Water & the Feds

It's nothing new - the tug of war over who has what say over water.

One recent foray has been the Clean Water Restoration Act (earlier blog post) where Congress had been debating a seemingly small amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act - that of merely changing the phrase "navigable waters" to "waters of the United States". To some, this small change would have significantly broadened EPA's regulatory control over water, and this is why EPA wanted it so bad.  It was a direct assault on the right of the states to control and manage their waters.  The other side argued the amendment simply corrected what had always been intended by Congress, so it wasn't really any expansion of EPA authority at all.  This bill had been a lightning rod in 2009 and 2010, and according to Thomas, it did not survive the 111th Congress.  Moreover, I haven't been able to find any version of this bill in the 112th Congress either.  It was introduced in 2009 by Senator Feingold, who did not survive the 2010 elections.

I have also been wary of other more subtle Federal activities regarding, not the direct control of water, but the direction of water policy at the federal level.  It almost appears as if the feds have taken the position that if you can't get control of the water itself, the next best thing is to tell everyone what the water policy is going to be.  Take a close look at the federally organized and appointed Water Information Coordination Program (WICP) (earlier blog post).  This is by no means a direct foray into water control, but seems headed toward being a subtle process to direct and impose various aspects of a desired federal water policy on the states.  The specific element I looked at related to a sustainable water use policy.  Warning, this is a very intricate arrangement of committees, subcommittees and programs reporting to programs, so it's really hard to follow.  One sub group sanctioned by WICP is the Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI), which is organized into 8 sub committees - one of which is the sub committee on Sustainable Water - whose mission statement is:

"Serve as a forum to share information and perspectives that will promote better decision making in the U.S. regarding the sustainability of our nation's water resources."

Notice how this federally led group starts out their mission statement with a respectable and appropriate federal responsibility - that of discussing and sharing perspectives to promote better decision making - then seals the statement with what they think that policy should be - sustainable water resources.  If no one questions the mission statement this group simply has to point the train.  It's the classic approach of "hearts and minds", which eventually changes policy and law.  No federal group should be telling Kansas or any other state what their water policy should be, or is to be - even if it is a good policy.  My second post on this process.  If Kansans want a sustainable water resources policy, they'll make that happen.

The final example goes back to February, 1942 when the Republican River Compact was being debated by Congress as H.R. 5945.  By this time all three states (Kansas, Colorado and Nebraska) had ratified the compact.  Up steps the Federal Power Commission, who had not been party to the compact to date, with Compact amendments that were disturbing to at least Colorado.  Clifford Stone, Director of the Colorado Conservation Board was updating his board on the Legislative process and put it this way in his February 19, 1942 memo:

Apparently, the Federal Power Commission desires to reserve the right some time in the future to declare the river navigable in law, although not navigable in fact, in order that federal control and regulation may be interposed to prevent the control of consumptive uses for irrigation and other beneficial purposes under state law. This we do not believe to be the proper nor acceptable position toward western states which control water for irrigation under state laws. It represents the activity on the part of some federal bureaus and departments to disregard state laws under the fiction of "navigability in law".  If such a policy is carried too far, it will threaten the water rights on many streams of the West which, as you know, constitute property rights.

As it turned out, Congress did not adopt any of the Power Commission's amendments.  But, as a result, is it any wonder why non-federal entities cast wary eyes upon Washington?  I'd guess there must be hundreds of these kinds of activities if one had the time to research it enough.  But that takes a lot of effort and stamina. And it takes an almost equal effort to keep keeping up the vigil.

Sometimes I wish the federal government and its agencies would quit scheming and conniving over the control of water and introduce a clear and direct bill in Congress to take full control of the waters of the US, or mandate a sustainable water resource policy on all states and territories, or whatever it is they really want to do.  Then Congress can settle the water control issues once and for all and we can all get some productive work done.  Hey, that gives me an idea....

Water Policy

I want to talk a bit about Water Policy. Now everyone’s got an opinion of what it is – at least to them and their interests – so I’m asking that you put your notions aside for now and consider what I think it isn’t, or shouldn’t be.

If you shuffle the letters around a bit the first thing you discover is “water policy” can be a “lawyer topic”. As you develop yours, make sure the attorneys help the local parties define and implement effective water policy rather than craft it for you solely in ways that can be easily defended legally. They work for you, you know.

