INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT: THE … · measurement and monitoring Brought to you by: Precipitation Monitoring OTT Pluvio2 Precipitation Gauge All-weather weighing precipitation

American Water Resources Association

May 2011 | Volume 13 | Number 3

INTEGRATED WATERRESOURCES MANAGEMENT:

THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHESOR INDISPENSABLE PROCESS?

May 2011 | Volume 13 | Number 3

INTEGRATED WATERRESOURCES MANAGEMENT:

THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHESOR INDISPENSABLE PROCESS?

Innovating the technology behind better dataBecause you depend on data – despite any unpredictability – we deliver

advanced instruments that simplify how you measure water quantity and quality.

No other measurement technologies are more accurate and hassle-free.

To learn more visit, www.hachhydromet.com or call1-800-949-3766.

Your leading names in water measurement and monitoring

Brought toyou by:

Precipitation Monitoring

OTT Pluvio2

Precipitation Gauge All-weather weighingprecipitation gauge.

Water Quality Monitoring

Hach LDO®

Breakthrough luminescent dissolved oxygen technology.

Water Level Monitoring

OTT RLSNon-contact radar level sensor.

INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT:THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHESOR INDISPENSABLE PROCESS?

MICHAEL E. CAMPANA ~ Guest Associate [email protected]

ERIC J. FITCH ~ Associate [email protected]

IWRM is easy to talk about but hard to implement. -- Unknown

So said an anonymous worker in Latin America. What exactlyis Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM)? According tothe Global Water Partnership, IWRM is a “process which promotesthe coordinated development and management of water, land, andrelated resources in order to maximize the resultant economic andsocial welfare in an equitable manner without compromising thesustainability of vital ecosystems.” Based on this definition, anIWRM approach should include just about everything. It’s a holis-tic approach that provides some indication of why it is hard to im-plement in the field.

The six articles in this issue, which serves as a prelude toAWRA’s Summer Specialty Conference, explore various facets ofIWRM. We hope to whet your appetite so that you will join us inSnowbird, Utah, June 27-29. Who knows? The Emperor may bethere, new clothes and all!

FEATURE ARTICLES

3 Integrated Water Resources Management: BringingIt All Together ... Kenneth F. Najjar & Carol R. CollierSo why is IWRM so hard? Why has it advanced so slowly andtypically only at the conceptual level? The authors, explore theobstacles to integrated management, review the flip side todemonstrate the opportunities for improved water resourceoutcomes, and present case studies.

9 California’s IRWM Program: A Regional Framework forIntegrated Water Resources Management ... AlysonWatson, Rosalyn Prickett, Ali Taghavi, & Thomas West

Nearly ten years ago, California started implementing integratedregional water planning, known as Integrated Regional WaterManagement (IRWM) planning. The authors describe this uniqueapproach to water resources planning and the lessons learned.

14 Integrated Water Resources Management and Impactat the Community Level in Rwanda ... Stephanie OgdenThe author’s task was to critically examine Rwanda’s imple-mentation of IWRM. She went to the field to see first handIWRM on the ground, and reports what she found.

17 The Use of Collaborative Modeling in Decision Makingfor IWRM ... