- Email: [email protected]
Bringing sustainability science to water basin management
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Energy 31 (2006) 2350–2360 www.elsevier.com/locate/energy
Bringing sustainability science to water basin management Jurgen Schmandt Houston Advanced Research Center and University of Texas, 11 Hull Circle, Austin, Texas 78746, USA
Abstract Sustainability science studies the causes, pathways and impacts of complex development problems that result from the interaction of natural and social forces. Water availability in arid basins with rapidly growing populations presents a perfect example of a development problem that needs sustainability science to provide the scientific underpinnings for integrated management of the basin. The author (1) introduces the concept of sustainability science, (2) applies the concept to integrated water basin management, and (3) illustrates the use of sustainability science in the management of the arid Rio Grande basin on the border between Mexico and the United States. r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Sustainability science Development policy has been a deliberate intervention tool of governments, the World Bank, regional development banks and international foundations for half a century. The question asked was: What measures must be taken to accelerate economic growth? Initially, development policy focused on investments in manufacturing, agriculture, transportation and communications. Beginning in the 1960s, it was recognized that long-term measures, such as investments in education and research, also contribute to development. In the following decade, barriers to development were identified, such as resource depletion, environmental pollution and over population. As a result, some experts advised governments to slow the rate of economic development in order to avoid the tragedy of the commons when over utilization of the common resource leads to its destruction. Others countered that constraining growth would make it impossible for developing countries to reduce widespread poverty. The United Nations report, Our Common Future [1], addressed this issue. The report forcefully argued against limiting growth. Instead, the report put forward the concept of sustainable development, which simultaneously pursues economic growth, environmental protection, and poverty reduction. The report recommended that sustainable development principles should guide policy development in the 21st century. Sustainable development is a serious policy concept. Even so, few agree on its exact meaning. Often agreement is limited to the starting point: development must not carry in it the seeds of destruction because such development is unsustainable. Yet disagreement reigns when it comes to defining and implementing what needs to be sustained and what should be restrained. The task is vast: discovering the seeds of destruction at an Tel.: +1 281 363 7913; fax: +1 281 363 7924.
E-mail address: [email protected]. 0360-5442/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2006.01.009
ARTICLE IN PRESS J. Schmandt / Energy 31 (2006) 2350–2360
2351
early stage, defining alternative courses of action that can be maintained over time, and implementing solutions in light of these findings. 1.1. Scientific origins of the concept The concept of sustainability has its origin in fisheries and forest management. Experts in these fields asked what guaranteed harvests that could be sustained over time. They found that prevailing management practices, such as over fishing or single species cultivation, work for a limited time, then yield diminishing results and eventually endanger the resource. They concluded that sustainable management practices should not aim for maximum yield in the short run, but smaller yields that can be sustained over time. 1.2. From science to policy Our Common Future, published in 1988, applied this science-based concept to policy and called for ‘‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’’ A second report by the United Nations, Agenda 21 [2], was prepared for the Rio de Janeiro World Summit to illustrate in detail the changes in values, institutions, and policies that are needed to implement sustainability in the areas of energy, water, food, transportation, and others. Advocates of sustainable development face a dilemma. For decades to come, the world will have more people than it has today. Population experts agree that the current world population of six billion will grow to nine billion by the middle of this century. Only after 2050 will developing countries begin to follow the trend of declining populations already firmly established in wealthy countries. The needs of three billion more people can only be met by growing economies, particularly in developing countries. An influential report to the Club of Rome, The Limits to Growth [3], had taken the opposite view and argued that constraining growth was necessary to avoid ecological disaster. It was to counter this argument that Our Common Future put forward the vision of ecologically sound growth. Under this optimistic scenario a prudently managed economy can do it all: improve living standards, reduce poverty, and protect the environment. 1.3. Linking natural to social systems A second quote from the 1988 United Nations report highlights the complexity of the new development concept: ‘‘At a minimum, sustainable development must not endanger the natural systems that support life on Earth: the atmosphere, the waters, the soils, and the living beings.’’ This definition of sustainability focuses on the interactions between natural and human systems. In an ‘‘empty’’ world, many of these linkages could be ignored. A world of six billion people, or nine billion within a generation’s time, cannot afford to do this. Instead, decision makers throughout the world must consider resource constraints and waste disposal when they design 21st century policies for jobs, food, energy, water, and transportation. In sum, the vision laid out by Our Common Future changes the concept of development in two fundamental respects. First, the economic, ecological, and social spheres of human activities are recognized as interactive systems. Second, long-term impacts and outcomes are viewed as critically important. 1.4. Intellectual success vs. political failure Our Common Future enjoyed almost instant worldwide success. Both advanced and developing nations bought into this vision of the future. In the years since publication of the report, innumerable books and papers have tried to further develop and apply the concepts of sustainability. Many conferences, including the World Summits in Rio de Janeiro and Johannesburg, were devoted to the same goal. Yet in practical terms progress has been slow, reflecting the preference of voters and policy-makers for narrowly defined short-term solutions. The first 25 years of promoting sustainable development have fallen short of moving the concept to the head of either national or international agendas.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 2352
J. Schmandt / Energy 31 (2006) 2350–2360
1.5. Lack of scientific understanding In recent years, scientists identified an important reason for limited progress: Resource managers and decision-makers lack a comprehensive knowledge base to guide sustainable development solutions. Building this knowledge base is the task of sustainability science—a gradually emerging field of scientific effort. A study by the US National Academy of Sciences, Our Common Journey [4], provides a blue print for sustainability science. The report’s key argument is as follows: Scientific research, organized by disciplines, has been successful in understanding single-issue environmental threats, such as water and air pollution, ozone depletion, acid rain, and climate change. In each case, often only after many years of study, scientists identified the causes, pathways, and impacts of new environmental threats. This information is important in designing policy because it makes it possible to base new policy on measurable thresholds, indicators, and impacts. Without such science-derived knowledge, policy development would be blind. 1.6. Addressing problem clusters Yet the scientific enterprise is lagging behind in understanding a second class of environmental threats. The report calls them complex problem clusters. These arise from multiple, cumulative, and interactive stresses—some natural, some social. Stresses are caused by demographic and economic growth that impact, directly or indirectly, natural systems. Examples of such complex program clusters include the growth of mega cities, ecological damage to rivers and riparian lands, loss of biodiversity, and increased water scarcity in regions around the world. It is these complex problem clusters that stand in the way of sustainable development. Sustainability science is called for to untangle these problem clusters and thereby provide the knowledge base that decision makers need as they attempt to deal with problems of unprecedented complexity. 1.7. Characteristics of sustainability science Sustainability science uses the methods of traditional science—observation, measurement, linking data to theory, and interpretation of results. But sustainability science requires a different mindset which adds an important dimension to the scientific enterprise. Three adjectives illustrate the difference: integrative, placebased, and participatory. Integrative: sustainability science uses the results of relevant scientific disciplines and integrates them into a holistic body of knowledge that explains interactions between natural and social systems. Place-based: sustainability science examines problem clusters at local or regional scales because sustainability solutions will only work when place-based conditions are taken into account. Participatory: sustainability science works closely with stakeholders who contribute practical knowledge and offer a community-based vision of desired outcomes. 1.8. Organizational arrangements Special organizational arrangements are needed to achieve the goals of integrating knowledge from relevant disciplines, focusing on a particular place and working with stakeholders. The main requirement is for a problem-focused interdisciplinary team. The project leader should have experience in integrating information from different scientific fields and skill in working with local stakeholders. Team members must be comfortable working in an interdisciplinary setting, searching for a holistic understanding of the problem at hand and testing policy options for their compatibility with the scientific findings. Our Common Journey calls ‘‘developing an integrated and place-based understanding of such (complex) threats and the options for dealing with them a central challenge y for a transition towards sustainability.’’ Sustainability science provides part of the roadmap needed for sustainable development. The even more difficult part, not discussed here, requires changes in values and political will.
