WaterWired

AWRA Publication: 'State Water Plans - Monographs from 17 States'

I have to a give a big shout-out to AWRA President Dr. Brenda O. Bateman (Technical Services Division Administrator for the Oregon Water Resources Department) and BoD member Scott Kudlas (Director of the Office of Water Supply at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality) for being the driving forces behind this landmark publication. Kudos to all those who contributed their time to this effort. And, lest I forget, the AWRA Policy Technical Committee

The states represented are: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington.  

Delayed shill alert: I am the AWRA Technical Director.

Download the report (PDF): click here 

From the report:

Introduction

The American Water Resources Association (AWRA) is pleased to present this publication resulting from its third National Leadership Institute (NLI) Workshop for State Officials. State leaders gathered during a three-day period in 2017 (November 8-10), in a workshop designed specifically for state officials who have responsibility for developing their state water plans. Their professions were diverse and included engineers, planners, scientists, economists, and other disciplines. 

The workshop covered a wide variety of topics, including the latest updates on groundwater policy, water governance models, open source data tools, the fundamentals of integrated water resources planning, and how to build support for water planning. Discussions quickly turned to the desire to develop original materials and analysis for the American Water Resources Association, drawing upon the expertise of current and previous workshop participants. 

We asked the authors to follow a common format, providing an “elevator speech” that succinctly describes the purpose of each water plan. From there, we asked them to point the reader to the statutory underpinnings, to help set the formal context. Authors then described the planning horizons, scheduled deadlines, and current status of their plans. They have provided a summary of the process used and the resulting components contained in each plan. Authors took the time to make some observations about the challenges overcome and the challenges that yet remain with these efforts. Finally, they provided a sense of scope and scale, both geographically and financially. 

In the concluding chapter, we highlight some of the common themes and threads we observed along the way. 

Enjoy!

"We know accurately only when we know little; with knowledge doubt increases. "
- Goethe

CRS Report: 'Chesapeake Bay Restoration: Background and Issues for Congress' (3 August 2018)

A few weeks ago I posted GAO reports about the Puget Sound and Long Island Sound restorations. Both were more along the lines of how the work could be improved.

Today I am posting a CRS report by Eva Lipiec published on 3 August 2018: Chesapeake Bay Restoration: Background and Issues for Congress. This report is more a description of the Bay and project and the issues facing Congress rather than a suite of recommendations. It's a great overview for someone like me who's not a WaterWonk on the Bay. 

Before continuing let me put in a shameless plug or two for AWRA..

1) The AWRA Annual Conference will be in Baltimore, 4-8 November 2018.
Click here to see the Program-at-a-Glance and here to see a more detailed program. There will be much on the Chesapeake and Delaware River watersheds.

2) Our September 2018 issue of Water Resources IMPACT (now in press) will feature Great American Megabasin: Chesapeake and Delaware. I have reproduced the cover here. It's a great issue highlighting two of the USA's most important basins - far more important than their sizes would indicate. Guest Editors Martha Narvaez, Joe Berg, Asia Dowtin and Carol Collier and their authors have done an amazing job.

So here goes......click on the graphics to enlarge them.

Download CRS_Chesapeake_Restoration_3August2018

Summary

The Chesapeake Bay (the Bay) is the largest estuary in the United States. It is recognized as a “Wetlands of International Importance” by the Ramsar Convention, a 1971 treaty about the increasing loss and degradation of wetland habitat for migratory waterbirds. The Chesapeake Bay estuary resides in a more than 64,000-square-mile watershed that extends across parts of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The Bay’s watershed is home to more than 18 million people and thousands of species of plants and animals.

A combination of factors has caused the ecosystem functions and natural habitat of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed to deteriorate over time. These factors include centuries of land-use changes, increased sediment loads and nutrient pollution, overfishing and overharvesting, the introduction of invasive species, and the spread of toxic contaminants. In response, the Bay has experienced reductions in economically important fisheries, such as oysters and crabs; the loss of habitat, such as underwater vegetation and sea grass; annual dead zones, as nutrient- driven algal blooms die and decompose; and potential impacts to tourism, recreation, and real estate values.

Congress began to address ecosystem degradation in the Chesapeake Bay in 1965, when it authorized the first wide-scale study of water resources of the Bay. Since then, federal restoration activities, conducted by multiple agencies, have focused on reducing pollution entering the Chesapeake Bay, restoring habitat, managing fisheries, protecting sub-watersheds within the larger Bay watershed, and fostering public access and stewardship of the Bay. Congress has authorized various programs and activities to restore the Chesapeake Bay, including the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP), created in 1983. The CBP implements the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, a periodically renewed agreement between executives in the watershed states, a joint Bay state legislative body, and select federal agencies that aims to coordinate Bay restoration efforts. The most recent agreement was signed in 2014 (known as the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement) and set a series of restoration goals and actions to be completed by 2025. The 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, like others in the past, is not binding. Other restoration plans—including the 2010 Chesapeake Bay Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (pursuant to President Obama’s 2009 Executive Order 13508), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 2010 Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load, and a draft Comprehensive Plan from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—harmonize with the goals of the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement and contain objectives for federal agencies and states.

