructure; partnerships; environmental protection and restoration; flood resilience and natural and nature-based approaches; and RECHARGING GROUBWATER (italics mine)! I did not see a specific 'Water Quality' heading but that all-important topic could be subsumed within a number of the above categories. 

Note: this graphic comes from another CRS report.

Summary
The 116th Congress may conduct oversight and deliberate on authorization and funding of water resource development, management, and protection. Congress engages in authorization and appropriations for water resource projects and activities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). USACE constructs projects nationwide, primarily to improve navigation, reduce flood damage, and restore aquatic ecosystems. Reclamation constructs projects in the 17 arid states west of the Mississippi River; these projects primarily provide water supply benefits, often to agricultural irrigation users. The 116th Congress, like earlier Congresses, also may consider Indian water rights settlements and may evaluate the focus of and funding for the water resource science activities of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

Development pressures, droughts and floods, and concerns about changing hydrology from land- use change and climate change have engendered nonfederal interest in federal financial and technical assistance for water resource science and projects. Stakeholders are interested in a range of water resource issues, including

•   new water resource infrastructure (e.g., storm surge gates, water storage) and new kinds of projects (e.g., groundwater recharge, nature-based flood risk reduction);

•   reinvestment in aging water resource infrastructure and use of water science and real- time monitoring and forecasting to improve infrastructure operations;

•   funding and financing of projects, and whether and how to shift from federally led projects to federal partnerships with state and/or local entities; and

•   activities to protect and restore aquatic ecosystems and enhance flood resilience (including the use of nature-based approaches).

  Some topics arise within the context of specific agencies. USACE-related topics for the 116th
  Congress may include funding and financing issues, such as use of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; the status of investments in projects to deepen coastal harbors; USACE budgeting priorities; and oversight of USACE efforts to implement public-private partnerships and develop alternative financing opportunities. Some Reclamation-related water project and management issues during the 116th Congress may include the status of proposed new and augmented water storage projects, as well as efforts to address the agency’s aging infrastructure and transition certain qualifying projects to nonfederal ownership. Congress also may address Reclamation drought mitigation activities in the Colorado River basin and other areas. In addition, Congress may exploreongoing issues associated with Reclamation’s project operations in California and other areas. It may address how these issues affect water deliveries to irrigation districts and municipalities and threatened and endangered species, among others.

  Some topics are international in character. Regarding freshwater bodies shared with Canada, potential topics for the 116th Congress include federal funding for activities supporting Great Lakes restoration and negotiations (and any resulting agreements) with Canada to modify the Columbia River Treaty. Potential topics related to Mexico include oversight of a binational agreement on water sharing during dry conditions in the Colorado River basin and Mexico’s deliveries to theUnited States in the Rio Grande basin.

  Crosscutting topics (i.e., topics relevant to multiple agencies and programs) also are part of congressional water resource deliberations. For example, the 116th Congress may consider the status and priority of new and ongoing federal efforts to restore large-scale aquatic ecosystems that have been altered or impaired by changes to their natural conditions (e.g., Florida Everglades, Chesapeake Bay). Congress may explore the funding and performance of existing restoration efforts, including what changes (if any) may be necessary to improve project delivery and evaluation. The 116th Congress may consider its guidance to multiple federal agencies on how to respond to flood hazards, including efforts related to enhancing the resilience of infrastructure and communities to flooding. There is interest in developing and evaluating approaches that protect natural elements that reduce flood risk (e.g., natural dunes) or are “nature-based” in comprehensive flood risk management (e.g., constructed dunes). Congress also may consider legislation and oversight on USACE supplemental appropriations for response to and recovery from floods.

Cutting to the chase...

Conclusion
Many factors shape the water resource issues before the 116th Congress. These factors include demand for reliable water supplies; hydrologic conditions, such as droughts, floods, and effects of climate change; issues regarding safety and performance of existing infrastructure, and interests and concerns about alternative financing and public-private partnerships.