ARTICLE IN PRESS J. Schmandt / Energy 31 (2006) 2350–2360
2353
2. Integrated basin management What can sustainability science offer to water management? Water management requires input from many disciplines. Initially, river management was the task of engineers. Only they had the knowledge to design and manage reservoirs and other hydraulic structures so that the often conflicting goals of flood control, water supply and energy production were reconciled. Hydrologists and geologists were consulted to assess available water supply and the best location for building dams. Economists joined the team to measure costs and benefits of river improvements. Most recently, the services of chemists, biologists, and social scientists were added to study environmental and community impacts. 2.1. From river to basin management As a result of this gradual broadening of expertise and focus river management is being transformed into basin management [5]. The basin or watershed becomes the unit of analysis and management. Rivers and aquifers are placed in the context of the surrounding natural and social systems. The task is difficult: Hitherto separate functions must be studied for their interactions and feedbacks. Land use, demography, industrialization, urbanization, and tourism, to name the most obvious ones, must be studied as drivers of socio-economic change. These factors are then linked to physical changes such as climate change, erosion, sedimentation, desertification and loss of biodiversity. Once fully developed, integrated basin management can serve four goals: provide an adequate supply of water for natural and human uses, maintain and improve water quality, restore biodiversity, and support regional sustainable economic development. This new agenda makes basin management into a demanding undertaking that will only gradually supersede river management. Several international initiatives have guided the transition, such as the Dublin Principles [6] and Agenda 21 [2]. In practical terms, France, the European Union (EU), Australia, and California have gained the most experience. 2.2. France Under a 1964 law, France restructured national water management [7]. Under the old system, agencies worked within political boundaries (departments), focusing on ‘‘their’’ segment of the river. Under the new law, water management is organized at the basin level, using the natural boundaries of the country’s seven major river basins. Each basin is given the task of developing, and regularly updating, a basin water plan. New institutions and financing mechanisms for water planning and management are in charge. The basin water authority is responsible for management and administration. The basin water assembly, with membership by public and private stakeholders, reviews plans and budgets. Water users (mostly defined as polluters) are charged fees that the basin authority uses to fund improvements. As experience with these arrangements was gained, water planning was further devolved to the smaller geographical scales of sub-basins and tributaries. This step allows for greater consideration of place-based social, economic, and natural conditions. During the nineties, a further step was taken by introducing the concept of ‘‘water contracts’’ between sub-basins and basin-wide water authorities [8]. As part of the contract, stakeholders in each sub-basin prepare a water plan which is then reviewed and funded by the basin assembly and the basin authority. The goal is to adjust basin-wide standards to specific conditions in the sub-basin. 2.3. European Union In 2000, the EU issued a water directive for its member states [9]. The directive sets three goals that need to be addressed in each river basin: conjunctive management of ground and surface water, balancing of economic and ecological concerns, and full participation by stakeholders. Implementation proceeds in stages: By 2003 member states had to translate the water directive into national legislation. In 2004 countries had to ‘‘characterize’’ current conditions and likely development trends in each water basin. In 2006 basin monitoring systems are to be in place. By 2009 basin management plans, including measures for infrastructure improvements must be completed. Basin plans will then be updated at 5-year intervals.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 2354
J. Schmandt / Energy 31 (2006) 2350–2360
2.4. Australia Since 1985 Australia has built capacity for the integrated management of the Murray–Darling Basin in southeast Australia [10,11]. The Murray is Australia’s most important river. It is 2560 km long, provides irrigation water for almost half of Australia’s commercial agriculture and drinking water for three million people. The basin covers 14 percent of Australia’s land mass. In 1985, the Murray–Darling Ministerial Council was created. Membership includes the federal government, five states, and the Australian Capital Territory. As its first project the Council conducted a Basin Environmental Resources Study. The study documented widespread degradation of natural resources in the basin. To reverse these trends, an executive agency was created in 1988. The Murray–Darling Basin Commission was given the following mandate: ‘‘Through the Government–community partnership, to foster joint action to achieve the sustainable use of water, land and other environmental resources of the Basin for national benefit of present and future generations, and to maintain responsible, efficient and cost-effective delivery services of water of agreed quality from the River Murray.’’ A third institution—the Murray–Darling Community Advisory Committee—was established to provide stakeholder input. Members are appointed by the Ministerial Council. Early on the Commission adopted key principles of integrated basin management to guide its work, such as integrated scientific assessments, stakeholder participation, and partnerships between federal and state governments. Several plans and agreements have been completed. These include: development of catchment strategies and action plans to guide and coordinate efforts and investments; a wide range of actions on both public and private land to implement those strategies and plans; significant community action to protect land and conserve water; a cap on diversions of water from the Basin’s rivers; major actions to improve water quality and environmental flows; reforms for the management and use of water and vegetation; development of Basin-wide strategies to reduce salinity and control outbreaks of blue-green algae in rivers; and substantial additions to the understanding of the landscape and the needs of the community. The Commission has a staff of over one hundred and an annual budget of about $US70 million. Operations are funded by the participating governments and budgets have been increasing steadily over time. 2.5. California In 2002, voters in California approved Proposition 50, the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002. The Act authorizes the Legislature to appropriate, among other initiatives, $500 million for Integrated Regional Water Management projects. The bulk of these funds are used to help public and non-profit organizations develop integrated regional strategies for management of water resources. In 2003, the two lead agencies for environmental protection and management of natural resources adopted a 10-year plan to jointly implement basin-wide water management [12]. 2.6. Evaluation The steps taken by France, the EU, Australia, and California present different models for the transition from hydrological river management to integrated basin management. The emphasis differs from case to case. The French model was introduced when improving water quality received most attention. This priority dominates to this day, reflecting the prevailing climatic and economic conditions in France. Water scarcity is only a concern in the Southwest and Corsica. The French experience teaches an important lesson: Both carrots and sticks—financial incentives and regulation—are needed to successfully join people and institutions in managing a large water basin. The EU approach focuses on economics as the key integration tool. It is strong on analysis and weak on institutional innovation. Even after full implementation, the traditional water management institutions, organized in most countries at the provincial or national level, will remain in charge. Basin-wide tasks will be addressed through cooperation between political jurisdictions. Whether this arrangement will allow for effective basin management remains to be seen. The EU directive focuses on environmental concerns, such as
ARTICLE IN PRESS J. Schmandt / Energy 31 (2006) 2350–2360
2355
water quality, land degradation, and loss of wetlands. It does not address the special concerns encountered in arid regions. Australia uses science, economics, and policy as integrative mechanisms. The results are impressive. To date the Murray–Darling initiative represents the single most successful model for integrated basin management in the world. The partnering states and the federal government have committed significant scientific, political, and financial capital that has moved the initiative from studies and consultations to concrete actions on capping future water diversions, combating salinity, restoring native fish, establishing ecological river flows, and improving flood management. California has begun the transition to basin management with a bottom-up approach which reserves space for regional entities to decide on priorities and methods of integration. All four models have made important steps in the direction of 21st century water management: linking the river to its drainage area, involving stakeholders in management decisions and balancing natural and social factors in managing the basin. With the exception of the Murray–Darling, not enough attention is paid to organization and funding of science-based decision support systems, such as geographical information systems, assessment of regional climate change, land use analysis, indicators of biological integrity, and sustainability assessments. This is an important deficit that needs to be corrected. Only when these scientific tools are available can water managers effectively link human activities to the natural functions served by the drainage area [13]. 3. Linking the two concepts: an example from the Rio Grande The author has described two innovative concepts—sustainability science and integrated basin management. In most basins of the world, the two concepts are not yet implemented. In this section the author uses experience from fieldwork in the Rio Grande basin to illustrate how they will support each other in the future. 3.1. Characteristics of the basin The Rio Grande (called the Rı´ o Bravo in Mexico) drains the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains while the Colorado serves the same function on the western slopes (see Fig. 1). The Rio Grande is the fifth largest river in North America and the longest river in the world to mark the border between countries at different levels of development. During its entire 3000 km run from Colorado to the Gulf of Mexico the river crosses arid and semi-arid lands. The international part of the river basin accounts for one quarter of the total, with 137,412 km2 located in the United States and 87,193 km2 in Mexico. The climate is arid, and evaporation high. Runoff from rainfall is minimal. Annual rainfall does not exceed 20 cm in most of the basin, while the headwaters and areas close to the Gulf of Mexico receive 75 cm. 3.2. Hydrology From a hydrological point of view, the Rio Grande consists of two segments. The Northern segment (Upper Rio Grande) extends from the headwaters to south of El Paso, Texas—a distance of about 1400 km. The Upper Rio Grande receives its water from snowmelt in the Rocky Mountains. From El Paso to the Gulf of Mexico the Lower Rio Grande marks the international border between Mexico and the United States. This segment of the river, 1600 km long, depends mostly on water from tributaries, two thirds from the Mexican Rı´ o Conchos and one third from the American Pecos River. Both Upper and Lower Rio Grande are subject to water stress. According to the International Panel on Climate Change, the volume of snow pack in the Rocky Mountains is likely to diminish as a result of global climate change. For the first time in almost 30 years, the Upper Rio Grande experienced a major drought in 2003 and 2004. The cause may be the recurrence of a historical drought cycle or an early sign of climate change. In the Lower Rio Grande, deliveries from the Rı´ o Conchos have fallen behind historical averages for the last 10 years. The reasons are complex and not fully understood. They include drought, deforestation, development in the Conchos basin, and internal conflicts between the Mexican federal and state governments. This has caused a serious water dispute between Mexico and the United States. Nothing of the kind has
ARTICLE IN PRESS 2356
J. Schmandt / Energy 31 (2006) 2350–2360
Fig. 1. Major River Basins on the United States Border with Mexico.
