WaterWired

Drought? In New Hampshire? It's Wicked Dry! Nejem Raheem's Op-Ed: Droughts Are Real, Leadership Is Needed

My friend Nejem Raheem (whom I met at the University of New Mexico, where I encouraged him to get a PhD in Economics) wrote this Op-Ed in the New Hampshire Union Leader.

Here goes:

AS THE Union Leader and many other papers have reported, all of New Hampshire is experiencing some level of drought and nearly one quarter of the state is experiencing severe drought (despite our recent batch of rain), according to the U.S. Drought Monitor.

This is our fourth hottest and ninth driest summer on record. Farmers in southern New Hampshire in particular are struggling. While coronavirus is a more immediately pressing issue, drought is not going away. And it’s most likely going to get worse.

I’m an environmental economist who has worked on drought and water issues for nearly 20 years. I work with scientists at the National Drought Mitigation Center in Lincoln, Neb., who developed the drought monitor and with farmers in New Mexico. While New Hampshire doesn’t have a history of crushing drought like California, New England is on its way to having hotter and longer droughts. Much of that is due to climate change.

New England has been pretty wet for most of written history. That’s still true compared to the west, but we’re seeing climate change-driven shifts in precipitation patterns and temperatures that match predictions for more intense droughts. You might have noticed that rainstorms have become more intense and less frequent, for instance, or that winters are milder and less snowy. That itself isn’t likely a predictor of drought, but almost all of the climate models predict hotter and drier conditions.

People often fight over water; cities want it for their residents, ranchers want it for cattle, and forest ecologists worry about trees dying, bears coming into town, and fires. My work as an environmental economist is about getting people to work together and plan better for when a drought comes. Because, where drought is concerned, we are all part of the landscape. And while it’s clear that climate change is making droughts worse, it’s also clear that cooperation is part of the way to deal with it.

Having a climate change denier as president is incredibly dangerous. Not just for liberal environmentalists, but for farmers and ranchers, city people, and anyone who lives near the woods. (In New Hampshire, that’s all of us, by the way.)

As I watched the Democratic and Republican conventions, I was struck not just by the anti-science style of Donald Trump and his surrogates but also by their divisive rhetoric. I’ve worked on water issues in New Mexico, Montana, California, and Labrador, Canada. One crucial part of any solution to addressing future water problems, even here in small-town government New Hampshire, is cooperation and communication. This means getting past “I’ll only fight for those on my side.” Everyone needs water.

I was born and raised on the East Coast, but I lived out west for many years. We have no real experience with drought here in New England and we don’t really know what it’s like to have conflicts over water. But we will, and sooner than most think. And unless we get past the climate science denial and brawling combativeness of our current president’s approach, we’ll never solve the problem when it gets here. We need better leadership. We have to vote for a president who not only supports and endorses science, but also who will strive for collaboration and cooperation.

If we re-elect Donald Trump, New Hampshire will lose out on opportunities to plan for a water-scarce future.

New Englanders are good at working together, but we might be getting worse. I’ve been talking with people about politics all summer, mostly against my will. I’ve talked with environmentalists who don’t want to talk with loggers, and the reverse. Gun-owning rural folks who don’t want to talk to summer people from Boston. The divisive rhetoric is very compelling. We’ve seen it for years. We need to get past that and recognize that our neighbors are our allies, even if they’re not necessarily our friends. We need to realize that we’re all in this together.

Having a president who tells us otherwise is going to make things worse. We need a president who listens to scientists. And for the sake of all of us here in New Hampshire and all across New England, we need to start working together.

So is New England experiencing a drought? Take a look here (about 72% of NH is in a severe drought) and see below:

The text said there are about 13M people in the drought area. 

Why is this a big deal? Perception. Some of us, especially those of us who have spent a lot of time in the arid West, often forget that droughts occur in the East as well. 
I actually recall some droughts in Long Island, New York when I was growing up. TV weathermen would talk about how low upstate reservoirs were (never mind that we got our water from underground). Then we'd get a hurricane coming up from south to fill the reservoirs up. No such luck out here...

So what's with 'Wicked' in the title? Look here.

And Nejem is an Associate Professor of Economics at Emerson College in Boston. Wicked good!

Enjoy!

"Live Free Or Die; Death Is Not The Worst of Evils." - General John Stark, in a letter to his NH Revolutionary War comrades at their 32nd reunion 

CRS InFocus Report: 'Recent Developments in Everglades Restoration'

This CRS InFocus 2-pager by Pervaze A. Sheikh and Anna E. Normand, 'Recent Developments in Everglades Restoration' (17 September 2020) should be of interest to many readers, not just those in South Florida. 

Download CRS_InFocus_Rec_Devel_Everglades_Rest_17Sepe2020

Overview
What Is the Everglades? The Everglades is a unique network of subtropical wetlands in South Florida. Due in part to federal water supply and flood control projects (as well as agricultural and urban runoff), the ecosystem was degraded and was approximately half its historical size by the end of the 20th century. The ecosystem is home to a number of unique species, including 67 species listed under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §§1531 et. seq.). [The map is from Wikipedia.]