The 116th Congress may consider some measures proposed but not enacted in the 115th Congress, as well as new legislative proposals. In the water resource area, legislative activity often is specific to the federal water resource management agencies or to water use by particular sectors, including energy, agriculture, navigation, recreation, and municipal and industrial use. Occasionally, Congress takes up broader water resource policy issues, such as coordination of federal water resource activities, programs, science, and research.

Congress and other decisionmakers often make water resource decisions within a complicated context. These decisions may involve existing federal infrastructure and their beneficiaries, multiple or conflicting objectives, various legal decisions, multiple environmental and natural resource statutes, and long-established institutional mechanisms (e.g., water rights and contractual obligations). These decisions also occur within a federalist framework in which water resource responsibilities are shared with state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector.

Broad water resource questions for the 116th Congress described herein include the following:

•   For existing water resource facilities, including aging dams, levees, and navigation channels, what will be the federal role and level of investment in maintaining performance and safety?

•   For planning and construction of new or expanded water resource projects, what will be the circumstances, conditions, and nature of federal involvement?

•   For water resource project design and operations, how may federal and nonfederal science, observation, and monitoring be used to improve performance?

Let's hope Congress gets some of these issues off its platter and into reality.

Enjoy!

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." - Alexis de Tocqueville

GAO Report: 'Climate Change - Activities of Selected Agencies to Address Potential Impact on Global Migration'

Timely or what? From the USGAO (17 January 2019): Climate Change: Activities of Selected Agencies to Address Potential Impact on Global Migration.

Download GAO_CC_Migration_Highlights (one-pager)

Download GAO_CC_Global_Migration_Accessible_Full_Report

Fast Facts

Climate change may increase the frequency and intensity of natural disasters, which could drive people around the world from their homes.

We found that, while the State Department, USAID, and DOD haven’t focused on the link between climate change and migration, State identified migration as a risk in one of its climate change risk assessments in early 2017.

However, State later changed its approach and no longer provides clear guidance to its staff on how to assess climate change risks. This may prevent it from identifying and addressing climate change as a factor in human migration.

We recommended State provide its staff with this guidance.

 

What GAO Found

From fiscal years 2014 through 2018, a variety of executive branch actions related to climate change—such as executive orders and strategies—affected the Department of State (State), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Department of Defense (DOD), including their activities that could potentially address the nexus of climate change and migration. For example, a fiscal year 2016 presidential memorandum—rescinded in 2017—required agencies to develop implementation plans to identify the potential impact of climate change on human mobility, among other things. In general, however, climate change as a driver of migration was not a focus of the executive branch actions. For example, a fiscal year 2014 executive order—also rescinded in 2017—requiring agencies to prepare for the impacts of climate change did not highlight migration as a particular concern.

State, USAID, and DOD have discussed the potential effects of climate change on migration in agency plans and risk assessments. For example, State and USAID required climate change risk assessments when developing country and regional strategies, and a few of the strategies reviewed by GAO identified the nexus of climate change and migration as a risk. However, State changed its approach in 2017, no longer providing missions with guidance on whether and how to include climate change risks in their integrated country strategies. In doing so, State did not include in its 2018 guidance to the missions any information on how to include climate change risks, should the missions choose to do so. Without clear guidance, State may miss opportunities to identify and address issues related to climate change as a potential driver of migration.

The three agencies have been involved in climate change related activities but none were specifically focused on the nexus with global migration. For example, USAID officials said that the agency's adaptation efforts, such as its Pastoralist Areas Resilience Improvement through Market Expansion project in Ethiopia, were the most likely to include activities, such as enhancing resilience, that can indirectly address the issue of climate change as a driver of migration.

A U.S. Agency for International Development Project in Ethiopia Includes Activities to Enhance Resilience That Can Indirectly Address Climate Change as a Driver of Migration

Why GAO Did This Study

The effects of climate change, combined with other factors, may alter human migration trends across the globe, according to the International Organization for Migration. For example, climate change can increase the frequency and intensity of natural disasters, causing populations to move from an area. Climate change can also intensify slow-onset disasters, such as drought, crop failure, or sea level rise, potentially altering longer-term migration trends.