occurred in the decades that followed the adoption of bilateral agreements—1906 and 1944—on sharing Rio Grande waters. Ground water exists in all parts of the basin, but its quality is poor in most places. El Paso and Ciudad Jua´rez, the largest cities on the border, are the exception. But the good quality ground water they have enjoyed for many decades is likely to run out in 20 years. 3.3. Population growth Few people lived in the Rio Grande basin until air conditioning made the desert climate attractive, and special tax and import provisions attracted industry and workers to the international border. As a result, the population in the border reach of the river has doubled every 20 years, beginning in the 1950s. The international segment of the river now supports five million people, and nine million will live there by 2030. Most live in twin cities on either side of the Rio Grande. 3.4. Irrigated agriculture Parts of the basin enjoy good soils. As a result, irrigated agriculture has long been an important part of the local culture and economy. Early in the last century, the US government built the largest dam then in existence in the world. For almost a 100 years Elephant Butte Reservoir, located in Southern New Mexico, has provided water to the Rio Grande Project and its farmers in New Mexico, West Texas, and across the border in Ciudad Jua´rez, The Rio Grande Project, developed by the US Bureau of Reclamation, became the model for the larger irrigation project the Bureau later built in California. In mid-century, Mexico and the United States built two large reservoirs in the Lower Rio Grande—Amistad and Falco´n—which provide a reliable source of water to farmers in both countries and support the growth of the regional economy.
ARTICLE IN PRESS J. Schmandt / Energy 31 (2006) 2350–2360
2357
Options for securing future water supply include conservation, desalinization of ground and seawater, and transfer of agricultural water, now using more than 80 percent of the total, to municipal and industrial use. All of these measures require time and money; in addition, some can only be accomplished once agreements across political boundaries have been reached. To unravel the problem cluster linking water to development in this arid and rapidly growing region we conducted a sustainability assessment for the Lower Rio Grande basin [14,15]. The question before us was straightforward: Will there be enough water, of acceptable quality, to sustain development of the basin to the year 2030? To conduct the study we further developed assessment methodology that had first been used in a World Bank assessment of the arid North-Eastern part of Brazil [16]. Our goal was to produce a report that addressed each of three tasks: ‘‘An integrated assessment analyzes a complex problem by identifying causes and evaluating impacts. Feedbacks within the system are described, if possible quantified. Policy options are evaluated.’’ (Office of Global Change, US Department of Energy). We assembled a binational project team of nine specialists from hydrology, water quality, ecology, demographics, economic development, and water management. In addition, we had a full-time project manager as well as a project leader with experience in integrative analysis. This gave us the capacity to examine the main drivers of change and stress: population growth, changes in land use, water scarcity, deteriorating water quality, and loss of biodiversity. The project proceeded in three stages: initial scoping of issues and concerns, detailed analysis of major issues and development scenarios, and integration and policy recommendations. With few exceptions, we used existing information and population projections. It took considerable effort to synchronize data sets from Mexico and the United States. Beyond that, we only generated new data to fill occasional information gaps. Our main task was to reconcile, link, and interpret existing information that had been produced by scientists and agencies from different territorial jurisdictions. 3.5. Scenarios We examined water and development issues under current and projected future conditions. The ‘‘current analysis’’ gathered and integrated data to understand today’s linkages between population growth, water supply and use, the regional economy, water quality, and the ecosystem. The ‘‘future analysis’’ examined water and development to the year 2030 by combining four plausible water scenarios with medium-growth population projections for 2030. (1) Drought-of-record: Establishes a supply and demand scenario based on actual 1945–1960 hydrology, which includes the drought-of-record years in the 1950s. (2) Full Mexican development: From 1944–1992 the average inflow into the Rı´ o Grande/Bravo from the main Mexican tributary, the Rı´ o Conchos, was several times greater than the amount Mexico, as part of a 1944 treaty, has committed to deliver to the United States. This scenario assumes that Mexico will utilize all Conchos water except the Treaty amount. (3) Super drought: Removes a single, isolated anomalous rain storm (Tropical Storm Alice) that occurred during the drought of record from the 1945–60 hydrological data. This scenario creates a more likely representation of the ‘‘worst possible drought.’’ (4) Worst case: Full Mexican Development and Super drought scenarios are combined. There were several major findings: 1. Following completion of Amistad and Falco´n reservoirs, the most serious economic threat of the past— flooding on the main stem of the Lower Rio Grande—has been eliminated. 2. Since completion of the reservoir system half a century ago the firm yield of the Lower Rio Grande has averaged 230 Mm3/month. The firm yield will be significantly reduced under each of the scenarios examined: ‘‘Super drought’’: 200 Mm3/month (13 percent), ‘‘Full Mexican Development’’: 176 Mm3/month (23 percent) and ‘‘Worst Case’’: 158 Mm3/month (31 percent). 3. While the trade and service sectors of the economy are growing, agriculture is slowly declining, primarily as a result of urbanization. At present, irrigated agriculture uses 80–85 percent of available river water.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 2358
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
J. Schmandt / Energy 31 (2006) 2350–2360
Reducing water losses, introducing water metering and changing crop patterns, can maintain current crop yields while reducing water use by 20–40 percent. The impact on the regional economy will be minimal. At present, municipal and industrial (M&I) activities require 12 percent of river water. M&I demand will rise to 45 Mm3/month by 2030. This accounts for 20 percent of total volume under the historical hydrology scenario, and 28 percent under the worst-case scenario. Transfer of water from agricultural to municipal use presents a sustainable strategy for meeting higher M&I demand in the future. This can be done by enforcing existing legislation that assigns highest priority to M&I demand in times of water shortage. Using this approach during periods of drought will be accepted by the public. Using it in normal years will constrain the rights of agricultural water users. A market-based approach can achieve similar results. Developing a regional water market in the US part of the basin seems feasible because water rights are firmly established and can be sold. Following the same approach on the Mexican side will require difficult legal changes because water is classified as non-tradable national property. As a result of water diversions the river has lost part of its ability to dilute wastewater discharged in the river, to extrude salinity intruding from the Gulf of Mexico, and to maintain ecosystems in and along the river. Urbanization has caused habitat destruction for land-based species. Decreased stream flow and pollution have caused the loss of native freshwater species. While full restoration is unlikely, governments can still act to prevent further deterioration. Current management practices do not reserve a minimum volume of water for in-stream flow. As a first step, in-stream flow requirements need to be determined. Water quality generally has improved and in many places meets current standards. During periods of low flow the concentration of dissolved solids (mostly from natural brines in water from the Pecos River) and other pollutants increases dramatically. There is a high concentration of various pollutants immediately downstream from population centers. Desalinization of brackish groundwater or seawater is not yet cost effective but provides a stand-by strategy for water security in the future.