As work continues toward the 2025 restoration goals set by state and federal plans, Congress may consider what role the federal government plays in Chesapeake Bay restoration, if any. In considering the federal role in Chesapeake Bay restoration, Congress may weigh issues related to coordination of federal activities and federal agency authority, funding and total cost of activities, and the rate of progress toward restoration.

Introduction
The Chesapeake Bay (the Bay) is the largest estuary in the United States. Congress has described it as a “national treasure” (P.L. 106-457), and it is recognized as a “Wetlands of International Importance” by the Ramsar Convention.1 The Chesapeake Bay estuary resides in a more than 64,000-square-mile watershed that extends across parts of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. It is home to more than 18 million people and thousands of species of plants and animals.

Over time, the Bay’s ecological conditions have deteriorated due to land-use changes, increased sediment loads and nutrient pollution, the use and spread of chemical contaminants, overfishing and overharvesting of aquatic species, and the introduction of invasive species. These changes have resulted in reductions to economically important fisheries, such as oysters and crabs; the loss of habitat, such as underwater vegetation and sea grass; annual dead zones, as nutrient-driven algal blooms die and decompose; and potential impacts to tourism, recreation, and real estate values. Joint state and federal restoration attempts did not begin until the early 1980s. Since then, federal agencies have worked together under a watershed-wide agreement and through a restoration program spearheaded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Congress has and may continue to examine Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts. Actions in the Chesapeake watershed have served as examples for other estuary restoration efforts in the United States. This report provides background on the physical and ecological properties of the Bay and watershed, its economic value, the health of the ecosystem over time, and federal governance of Bay restoration efforts. It then discusses issues facing Congress as work continues toward 2025 restoration goals set by several state and federal plans.

 See you in November.

Enjoy!

“Chesapeake Bay is like a beautiful woman. There’s no humiliation from which she cannot recover.”  ― James A. Michener, Chesapeake

Report: 'Flood Mitigation for Pennsylvania’s Rural Communities - Community-Scale Impact of Federal Policies'

Lara Fowler, the senior author, sent me this report via Twitter: Flood Mitigation for Pennsylvania’s Rural Communities: Community-Scale Impacts of Federal Policies. It's worth reading. regardless of where you live. 

Here is the message the accompanied her Tweet:

Pennsylvania is one of the most flood prone states in the country; we're experiencing flooding today. We are also not in a good position to deal with re: flood insurance. See our report:

Download_Report_Flood_Mitigation_2017_Rev_2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Recent changes to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) are critically impacting Pennsylvania because of its history of flooding, its pattern of development along rivers and streams, the age of its structures, and its system of local government.

In the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, Congress mandated that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) adopt “full risk” or “actuarial” rates for flood insurance to address what was then a $20 billion budget shortfall caused by damage from recent storms. This resulted in sharp premium increases, especially for those whose rates had been subsidized.

In response, Congress then passed the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014, which delayed the rate increases. Despite the 2014 legislation, the move away from subsidized federal flood insurance remains a fundamental shift with profound community-scale impacts across Pennsylvania. At this point, the NFIP officially expired on September 30, 2017; however, it has been extended through a series of continuing resolutions that have also kept the federal government funded.

This research explores the impacts of these changes on Pennsylvania’s rural communities in the following ways: reviews the legal and policy framework at a federal, state, local and individual level; examines the demographic and geospatial information associated with flood-impacted communities in Pennsylvania; examines the economic impacts to the housing market in floodplains; and explores how flooding, flood insurance, and other federal and Commonwealth programs have impacted Pennsylvania’s rural communities by focusing closely on eight communities as case studies. The research offers a number of recommendations.

Oh, yeah - Lara mentioned that the National Flood Insurance Program expires on 31 July.

Enjoy!

Note added on 25 July 2018 (thanks to Elaine J. Hanford): The House just voted to extend the NFIP through 30 November 2018, The Senate has not voted on the extension yet. See WHYY story. The GAO expresses its opinion here and here is another. 
My (MEC) take: the program needs reform. I listen to my friend Gerry Galloway.

"No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood." - E. L. Kersten

GAO Report: 'Long Island Sound Restoration - Improved Reporting and Cost Estimates Could Help Guide Future Efforts'

Oh, boy this one hits close to home....I grew up on LI but was closer to the South Shore than to Long Island Sound. The North Shore of my county - Nassau County - was the high rent district. First place I ever went SCUBA diving. It needed restoration even back in the early 1960s.

Read about the Long Island Sound Study here. 

Still waiting for the bridge to Connecticut.

Download GAO_LI_Sound_Report

Download GAO_Highlights_LI_Sound

 Here we go - from the report's website.

Fast Facts
Long Island Sound, an estuary in one of the nation's most densely populated areas, provides many economic and recreational benefits. However, development and pollution have degraded water quality and led to hypoxia, low levels of dissolved oxygen that increase mortality of fish and other species.