GAO was asked to review how U.S. agencies address climate change as a potential driver of global migration. For State, USAID, and DOD, this report (1) describes executive branch actions related to climate change and migration from fiscal years 2014 through 2018; (2) examines the extent to which the agencies discussed the potential effects of climate change on migration in their plans and risk assessments; and (3) describes agency activities on the issue. GAO analyzed documents on administration priorities; reviewed agency plans, risk assessments, and documentation of agency activities; and interviewed agency officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that State provide missions with guidance that clearly documents its process for climate change risk assessments for country strategies. In commenting on a draft of this report, State indicated that it would update its integrated country strategy guidance and will specifically note that missions have the option to provide additional information on climate resilience and related topics.

For more information, contact David Gootnick at (202) 512-3149 or gootnickd@gao.gov or Brian J. Lepore at (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov.

Bangladesh is expected to experience migration due to climate change

State, DoD and USAID need to get their acts together.

Enjoy!

"Poor is the pupil that does not surpass his master." - Leonardo da Vinci (thanks to Jay Lund)

Paper: 'Water Security in Practice - The Quantity-Quality-Society Nexus'

Thushara Gunda, whom I met at a recent AWRA conference, sent me this paper she authored along with David Hess, George M. Hornberger, and Scott Worland: Water Security in Practice: the Quantity-Quality-Society Nexus, Water Security 6 (March 2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasec.2018.100022 (click on the doi link to access the paper online)

Her email message to me:

I wanted to share a paper that we recently published in Water Security about the complexity of managing freshwater resources – noting how quantity, quality, and societal aspects of water management practices are greatly intertwined.

Here it is!

Download Gunda et al 2019 water security in practice quant qual soc nexus

Highlights

1) Quantity, quality, and associated societal interactions influence water security in practice.

2) Complex nexus interactions are highlighted in six common water management practices.

3) Better integration of these dynamics is required in future water security research.

Abstract

The study of water resources has evolved from a focus on physical availability to also include social factors such as governance. Increased understanding of diverse physical and social influences has led to a more comprehensive notion of water security, which is defined as an adequate supply of clean freshwater to support humans and ecosystems at all times. Despite the clear recognition that water security encompasses quantity, quality, and societal considerations, discussions often focus on only one or two of these aspects. This practice masks critical ways in which water quality issues intersect with water quantity issues as well as social factors for many water security decisions. This review paper highlights the growing call to consider water security in a more integrated manner by underscoring the complex interactions among water quantity, water quality, and society (i.e., the quantity-quality-society nexus) for six common water management practices. These descriptions highlight the need to understand the tradeoffs between water quantity and water quality associated with water management decisions, especially as freshwater scarcity increases. We conclude with a discussion of emerging opportunities in sociohydrological research and data analysis that have the potential to improve current understanding and management of the quantity-quality-society nexus of water security.

Cutting to the chase:

Conclusion
As precipitation patterns shift and as water is ever more intensively exploited, managing water resources in an integrated manner will be increasingly imperative to ensure water security in the future. As highlighted by the descriptions of the water management practices, successful management of water resources needs to account for water quantity and water quality aspects of the physical resource as well as associated societal dimensions of both. Being mindful of this quantity-quality-society nexus can help ensure current and emerging opportunities (e.g., in sociohydrology and data science) capture critical interactions in water management decisions, account for cross-sectoral and cross-scalar dynamics using interdisciplinary methods, and provide guidance on successful implementation of water management practices in a changing world.

Good stuff!

Enjoy!

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Benjamin Franklin

CRS Report: 'Sharing the Colorado River and the Rio Grande - Cooperation and Conflict with Mexico' Transboundary Aquifers, Too!