Two of the hypothetical contingencies addressed in our 2000 assessment have since materialized—multiyear drought and a dramatic reduction in water delivery from the Rio Grande tributary in Mexico. Our assessment predicted that a combination of these two factors would lead to severe water shortages and economic losses. Indeed, farmers on both sides of the border have suffered large losses. Claiming they were being shortchanged in water deliveries owed to the United States by Mexico under the 1944 treaty, Texas farmers staged protests and later sued the Mexican government for economic losses. As a result, disagreement over water deliveries from the Rı´ o Conchos has strained diplomatic relations between Mexico and the United States beyond anything experienced since the water treaties were signed in 1906 and 1944. These recent events point to shortcomings in water management in the basin. 3.6. Water management To this day, the narrow engineering model of water management dominates in the Rio Grande. The management regime involves a binational commission and national and state agencies in Mexico and the United States. Actions by these agencies are difficult to coordinate. Water planning is decentralized, and stakeholder participation, where it exists, is not organized across the international boundary. The existing international water treaties only deal with river water. Groundwater is unregulated or is managed under rules that differ from one political jurisdiction to the next. In addition, water management institutions in the basin do not have the authority or resources to conduct, or contract for, scientific studies that can guide management. To facilitate the transition to integrated basin management, using sustainability science as a tool, Schmandt [17], Nitze [18] and Mumme-Barajas [19] have proposed a set of amendments to the 1944 US–Mexico treaty on border waters. 3.7. Institutional reforms The existing International Boundary and Water Commission (Commission), last reformed in 1944, needs to be modernized. The successful history of a similar commission (International Joint Commission—IJC) for
ARTICLE IN PRESS J. Schmandt / Energy 31 (2006) 2350–2360
2359
bi-national water management on the border between Canada and the United States provides a useful model. In the case of the IJC the treaty, signed in 1909, was repeatedly amended to address new water and environmental problems as they arose. A process of joint fact finding and subsequent approval of recommendations by national governments is in place. Such a strategy avoids difficult renegotiation of existing treaties. The same strategy should be used on the US–Mexico border. The Commission should be enlarged to four commissioners, two from each country: The 1944 treaty stipulates that both commissioners must be professional engineers. In the future they would be joined by two new commissioners, one from each country, who will be responsible for science, analysis and planning. To support these tasks the Commission will create a joint office of science and analysis. The Commission will also create and manage two bi-national Basin Councils, one for the Colorado and one for the Rio Grande. Membership of the councils will include stakeholders, experts, and government representatives. The Councils, with support from the science office, will have three tasks: (1) prepare and update a basin water and development plan; (2) recommend to governments and binational institutions (North American Development Bank and Border Environment Cooperation Commission) improvements to water infrastructure and management; and (3) convene temporary task forces to study urgent issues, such as drought, groundwater management and regional impacts of climate change. In the sub-basins small water task forces will be created. They will be responsible for preparing a regional water plan, formulating proposals for action, and addressing specific issues as they may arise. Each regional committee will work with local universities to receive scientific support of its work. Sub-basin water committees will work closely with the Basin Councils in sharing information, developing the water plan for the whole basin, and discussing action proposals. A prototype regional water task force, with membership from Mexico and the United States, has been at work since 1999 in the Las Cruces–El Paso–Ciudad Jua´rez subbasin of the Rio Grande [20]. 4. Conclusion Existing water management institutions need to broaden their scope and capacity to perform the tasks of integrated basin management. Integrated assessments of water supply and demand, sustainability (not just environmental) assessments of proposed basin improvements, as well as state-of-the art geographical information systems are critically important tools for basin management. Building on experience gained in France, the European Union, Australia, and California, capacity for sustainability science needs to be built both at basin and sub-basin levels.
References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
[7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
United Nations. Our common future. London, New York: Oxford University Press; 1988. United Nations. Agenda 21: Program for action on sustainable development. 1992. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/agenda21.htm Meadows DH, Meadows DL, editors. The limits to growth: a report to the Club of Rome. London: Potomac Associates Book; 1972. National Academy of Science/National Research Council. Our common journey: a transition toward sustainability. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999. Newson M. Land, water and development: sustainable management of river basin systems, 2nd ed. London, New York: Routledge; 1997. Solanes M, Gonzalez-Villarreal F. The Dublin principles for water as reflected in a comparative assessment of institutional and legal arrangements for integrated water resources management. Global Water Partnership, Chile, 1999. See also: http://www. thewaterpage/SolanesDublin.html French Water Law no. 64-1245 of 16th December 1964 regarding the regime and distribution of water, and water pollution control (Journal official, December 18, 1964). See also: http://www.oieau.fr/anglais/gest_eau/lois/loi64an.htm French Water Act of January 3, 1992, Law no. 92-3, On Water, (Journal official, January 4, 1992. p. 187). See also: http:// www.oieau.fr/anglais/gest_eau/lois/watlaw92.htm European Union. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy, 2000. See also: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html Goss K. Report card—Murray–Darling Basin—2001. Water Sci Technol 2002;45:133–44. Global Water Partnership. The Murray–Darling Commission. Toolbox: integrated water resources management, Case #25. 2004. See also: www.gwp.ihe.nl/wwGwpORGwroot//
ARTICLE IN PRESS 2360
J. Schmandt / Energy 31 (2006) 2350–2360
[12] California Environmental Protection Agency and California Resources Agency. Memorandum of Understanding for the Watershed, Clean Beaches, and Water Quality Act, Integrated Watershed Management Program. April 28, 2003. See also: www.resources.ca./ gov/watershed_mou.html [13] Heathcote IW. Integrated watershed management: principles and practice. New York: Wiley; 1998. [14] Houston Advanced Research Center and Instituto Tecnolo´gico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Water and Sustainable Development in the Binational Lower Rio Grande/Rı´ o Bravo Basin. Final report to the US Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. See also: http://www.harc.edu/mitchellcenter/mexico/downloads.html [15] Aguilar-Baraja I, Mathis M, Schmandt J. Water security and economic development in the Binational Rio Grande/Rı´ o Bravo Basin, USA/Mexico. SIWI. Report 13. Stockholm International Water Institute, 2001. p. 79–87. [16] Projeto A´ridas. A strategy for sustainable development in Brazil’s Northeast. Brasilia: Ministry of Planning and the Budget; 1995. [17] Schmandt J. Binational water issues in the Rio Grande/Rı´ o Bravo Basin. Water Policy 2002;4:137–53. [18] Nitze WA. The Role of climate change and climate variability in water management in the US–Mexico border region: a challenge for the BECC, the NADB and the International Boundary and Water Commission, 2004. Report to the US Environmental Protection Agency. [19] Mumme SP, Barajas IA. Managing border water to the year 2020: the challenge of sustainable development. In: Michel S, editor. The US–Mexican border environment: binational water management planning. San Diego: San Diego State University Press; 2003. [20] For membership, organization and activities of the Paso del Norte Water Task Force see http://www.sharedwater.org
Energy 31 (2006) 2350–2360 www.elsevier.com/locate/energy
Bringing sustainability science to water basin management Jurgen Schmandt Houston Advanced Research Center and University of Texas, 11 Hull Circle, Austin, Texas 78746, USA
Abstract Sustainability science studies the causes, pathways and impacts of complex development problems that result from the interaction of natural and social forces. Water availability in arid basins with rapidly growing populations presents a perfect example of a development problem that needs sustainability science to provide the scientific underpinnings for integrated management of the basin. The author (1) introduces the concept of sustainability science, (2) applies the concept to integrated water basin management, and (3) illustrates the use of sustainability science in the management of the arid Rio Grande basin on the border between Mexico and the United States. r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Sustainability science Development policy has been a deliberate intervention tool of governments, the World Bank, regional development banks and international foundations for half a century. The question asked was: What measures must be taken to accelerate economic growth? Initially, development policy focused on investments in manufacturing, agriculture, transportation and communications. Beginning in the 1960s, it was recognized that long-term measures, such as investments in education and research, also contribute to development. In the following decade, barriers to development were identified, such as resource depletion, environmental pollution and over population. As a result, some experts advised governments to slow the rate of economic development in order to avoid the tragedy of the commons when over utilization of the common resource leads to its destruction. Others countered that constraining growth would make it impossible for developing countries to reduce widespread poverty. The United Nations report, Our Common Future [1], addressed this issue. The report forcefully argued against limiting growth. Instead, the report put forward the concept of sustainable development, which simultaneously pursues economic growth, environmental protection, and poverty reduction. The report recommended that sustainable development principles should guide policy development in the 21st century. Sustainable development is a serious policy concept. Even so, few agree on its exact meaning. Often agreement is limited to the starting point: development must not carry in it the seeds of destruction because such development is unsustainable. Yet disagreement reigns when it comes to defining and implementing what needs to be sustained and what should be restrained. The task is vast: discovering the seeds of destruction at an Tel.: +1 281 363 7913; fax: +1 281 363 7924.