A federal-state partnership funded restoration projects and created a plan and cost estimates to restore the Sound. However, current reports and estimates do not provide complete information about how progress will be measured or what restoration will cost.

We recommended steps to improve the partnership's progress reports and cost estimates.

Long Island Sound Stewardship Areas with Ecological and Recreational Value

What GAO Found
The Long Island Sound Study (the Study) is a federal-state partnership formed in 1985 to restore Long Island Sound. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and officials from Connecticut and New York provide oversight for the Study, which includes federal and state agencies, nonprofit organizations, and other groups. GAO found the following:

Progress toward 1994 Plan. The Study established an initial plan for the Sound in 1994 and has collected data on certain indicators of the Sound's health and published progress reports on its website. However, the Study has not comprehensively assessed progress against the 1994 plan. In the absence of such an assessment, GAO interviewed Study members who generally agreed that moderate progress has been made in achieving goals for five of the six problem areas in the 1994 plan. Without a comprehensive assessment, it is not possible to determine the extent these views reflect actual progress.

Reporting Progress for the 2015 Plan. The Study's 2015 management plan identifies 20 long-term targets and associated numerical indicators that will be used to measure future progress. The Study has also updated the format for pages on its website to provide more consistent progress reports for these targets. However, the reports do not yet fully incorporate leading practices for performance reporting that GAO has previously identified. For example, they do not include evaluations of goals that are not met for 15 targets. By ensuring that leading practices are fully incorporated into the Study's performance reporting efforts, EPA can help the Study better assess and report on future progress.

Estimating Costs of Restoration. The Study has estimated that the future costs of restoration will be at least $18.9 billion through 2035. However, the current estimates are understated because they do not include the costs of all activities that will be needed to accomplish the 2015 plan, and they do not reflect the uncertainty associated with some of the costs. By capturing the full costs and uncertainties in cost estimates, the Study can provide decision makers critical information needed to allocate resources effectively.

Why GAO Did This Study
Long Island Sound, an estuary bordered by Connecticut and New York, provides numerous economic and recreational benefits. However, development and pollution have resulted in environmental impacts, such as the degradation of water quality. EPA partnered with both states to create the Study to restore and protect the Sound. The Study developed a comprehensive conservation and management plan in 1994 and updated the plan in 2015.

GAO was asked to examine federal efforts to restore the Sound. This report examines, among other objectives, (1) what is known about the progress made toward achieving the 1994 plan, (2) how Study members plan to measure and report on progress toward achieving the 2015 plan, and (3) estimated costs of the restoration. GAO reviewed Study plans, reports, and data. GAO also interviewed 12 Study members—including federal and state agency officials—and representatives of 5 Study work groups about restoration efforts and progress made.

What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that EPA work with the Study to ensure that it fully incorporates leading practices into its performance reporting efforts and that its cost estimates include the full range of activities as well as those for which there is uncertainty. EPA agreed with GAO's recommendations and highlighted steps the agency will take to meet the recommendations.

For more information, contact J. Alfredo Gómez at (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov.

Enjoy!

And don't forget that bridge!

'Whatever Happens to the Water Happens to the People' - Bumper sticker seen in Corvallis

Thesis: 'A Look Beneath the Surface: Developing a Transboundary Groundwater Governance Framework and Agreement for the Memphis Sand Aquifer'

Hot off the press! From my former MS student, Holly A. Mondo, who successfully defended her thesis on 1 June 2018: A Look Beneath the Surface: Developing a Transboundary Groundwater Governance Framework and Agreement for the Memphis Sand Aquifer.

Download MondoHollyA2018

Abstract

Groundwater is often misunderstood because of its subsurface nature. Consequently, policies intended to govern the resource are fragmented as is evident in the Supreme Court case between Mississippi and Tennessee. Here, disagreements over ownership and the scientific-hydrogeological scope of groundwater in the Memphis Sand Aquifer have led to an 11-year battle. The Supreme Court has found itself in the midst of a potential regime shift in terms of its decision over transboundary aquifer and groundwater governance. Moving forward, implications of this decision will act as a catalyst for transboundary aquifer and groundwater governance, both nationally and internationally. Using the Memphis Sand Aquifer as a case study, the ultimate objective of this analysis is to create a governance framework that will allow for the development of agreement(s) over the groundwater in transboundary aquifers. This research systematically reviews existing aquifer sharing agreements (2 model agreements, 2 legally-binding agreements, and 3 informal agreements) using elements of political sociology. In doing so specific tools, such as data sharing mechanisms and conflict resolution strategies, embedded within each agreement are illuminated and can be used to determine the necessary components of an effective transboundary aquifer agreement. Additionally, the Internationally Shared Aquifer Resources Management (ISARM) program is evaluated as a framework for key considerations when attempting to manage a transboundary aquifer.

Here is a PDF or her thesis PPT:  Download HM_Defense_PPT

Holly will be presenting her work at the upcoming AWRA transboundary groundwater conference next month. 

Enjoy!

"One hand washes the other, and the two wash the face." -- translation of Spanish proverb on cooperation