What Is CERP? The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) was approved by Congress in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000; P.L. 106-541). It is a framework under which the federal government, with the State of Florida, is attempting to restore the Everglades and improve the timing, distribution, and quality of the water flowing south from Lake Okeechobee to the Everglades. Under CERP, the federal government, through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Department of the Interior (DOI), is required to fund half the costs of restoration, with the State of Florida contributing the other half. Several tribal and local agencies also are involved in restoration. Originally, CERP was to include 60 projects that would be completed over 30 years at a cost of $8.2 billion (in 2000 dollars). A 2015 report to Congress increased this estimate; the report projected that CERP will take approximately 50 years to implement at a total cost of $16.4 billion (in FY2015 dollars). As of FY2020, the federal government has spent more than $1.7 billion and the State of Florida has spent an estimated $4.5 billion on CERP in nominal dollars (although much of this state funding is not yet officially credited for Florida’s share of the cost).

Everglades restoration under CERP was authorized in 2000 and is expected to take 50 years to complete.

Outside of CERP, complementary efforts to restore the Everglades (most of which predate CERP) are ongoing. The federal government has spent more than $3.5 billion on these efforts, collectively referred to as non-CERP projects.

Everglades Restoration Projects Must Be Authorized by Congress
WRDA 2000 approved CERP and the process for its implementation. The law also authorized several pilot projects. Subsequent projects require study by USACE and congressional authorization before they can receive federal appropriations, including credit or reimbursement for nonfederal work undertaken in advance. Several laws subsequent to WRDA 2000 authorized projects contemplated under CERP. Some projects received appropriations and are under construction. Studies for other CERP projects are in progress (see Table 1). Projects with completed studies and signed reports from the Chief of Engineers (e.g., Loxahatchee River Watershed Project) are awaiting potential authorization in legislation in the 116th Congress (see S. 3591 and H.R. 7575).

Read on - more information on Congressional interest in CERP and other initiatives.

When this restoration is finished in 2050, I'll be 102. But I suspect I will have to live even longer to see this work done.

I am not sure I would use the word 'restoration'. I prefer 'renaturalization'. My friend and colleague Bill Woessner explained that to me years ago.

Enjoy!

"There is nobody more dangerous than one who has been humiliated." - Nelson Mandela

Jesse J. Richardson, Jr. Opines: The Special Master's Report on Florida v. Georgia

Jesse James Richardson, Jr., Professor of Law at West Virginia University's College of Law, is one of the smartest water lawyers I know. He is also a delightful speaker so if you get a chance to hear him speak, do so.

Here's a piece he wrote after reading the Report of the Special Master in Florida v. Georgia water dispute. He gave me permission to post it. I just added the report itself, the ACF basin graphic, Jesse' picture, and the aphorism at the bottom.

Download Report_SpecialMaster_FL_v_GA_11Dec2019

As a Christmas present to myself, I read the report of the Special Master in Florida v. Georgia yesterday. In summary, the Special Master recommends denying Florida's request for a decree because it has not proved the elements necessary to obtain relief. Florida points to the oyster fishery collapse as the harm, but the Special Master found that Florida failed to prove that Georgia caused the collapse. The collapse was likely caused, according to the Special Master, by frequent droughts, over-harvesting, and climate change.

 

In addition, the Special Master found that Georgia's use was not unreasonable or inequitable. Finally, the Special Master determined that the benefits of the apportionment would not substantially outweigh the harms. This is a good recommendation for agriculture, since the Special Master recognizes agricultural as a reasonable use generating "substantial benefits". However, the recommendation could prove to be ominous for rural states since the Special Master considered proportional population and economic production, even while decrying how relying on these measures too much would mean that the "larger state always win".

 

The recommendation is likely bad for environmental groups. Environmental benefits and costs appeared to be given minimal weight, especially when compared with tangible economic benefits and costs.

 

I think SCOTUS will accept these recommendations. The recommendations and very methodical and well supported. Since the Special Master has seen the witnesses and has developed the facts, it would be difficult to reject such well supported findings.

 

Overall, Several interesting points in the report.

 

(1) The Special Master thought it was important that Florida only presented evidence of harm during drought years. It was important to the findings that no harm was alleged during normal to above normal rainfall years. That seems odd to mean. Wouldn't one expect the harm to occur during drought years? I think the point was that the drought caused the damages, not Georgia's pumping. However, but for the the pumping of Georgia, would damages have occurred?

 

(2) The Special Master was very critical of the experts for Florida. Their testimony, in his opinion, failed to specially address harm to individual fish species. Florida's experts relied on a model, many of the assumptions of which the special master viewed skeptically, at best. Georgia's experts, on the other hand, used actual data from on-site meters and the like, which the Special Master viewed favorably. Note that on some issues, experts for both sides used models. The Special Master viewed the Georgia experts as more persuasive on those issues as well.

 

Note that the Special Master seemed to dismiss the testimony of one of Florida's experts because the expert failed to mention the weaknesses of the model until questioned on cross-examination. That expert also failed to disclose several results that did not support his conclusions.

 

In addition, Georgia's experts attacked Florida's data with specificity while Florida's experts offered only generalized attacks. For example, one expert challenged the irrigated acreage totals presented by Georgia, but never estimated how much acreage was omitted.