E-mail address: [email protected]. 0360-5442/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2006.01.009
ARTICLE IN PRESS J. Schmandt / Energy 31 (2006) 2350–2360
2351
early stage, defining alternative courses of action that can be maintained over time, and implementing solutions in light of these findings. 1.1. Scientific origins of the concept The concept of sustainability has its origin in fisheries and forest management. Experts in these fields asked what guaranteed harvests that could be sustained over time. They found that prevailing management practices, such as over fishing or single species cultivation, work for a limited time, then yield diminishing results and eventually endanger the resource. They concluded that sustainable management practices should not aim for maximum yield in the short run, but smaller yields that can be sustained over time. 1.2. From science to policy Our Common Future, published in 1988, applied this science-based concept to policy and called for ‘‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’’ A second report by the United Nations, Agenda 21 [2], was prepared for the Rio de Janeiro World Summit to illustrate in detail the changes in values, institutions, and policies that are needed to implement sustainability in the areas of energy, water, food, transportation, and others. Advocates of sustainable development face a dilemma. For decades to come, the world will have more people than it has today. Population experts agree that the current world population of six billion will grow to nine billion by the middle of this century. Only after 2050 will developing countries begin to follow the trend of declining populations already firmly established in wealthy countries. The needs of three billion more people can only be met by growing economies, particularly in developing countries. An influential report to the Club of Rome, The Limits to Growth [3], had taken the opposite view and argued that constraining growth was necessary to avoid ecological disaster. It was to counter this argument that Our Common Future put forward the vision of ecologically sound growth. Under this optimistic scenario a prudently managed economy can do it all: improve living standards, reduce poverty, and protect the environment. 1.3. Linking natural to social systems A second quote from the 1988 United Nations report highlights the complexity of the new development concept: ‘‘At a minimum, sustainable development must not endanger the natural systems that support life on Earth: the atmosphere, the waters, the soils, and the living beings.’’ This definition of sustainability focuses on the interactions between natural and human systems. In an ‘‘empty’’ world, many of these linkages could be ignored. A world of six billion people, or nine billion within a generation’s time, cannot afford to do this. Instead, decision makers throughout the world must consider resource constraints and waste disposal when they design 21st century policies for jobs, food, energy, water, and transportation. In sum, the vision laid out by Our Common Future changes the concept of development in two fundamental respects. First, the economic, ecological, and social spheres of human activities are recognized as interactive systems. Second, long-term impacts and outcomes are viewed as critically important. 1.4. Intellectual success vs. political failure Our Common Future enjoyed almost instant worldwide success. Both advanced and developing nations bought into this vision of the future. In the years since publication of the report, innumerable books and papers have tried to further develop and apply the concepts of sustainability. Many conferences, including the World Summits in Rio de Janeiro and Johannesburg, were devoted to the same goal. Yet in practical terms progress has been slow, reflecting the preference of voters and policy-makers for narrowly defined short-term solutions. The first 25 years of promoting sustainable development have fallen short of moving the concept to the head of either national or international agendas.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 2352
J. Schmandt / Energy 31 (2006) 2350–2360
1.5. Lack of scientific understanding In recent years, scientists identified an important reason for limited progress: Resource managers and decision-makers lack a comprehensive knowledge base to guide sustainable development solutions. Building this knowledge base is the task of sustainability science—a gradually emerging field of scientific effort. A study by the US National Academy of Sciences, Our Common Journey [4], provides a blue print for sustainability science. The report’s key argument is as follows: Scientific research, organized by disciplines, has been successful in understanding single-issue environmental threats, such as water and air pollution, ozone depletion, acid rain, and climate change. In each case, often only after many years of study, scientists identified the causes, pathways, and impacts of new environmental threats. This information is important in designing policy because it makes it possible to base new policy on measurable thresholds, indicators, and impacts. Without such science-derived knowledge, policy development would be blind. 1.6. Addressing problem clusters Yet the scientific enterprise is lagging behind in understanding a second class of environmental threats. The report calls them complex problem clusters. These arise from multiple, cumulative, and interactive stresses—some natural, some social. Stresses are caused by demographic and economic growth that impact, directly or indirectly, natural systems. Examples of such complex program clusters include the growth of mega cities, ecological damage to rivers and riparian lands, loss of biodiversity, and increased water scarcity in regions around the world. It is these complex problem clusters that stand in the way of sustainable development. Sustainability science is called for to untangle these problem clusters and thereby provide the knowledge base that decision makers need as they attempt to deal with problems of unprecedented complexity. 1.7. Characteristics of sustainability science Sustainability science uses the methods of traditional science—observation, measurement, linking data to theory, and interpretation of results. But sustainability science requires a different mindset which adds an important dimension to the scientific enterprise. Three adjectives illustrate the difference: integrative, placebased, and participatory. Integrative: sustainability science uses the results of relevant scientific disciplines and integrates them into a holistic body of knowledge that explains interactions between natural and social systems. Place-based: sustainability science examines problem clusters at local or regional scales because sustainability solutions will only work when place-based conditions are taken into account. Participatory: sustainability science works closely with stakeholders who contribute practical knowledge and offer a community-based vision of desired outcomes. 1.8. Organizational arrangements Special organizational arrangements are needed to achieve the goals of integrating knowledge from relevant disciplines, focusing on a particular place and working with stakeholders. The main requirement is for a problem-focused interdisciplinary team. The project leader should have experience in integrating information from different scientific fields and skill in working with local stakeholders. Team members must be comfortable working in an interdisciplinary setting, searching for a holistic understanding of the problem at hand and testing policy options for their compatibility with the scientific findings. Our Common Journey calls ‘‘developing an integrated and place-based understanding of such (complex) threats and the options for dealing with them a central challenge y for a transition towards sustainability.’’ Sustainability science provides part of the roadmap needed for sustainable development. The even more difficult part, not discussed here, requires changes in values and political will.