Shuffle the letters again and “water policy” becomes just a “wiry ole pact” – developed in smoke-filled, back rooms no doubt. And maybe with no one but lawyers present. Such is not conducive to good water policy which needs wide, effective and informed public airing.

One more letter shuffle reveals the words often heard by most of the participants following new water policy implementation: “Lo, wet piracy”. How often is new water policy just a re-distribution of the already short supply – with a lot of losers and a few winners? The “wiry ole pact” approach will almost assure this response.

The last shuffle gives us the real essence of too many water policy developments today: “Try, wail, cope”. In the end, water is so important to every one and everything that simple solutions are rarely workable. But, does the complexity inherent in any good water policy mean that we are destined to try new stuff, wail about it at great length, and eventually resign ourselves to coping with the results? I hope not.

It is a shame there are no good, positive anagrams for “water policy”. I’ll have to think about what that might mean…

And I Thought No One was Listening!

Just got off the phone with my long time USGS friend Walt Aucott in Lawrence, KS.  I called him to ask what he knew of the new WaterSMART initiative within DOI.  After finishing our discussion of WaterSMART, which was most informative to me, Walt asked me if I was reconciling all my issues with the USGS? 

I knew instantly what he was referring to - my past Blog posts regarding the USGS involvement in the WICP and ACWI efforts (December 7, 2009 and January 5, 2010).  As it turns out, someone in a USGS position above him called to ask about the posts and to decide if my federal "conspiracy" bent was something to be concerned about.  There you have it - someone actually reads this stuff!

I explained to Walt that my posts were written fairly provocatively for a reason - to get folks thinking very clearly about the issue of a federal, scientific agency being involved in the actual framing of policy - especially when it's that very agency's job to collect the data needed to support that policy.  If the USGS is NOT engaged in framing or influencing policy, the matter is closed.  I just have not been able to discern this from the tracking I have done thus far in this specific process, and quite frankly I believe it's a valid question.  I certainly do NOT believe every USGS employee is actively engaged in or advocating a secret, agency water policy, or that every USGS activity is policy-oriented.  However, I'd like to make sure no one in the agency is doing so, and that none of their activites are policy-specific.

As a matter of fact, I have made my concerns known in writing to the participants of ACWI and WICP and have asked to be dropped from their process.  The agency will either walk the data/policy line appropriately,  or they won't.  I'm glad to know they are aware of my questions, though.

I learned two things today.  First, that if I ever have an issue with USGS I should call Walt Aucott and discuss it with him.  He is a credible scientist and an all-around gentleman.  He also shares my belief that the agency should NOT be advocating policy.  Secondly, there is always someone watching you in and around the web.  And this is how it should be. 

Federal Water Policy - Oh My!

Here we go again - discussing the pros and cons of a federal water policy.  This time at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas. 

Some of the water experts present said that federal authorities should better use the influence they already have over how residents use water before they (the feds) look to expand it. 

Others said that a new layer of central control over water policies could lead to lumbering, reactionary management over a resource feeding the multibillion-dollar agribusiness driving Lubbock's economy.

Still others chimed in that federal legislation could override water planning Texas began more than a decade ago, and/or, focus on environmental demands instead of balancing the needs of industries that demand a water supply.  Yes, there was plenty of general opposition to the federal water policy idea in Texas that day.

A Texas Legislator opined that national farm and energy policies held clear recent examples of how easily a federal program could drain away the Ogallala - citing the ethanol push that inspired big crops of water-thirsty corn (ill-suited to most of the Ogallala) that basically forced farmers to use their water for economic gain.  Another example is the $38 million spent last year in Texas from the AWEP program to upgrade irrigation efficiencies.  Seems everyone but the feds know that in the closed High Plains Aquifer system improving irrigation application efficiency has been shown to have no effect on reducing consumptive water use.  Yeah, we need the feds in charge of water policy, all right!

But I still contend the most compelling reason not to move this way is simply a matter of logistics.  If you were opposed to your local water policy, would you rather try to change the minds of your local or state policy makers, or the Federal Government?  Perhaps the Texas Legislator said it best:  "If we were to wait for Congress to develop a national water policy, it wouldn't matter, because by the time they got done with it, the Ogallala wouldn't have any water anyway."  'Nuf said!