 

(3) The Special Master also found that Georgia's consumptive use was reasonable. As to the amount of consumptive use, this is the area where Florida used rainfall runoff models while Georgia's experts used number of irrigated acres and metering results. The Special Master found the Georgia method more reliable.

 

Although emphasizing that relying on this fact as dispositive would make reduce equitable apportionment analysis to a "rigid rule whereby the larger state always wins", the Special Master nonetheless seemed to place great weight on the comparison between the proportion of population (92%), employment (96%) and gross regional product (99%) attributable to Georgia and the consumption of state line flows (up to 17.4%, depending on how calculated). This seems odd to me as well. Percentage of population, etc. is all well and good, but the percentage of state line flows consumed may well need to be limited to a very small proportion of the water. 

 

(4) This Special Master also disagreed with the prior Special Master with respect to Georgia's conservation of water. The Special Master noted that, despite a substantial increase in population, Georgia uses much less water than it did 30 years ago, but failed to mention that that fact is true across the country due to increased efficiencies (low-flow toilets, more efficient irrigation, etc.).

 

"Drinking and other domestic purposes are the highest uses of water".  Agricultural uses of water in Georgia provide "substantial benefits". The special master also found the consumption "reasonable". However, agricultural use of water during drought was called out as "only increasing" and "not effectively curbed", making the question "to what extent the two states should share the burden of drought". The Special Master answered that question by, in a very perfunctory manner, applying the doctrine of reasonable use, and finding Georgia's use reasonable.

 

(5) The Special Master also found that even if the Corps of Engineers would increase flows into Florida, the impact would be minimal. Therefore, Florida would see "no appreciable benefit from a decree".

 

(6) Finally, the Special Master found that the potential harms to Georgia of apportionment would substantially outweigh the benefits to Florida. The Special Master specifically limited his analysis to marginal costs and marginal benefits, drawing approval from economists everywhere. The cost of generating increasing the flow by 801 cfs during summers during dry years would cost $100 million. The Apalachicola fishing industry generates "only" $11.7 million per year and the oyster industry "only" $6.6 million per year before the collapse. This difference appeared to be dispositive.

 

Enjoy!

"August in Florida is God's way of reminding us who's in charge." - Blaize Clement

CRS Insight Report: 'Hurricane Dorian - FEMA and Additional Storm-Related Resources' Updated: 6 September 2019

Shawn Reese, Eva Lipiec, Diane P. Horn authored this timely (updated 6 September 2019) CRS Insight 4-page report, Hurricane Dorian: FEMA and Additional Storm-Related Resources.

Here are some sites to follow Hurricane Dorian:

NOAA NHC: click here (the graphic is from this site)

Weather Channel: click here

Below is the introduction to the report. Click here to see the online report, which has hot links to a number of resources.

Introduction
On September 6, Hurricane Dorian made landfall as a category 1 storm at Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. This Insight provides a brief overview of emergency and major declarations and federal assistance programs potentially available to those affected by Hurricane Dorian. It also lists resources for forecast information, hurricane and flooding information, and selected CRS reports on federal emergency management policy.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has issued watches and warnings for Hurricane Dorian, a storm slightly northeast of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, on September 6. The storm reached hurricane strength as it passed east of Puerto Rico on August 28. The forecast on September 6 anticipates Dorian continuing to move northeast and further away from the U.S. east coast. NOAA expects southeastern coastal areas to continue to experience tropical storm and hurricane conditions, including life-threatening storm surge, destructive waves, and possible flash floods and isolated tornadoes.

President Donald J. Trump signed emergency declarations for Puerto Rico (August 27), the U.S. Virgin Islands (August 28), Florida (August 30), Georgia (September 2), and South Carolina (September 2). Other emergency declarations may be forthcoming. As authorized under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (P.L. 93-288, as amended; 42 U.S.C. §§5121 et seq.), the President may issue an emergency declaration in anticipation of an incident to support state and local efforts to save lives, protect property, and lessen or avert the incident from becoming a major disaster. As Hurricane Dorian makes landfall, and the storm warrants further federal assistance, the President may issue a major disaster declaration. This allows for a broad range of federal assistance programs to be made available to state, local, and territorial governments, private nonprofit organizations, and individuals through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other federal agencies.

Declaration Statues:

• The Governor of Florida requested emergency protective measures (Category B) under the Public Assistance program for 24 counties under FEMA-3419-EM for federal reimbursement to local and state government. This request is under review.

•   The Governor of South Carolina requested a major disaster declaration for the State of South Carolina as a result of Hurricane Dorian beginning on August 31, 2019, and continuing. This request is under review.

•   President Trump approved Emergency Declarations for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, including the Catawba Indian Nation, the Seminole Tribe of Florida, and North Carolina, to include the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. The emergency declarations allow for direct federal assistance for emergency and life-safety actions taken.

Be sure to read the rest of the report: click here. 

Enjoy the resources and please stay safe and sound!

"We ignore slow environmental changes unless they are crisis-driven, such as hurricanes in Florida." -  Natalie Jeremijenko

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