ARTICLE IN PRESS J. Schmandt / Energy 31 (2006) 2350–2360
2353
2. Integrated basin management What can sustainability science offer to water management? Water management requires input from many disciplines. Initially, river management was the task of engineers. Only they had the knowledge to design and manage reservoirs and other hydraulic structures so that the often conflicting goals of flood control, water supply and energy production were reconciled. Hydrologists and geologists were consulted to assess available water supply and the best location for building dams. Economists joined the team to measure costs and benefits of river improvements. Most recently, the services of chemists, biologists, and social scientists were added to study environmental and community impacts. 2.1. From river to basin management As a result of this gradual broadening of expertise and focus river management is being transformed into basin management [5]. The basin or watershed becomes the unit of analysis and management. Rivers and aquifers are placed in the context of the surrounding natural and social systems. The task is difficult: Hitherto separate functions must be studied for their interactions and feedbacks. Land use, demography, industrialization, urbanization, and tourism, to name the most obvious ones, must be studied as drivers of socio-economic change. These factors are then linked to physical changes such as climate change, erosion, sedimentation, desertification and loss of biodiversity. Once fully developed, integrated basin management can serve four goals: provide an adequate supply of water for natural and human uses, maintain and improve water quality, restore biodiversity, and support regional sustainable economic development. This new agenda makes basin management into a demanding undertaking that will only gradually supersede river management. Several international initiatives have guided the transition, such as the Dublin Principles [6] and Agenda 21 [2]. In practical terms, France, the European Union (EU), Australia, and California have gained the most experience. 2.2. France Under a 1964 law, France restructured national water management [7]. Under the old system, agencies worked within political boundaries (departments), focusing on ‘‘their’’ segment of the river. Under the new law, water management is organized at the basin level, using the natural boundaries of the country’s seven major river basins. Each basin is given the task of developing, and regularly updating, a basin water plan. New institutions and financing mechanisms for water planning and management are in charge. The basin water authority is responsible for management and administration. The basin water assembly, with membership by public and private stakeholders, reviews plans and budgets. Water users (mostly defined as polluters) are charged fees that the basin authority uses to fund improvements. As experience with these arrangements was gained, water planning was further devolved to the smaller geographical scales of sub-basins and tributaries. This step allows for greater consideration of place-based social, economic, and natural conditions. During the nineties, a further step was taken by introducing the concept of ‘‘water contracts’’ between sub-basins and basin-wide water authorities [8]. As part of the contract, stakeholders in each sub-basin prepare a water plan which is then reviewed and funded by the basin assembly and the basin authority. The goal is to adjust basin-wide standards to specific conditions in the sub-basin. 2.3. European Union In 2000, the EU issued a water directive for its member states [9]. The directive sets three goals that need to be addressed in each river basin: conjunctive management of ground and surface water, balancing of economic and ecological concerns, and full participation by stakeholders. Implementation proceeds in stages: By 2003 member states had to translate the water directive into national legislation. In 2004 countries had to ‘‘characterize’’ current conditions and likely development trends in each water basin. In 2006 basin monitoring systems are to be in place. By 2009 basin management plans, including measures for infrastructure improvements must be completed. Basin plans will then be updated at 5-year intervals.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 2354
J. Schmandt / Energy 31 (2006) 2350–2360
2.4. Australia Since 1985 Australia has built capacity for the integrated management of the Murray–Darling Basin in southeast Australia [10,11]. The Murray is Australia’s most important river. It is 2560 km long, provides irrigation water for almost half of Australia’s commercial agriculture and drinking water for three million people. The basin covers 14 percent of Australia’s land mass. In 1985, the Murray–Darling Ministerial Council was created. Membership includes the federal government, five states, and the Australian Capital Territory. As its first project the Council conducted a Basin Environmental Resources Study. The study documented widespread degradation of natural resources in the basin. To reverse these trends, an executive agency was created in 1988. The Murray–Darling Basin Commission was given the following mandate: ‘‘Through the Government–community partnership, to foster joint action to achieve the sustainable use of water, land and other environmental resources of the Basin for national benefit of present and future generations, and to maintain responsible, efficient and cost-effective delivery services of water of agreed quality from the River Murray.’’ A third institution—the Murray–Darling Community Advisory Committee—was established to provide stakeholder input. Members are appointed by the Ministerial Council. Early on the Commission adopted key principles of integrated basin management to guide its work, such as integrated scientific assessments, stakeholder participation, and partnerships between federal and state governments. Several plans and agreements have been completed. These include: development of catchment strategies and action plans to guide and coordinate efforts and investments; a wide range of actions on both public and private land to implement those strategies and plans; significant community action to protect land and conserve water; a cap on diversions of water from the Basin’s rivers; major actions to improve water quality and environmental flows; reforms for the management and use of water and vegetation; development of Basin-wide strategies to reduce salinity and control outbreaks of blue-green algae in rivers; and substantial additions to the understanding of the landscape and the needs of the community. The Commission has a staff of over one hundred and an annual budget of about $US70 million. Operations are funded by the participating governments and budgets have been increasing steadily over time. 2.5. California In 2002, voters in California approved Proposition 50, the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002. The Act authorizes the Legislature to appropriate, among other initiatives, $500 million for Integrated Regional Water Management projects. The bulk of these funds are used to help public and non-profit organizations develop integrated regional strategies for management of water resources. In 2003, the two lead agencies for environmental protection and management of natural resources adopted a 10-year plan to jointly implement basin-wide water management [12]. 2.6. Evaluation The steps taken by France, the EU, Australia, and California present different models for the transition from hydrological river management to integrated basin management. The emphasis differs from case to case. The French model was introduced when improving water quality received most attention. This priority dominates to this day, reflecting the prevailing climatic and economic conditions in France. Water scarcity is only a concern in the Southwest and Corsica. The French experience teaches an important lesson: Both carrots and sticks—financial incentives and regulation—are needed to successfully join people and institutions in managing a large water basin. The EU approach focuses on economics as the key integration tool. It is strong on analysis and weak on institutional innovation. Even after full implementation, the traditional water management institutions, organized in most countries at the provincial or national level, will remain in charge. Basin-wide tasks will be addressed through cooperation between political jurisdictions. Whether this arrangement will allow for effective basin management remains to be seen. The EU directive focuses on environmental concerns, such as
ARTICLE IN PRESS J. Schmandt / Energy 31 (2006) 2350–2360
2355
water quality, land degradation, and loss of wetlands. It does not address the special concerns encountered in arid regions. Australia uses science, economics, and policy as integrative mechanisms. The results are impressive. To date the Murray–Darling initiative represents the single most successful model for integrated basin management in the world. The partnering states and the federal government have committed significant scientific, political, and financial capital that has moved the initiative from studies and consultations to concrete actions on capping future water diversions, combating salinity, restoring native fish, establishing ecological river flows, and improving flood management. California has begun the transition to basin management with a bottom-up approach which reserves space for regional entities to decide on priorities and methods of integration. All four models have made important steps in the direction of 21st century water management: linking the river to its drainage area, involving stakeholders in management decisions and balancing natural and social factors in managing the basin. With the exception of the Murray–Darling, not enough attention is paid to organization and funding of science-based decision support systems, such as geographical information systems, assessment of regional climate change, land use analysis, indicators of biological integrity, and sustainability assessments. This is an important deficit that needs to be corrected. Only when these scientific tools are available can water managers effectively link human activities to the natural functions served by the drainage area [13]. 3. Linking the two concepts: an example from the Rio Grande The author has described two innovative concepts—sustainability science and integrated basin management. In most basins of the world, the two concepts are not yet implemented. In this section the author uses experience from fieldwork in the Rio Grande basin to illustrate how they will support each other in the future. 3.1. Characteristics of the basin The Rio Grande (called the Rı´ o Bravo in Mexico) drains the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains while the Colorado serves the same function on the western slopes (see Fig. 1). The Rio Grande is the fifth largest river in North America and the longest river in the world to mark the border between countries at different levels of development. During its entire 3000 km run from Colorado to the Gulf of Mexico the river crosses arid and semi-arid lands. The international part of the river basin accounts for one quarter of the total, with 137,412 km2 located in the United States and 87,193 km2 in Mexico. The climate is arid, and evaporation high. Runoff from rainfall is minimal. Annual rainfall does not exceed 20 cm in most of the basin, while the headwaters and areas close to the Gulf of Mexico receive 75 cm. 3.2. Hydrology From a hydrological point of view, the Rio Grande consists of two segments. The Northern segment (Upper Rio Grande) extends from the headwaters to south of El Paso, Texas—a distance of about 1400 km. The Upper Rio Grande receives its water from snowmelt in the Rocky Mountains. From El Paso to the Gulf of Mexico the Lower Rio Grande marks the international border between Mexico and the United States. This segment of the river, 1600 km long, depends mostly on water from tributaries, two thirds from the Mexican Rı´ o Conchos and one third from the American Pecos River. Both Upper and Lower Rio Grande are subject to water stress. According to the International Panel on Climate Change, the volume of snow pack in the Rocky Mountains is likely to diminish as a result of global climate change. For the first time in almost 30 years, the Upper Rio Grande experienced a major drought in 2003 and 2004. The cause may be the recurrence of a historical drought cycle or an early sign of climate change. In the Lower Rio Grande, deliveries from the Rı´ o Conchos have fallen behind historical averages for the last 10 years. The reasons are complex and not fully understood. They include drought, deforestation, development in the Conchos basin, and internal conflicts between the Mexican federal and state governments. This has caused a serious water dispute between Mexico and the United States. Nothing of the kind has
ARTICLE IN PRESS 2356
J. Schmandt / Energy 31 (2006) 2350–2360
Fig. 1. Major River Basins on the United States Border with Mexico.