This 12 December 2018 CRS report by Nicole T. Carter, Stephen P. Mulligan and Clare Ribando Seelke is a real winner: Sharing the Colorado River and the Rio Grande: Cooperation and Conflict with Mexico. There is even a section (Appendix C) on US-Mexico Transboundary Aquifers:

Download CRS_CO_RG_Mexico_12Dec2018

Introduction
The United States and Mexico share the waters of the Colorado River and the Rio Grande. A bilateral water treaty from 1944 (the 1944 Water Treaty) and other binational agreements guide how the two governments share the flows of these rivers. The binational International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) administers these agreements. Since 1944, the IBWC has been the principal venue for addressing river-related disputes between the United States and Mexico. The 1944 Water Treaty authorizes the IBWC to develop rules and to issue proposed decisions, called minutes, regarding matters related to the treaty’s execution and interpretation. 

 

Water Delivery Requirements Established in Binational Agreements. The United States’ and Mexico’s water-delivery obligations derive from multiple treaty sources and vary depending on the body of water. Under the 1944 Water Treaty, the United States is required to provide Mexico with 1.5 million acre-feet (AF) of Colorado River water annually. The 1944 Water Treaty also addresses the nations’ respective rights to waters of the Rio Grande downstream of Fort Quitman, TX. It requires Mexico to deliver to the United States an annual minimum of 350,000 AF of water, measured in five-year cycles (i.e., 1.75 million AF over five years). For waters of the Rio Grande upstream of Fort Quitman, a 1906 bilateral convention requires the United States annually to deliver 60,000 AF of water to Mexico. 

Developments in the Colorado River Basin. The United States continues to meet its Colorado River annual delivery requirements to Mexico pursuant to the 1944 Water Treaty. At the forefront of recent IBWC actions on the Colorado River are efforts to cooperatively manage the Colorado River’s water and infrastructure to improve water availability during drought and to restore and protect riverine ecosystems. Minute 323 is a set of binational measures in the Colorado River basin that provides for binational cooperative basin water management, including environmental flows to restore riverine habitat. Minute 323 also provides for Mexico to share in cutbacks during shortage conditions in the U.S. portion of the basin. Additionally, Minute 323 designates a “Mexican Water Reserve” through which Mexico can delay its water deliveries from the United States and store its delayed deliveries upstream at Lake Mead, thereby increasing the lake’s elevation. Lake Mead elevation is the baseline used for determining shortage conditions and associated water delivery cutbacks for the lower Colorado River basin states of Arizona, California, and Nevada. Recent congressional attention to the Colorado River basin has related largely to oversight of Minute 323 implementation and water management during potential shortage conditions.

Developments in the Rio Grande Basin. On multiple occasions since 1994, Mexico has not met its Rio Grande delivery obligations within the five-year cycle established by the 1944 Water Treaty. For example, Mexico fell 15% below its water-delivery obligations under the 1944 Water Treaty for the five-year cycle from 2010 to 2015. Mexico addressed its deficit by early 2016. The October 2015 to October 2020 cycle is under way. Mexico offset its below-target deliveries for the first year of this cycle with additional deliveries in the second year. IBWC indicates that Mexico delivered less than its 350,000 AF in the third year of the cycle; however, higher deliveries in the second year resulted in Mexico’s deliveries being almost at 98% of the three-year cumulative delivery target of 1.05 million AF.

Some U.S. stakeholders promote the adoption of mechanisms to achieve a water-delivery regime by Mexico that provides more reliability and benefit for U.S. interests in Texas. The IBWC is developing a binational model for water management in the Rio Grande, as part of its broader effort to improve reliability in Mexico’s water deliveries. Congress has been involved in the recent Rio Grande water-sharing issues through oversight. Congress requires the U.S. Department of State to report annually on Mexico’s deliveries and on efforts to improve Mexico’s treaty compliance.

 

Good stuff!

Enjoy!

"We need to come up with a real long-term solution for the Colorado River where we bring into balance the inflows and the uses. We can’t do that overnight. It’s a tough challenge.” - @8thGenCA (Jeff Kightlinger, General Manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California) tnx @Doug_Blatchford on @LinkedIn