occurred in the decades that followed the adoption of bilateral agreements—1906 and 1944—on sharing Rio Grande waters. Ground water exists in all parts of the basin, but its quality is poor in most places. El Paso and Ciudad Jua´rez, the largest cities on the border, are the exception. But the good quality ground water they have enjoyed for many decades is likely to run out in 20 years. 3.3. Population growth Few people lived in the Rio Grande basin until air conditioning made the desert climate attractive, and special tax and import provisions attracted industry and workers to the international border. As a result, the population in the border reach of the river has doubled every 20 years, beginning in the 1950s. The international segment of the river now supports five million people, and nine million will live there by 2030. Most live in twin cities on either side of the Rio Grande. 3.4. Irrigated agriculture Parts of the basin enjoy good soils. As a result, irrigated agriculture has long been an important part of the local culture and economy. Early in the last century, the US government built the largest dam then in existence in the world. For almost a 100 years Elephant Butte Reservoir, located in Southern New Mexico, has provided water to the Rio Grande Project and its farmers in New Mexico, West Texas, and across the border in Ciudad Jua´rez, The Rio Grande Project, developed by the US Bureau of Reclamation, became the model for the larger irrigation project the Bureau later built in California. In mid-century, Mexico and the United States built two large reservoirs in the Lower Rio Grande—Amistad and Falco´n—which provide a reliable source of water to farmers in both countries and support the growth of the regional economy.
ARTICLE IN PRESS J. Schmandt / Energy 31 (2006) 2350–2360
2357
Options for securing future water supply include conservation, desalinization of ground and seawater, and transfer of agricultural water, now using more than 80 percent of the total, to municipal and industrial use. All of these measures require time and money; in addition, some can only be accomplished once agreements across political boundaries have been reached. To unravel the problem cluster linking water to development in this arid and rapidly growing region we conducted a sustainability assessment for the Lower Rio Grande basin [14,15]. The question before us was straightforward: Will there be enough water, of acceptable quality, to sustain development of the basin to the year 2030? To conduct the study we further developed assessment methodology that had first been used in a World Bank assessment of the arid North-Eastern part of Brazil [16]. Our goal was to produce a report that addressed each of three tasks: ‘‘An integrated assessment analyzes a complex problem by identifying causes and evaluating impacts. Feedbacks within the system are described, if possible quantified. Policy options are evaluated.’’ (Office of Global Change, US Department of Energy). We assembled a binational project team of nine specialists from hydrology, water quality, ecology, demographics, economic development, and water management. In addition, we had a full-time project manager as well as a project leader with experience in integrative analysis. This gave us the capacity to examine the main drivers of change and stress: population growth, changes in land use, water scarcity, deteriorating water quality, and loss of biodiversity. The project proceeded in three stages: initial scoping of issues and concerns, detailed analysis of major issues and development scenarios, and integration and policy recommendations. With few exceptions, we used existing information and population projections. It took considerable effort to synchronize data sets from Mexico and the United States. Beyond that, we only generated new data to fill occasional information gaps. Our main task was to reconcile, link, and interpret existing information that had been produced by scientists and agencies from different territorial jurisdictions. 3.5. Scenarios We examined water and development issues under current and projected future conditions. The ‘‘current analysis’’ gathered and integrated data to understand today’s linkages between population growth, water supply and use, the regional economy, water quality, and the ecosystem. The ‘‘future analysis’’ examined water and development to the year 2030 by combining four plausible water scenarios with medium-growth population projections for 2030. (1) Drought-of-record: Establishes a supply and demand scenario based on actual 1945–1960 hydrology, which includes the drought-of-record years in the 1950s. (2) Full Mexican development: From 1944–1992 the average inflow into the Rı´ o Grande/Bravo from the main Mexican tributary, the Rı´ o Conchos, was several times greater than the amount Mexico, as part of a 1944 treaty, has committed to deliver to the United States. This scenario assumes that Mexico will utilize all Conchos water except the Treaty amount. (3) Super drought: Removes a single, isolated anomalous rain storm (Tropical Storm Alice) that occurred during the drought of record from the 1945–60 hydrological data. This scenario creates a more likely representation of the ‘‘worst possible drought.’’ (4) Worst case: Full Mexican Development and Super drought scenarios are combined. There were several major findings: 1. Following completion of Amistad and Falco´n reservoirs, the most serious economic threat of the past— flooding on the main stem of the Lower Rio Grande—has been eliminated. 2. Since completion of the reservoir system half a century ago the firm yield of the Lower Rio Grande has averaged 230 Mm3/month. The firm yield will be significantly reduced under each of the scenarios examined: ‘‘Super drought’’: 200 Mm3/month (13 percent), ‘‘Full Mexican Development’’: 176 Mm3/month (23 percent) and ‘‘Worst Case’’: 158 Mm3/month (31 percent). 3. While the trade and service sectors of the economy are growing, agriculture is slowly declining, primarily as a result of urbanization. At present, irrigated agriculture uses 80–85 percent of available river water.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 2358
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
J. Schmandt / Energy 31 (2006) 2350–2360
Reducing water losses, introducing water metering and changing crop patterns, can maintain current crop yields while reducing water use by 20–40 percent. The impact on the regional economy will be minimal. At present, municipal and industrial (M&I) activities require 12 percent of river water. M&I demand will rise to 45 Mm3/month by 2030. This accounts for 20 percent of total volume under the historical hydrology scenario, and 28 percent under the worst-case scenario. Transfer of water from agricultural to municipal use presents a sustainable strategy for meeting higher M&I demand in the future. This can be done by enforcing existing legislation that assigns highest priority to M&I demand in times of water shortage. Using this approach during periods of drought will be accepted by the public. Using it in normal years will constrain the rights of agricultural water users. A market-based approach can achieve similar results. Developing a regional water market in the US part of the basin seems feasible because water rights are firmly established and can be sold. Following the same approach on the Mexican side will require difficult legal changes because water is classified as non-tradable national property. As a result of water diversions the river has lost part of its ability to dilute wastewater discharged in the river, to extrude salinity intruding from the Gulf of Mexico, and to maintain ecosystems in and along the river. Urbanization has caused habitat destruction for land-based species. Decreased stream flow and pollution have caused the loss of native freshwater species. While full restoration is unlikely, governments can still act to prevent further deterioration. Current management practices do not reserve a minimum volume of water for in-stream flow. As a first step, in-stream flow requirements need to be determined. Water quality generally has improved and in many places meets current standards. During periods of low flow the concentration of dissolved solids (mostly from natural brines in water from the Pecos River) and other pollutants increases dramatically. There is a high concentration of various pollutants immediately downstream from population centers. Desalinization of brackish groundwater or seawater is not yet cost effective but provides a stand-by strategy for water security in the future.
Two of the hypothetical contingencies addressed in our 2000 assessment have since materialized—multiyear drought and a dramatic reduction in water delivery from the Rio Grande tributary in Mexico. Our assessment predicted that a combination of these two factors would lead to severe water shortages and economic losses. Indeed, farmers on both sides of the border have suffered large losses. Claiming they were being shortchanged in water deliveries owed to the United States by Mexico under the 1944 treaty, Texas farmers staged protests and later sued the Mexican government for economic losses. As a result, disagreement over water deliveries from the Rı´ o Conchos has strained diplomatic relations between Mexico and the United States beyond anything experienced since the water treaties were signed in 1906 and 1944. These recent events point to shortcomings in water management in the basin. 3.6. Water management To this day, the narrow engineering model of water management dominates in the Rio Grande. The management regime involves a binational commission and national and state agencies in Mexico and the United States. Actions by these agencies are difficult to coordinate. Water planning is decentralized, and stakeholder participation, where it exists, is not organized across the international boundary. The existing international water treaties only deal with river water. Groundwater is unregulated or is managed under rules that differ from one political jurisdiction to the next. In addition, water management institutions in the basin do not have the authority or resources to conduct, or contract for, scientific studies that can guide management. To facilitate the transition to integrated basin management, using sustainability science as a tool, Schmandt [17], Nitze [18] and Mumme-Barajas [19] have proposed a set of amendments to the 1944 US–Mexico treaty on border waters. 3.7. Institutional reforms The existing International Boundary and Water Commission (Commission), last reformed in 1944, needs to be modernized. The successful history of a similar commission (International Joint Commission—IJC) for
ARTICLE IN PRESS J. Schmandt / Energy 31 (2006) 2350–2360
2359
bi-national water management on the border between Canada and the United States provides a useful model. In the case of the IJC the treaty, signed in 1909, was repeatedly amended to address new water and environmental problems as they arose. A process of joint fact finding and subsequent approval of recommendations by national governments is in place. Such a strategy avoids difficult renegotiation of existing treaties. The same strategy should be used on the US–Mexico border. The Commission should be enlarged to four commissioners, two from each country: The 1944 treaty stipulates that both commissioners must be professional engineers. In the future they would be joined by two new commissioners, one from each country, who will be responsible for science, analysis and planning. To support these tasks the Commission will create a joint office of science and analysis. The Commission will also create and manage two bi-national Basin Councils, one for the Colorado and one for the Rio Grande. Membership of the councils will include stakeholders, experts, and government representatives. The Councils, with support from the science office, will have three tasks: (1) prepare and update a basin water and development plan; (2) recommend to governments and binational institutions (North American Development Bank and Border Environment Cooperation Commission) improvements to water infrastructure and management; and (3) convene temporary task forces to study urgent issues, such as drought, groundwater management and regional impacts of climate change. In the sub-basins small water task forces will be created. They will be responsible for preparing a regional water plan, formulating proposals for action, and addressing specific issues as they may arise. Each regional committee will work with local universities to receive scientific support of its work. Sub-basin water committees will work closely with the Basin Councils in sharing information, developing the water plan for the whole basin, and discussing action proposals. A prototype regional water task force, with membership from Mexico and the United States, has been at work since 1999 in the Las Cruces–El Paso–Ciudad Jua´rez subbasin of the Rio Grande [20]. 4. Conclusion Existing water management institutions need to broaden their scope and capacity to perform the tasks of integrated basin management. Integrated assessments of water supply and demand, sustainability (not just environmental) assessments of proposed basin improvements, as well as state-of-the art geographical information systems are critically important tools for basin management. Building on experience gained in France, the European Union, Australia, and California, capacity for sustainability science needs to be built both at basin and sub-basin levels.
References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
[7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
United Nations. Our common future. London, New York: Oxford University Press; 1988. United Nations. Agenda 21: Program for action on sustainable development. 1992. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/agenda21.htm Meadows DH, Meadows DL, editors. The limits to growth: a report to the Club of Rome. London: Potomac Associates Book; 1972. National Academy of Science/National Research Council. Our common journey: a transition toward sustainability. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999. Newson M. Land, water and development: sustainable management of river basin systems, 2nd ed. London, New York: Routledge; 1997. Solanes M, Gonzalez-Villarreal F. The Dublin principles for water as reflected in a comparative assessment of institutional and legal arrangements for integrated water resources management. Global Water Partnership, Chile, 1999. See also: http://www. thewaterpage/SolanesDublin.html French Water Law no. 64-1245 of 16th December 1964 regarding the regime and distribution of water, and water pollution control (Journal official, December 18, 1964). See also: http://www.oieau.fr/anglais/gest_eau/lois/loi64an.htm French Water Act of January 3, 1992, Law no. 92-3, On Water, (Journal official, January 4, 1992. p. 187). See also: http:// www.oieau.fr/anglais/gest_eau/lois/watlaw92.htm European Union. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy, 2000. See also: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html Goss K. Report card—Murray–Darling Basin—2001. Water Sci Technol 2002;45:133–44. Global Water Partnership. The Murray–Darling Commission. Toolbox: integrated water resources management, Case #25. 2004. See also: www.gwp.ihe.nl/wwGwpORGwroot//
ARTICLE IN PRESS 2360
J. Schmandt / Energy 31 (2006) 2350–2360
[12] California Environmental Protection Agency and California Resources Agency. Memorandum of Understanding for the Watershed, Clean Beaches, and Water Quality Act, Integrated Watershed Management Program. April 28, 2003. See also: www.resources.ca./ gov/watershed_mou.html [13] Heathcote IW. Integrated watershed management: principles and practice. New York: Wiley; 1998. [14] Houston Advanced Research Center and Instituto Tecnolo´gico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Water and Sustainable Development in the Binational Lower Rio Grande/Rı´ o Bravo Basin. Final report to the US Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. See also: http://www.harc.edu/mitchellcenter/mexico/downloads.html [15] Aguilar-Baraja I, Mathis M, Schmandt J. Water security and economic development in the Binational Rio Grande/Rı´ o Bravo Basin, USA/Mexico. SIWI. Report 13. Stockholm International Water Institute, 2001. p. 79–87. [16] Projeto A´ridas. A strategy for sustainable development in Brazil’s Northeast. Brasilia: Ministry of Planning and the Budget; 1995. [17] Schmandt J. Binational water issues in the Rio Grande/Rı´ o Bravo Basin. Water Policy 2002;4:137–53. [18] Nitze WA. The Role of climate change and climate variability in water management in the US–Mexico border region: a challenge for the BECC, the NADB and the International Boundary and Water Commission, 2004. Report to the US Environmental Protection Agency. [19] Mumme SP, Barajas IA. Managing border water to the year 2020: the challenge of sustainable development. In: Michel S, editor. The US–Mexican border environment: binational water management planning. San Diego: San Diego State University Press; 2003. [20] For membership, organization and activities of the Paso del Norte Water Task Force see http://www.sharedwater.org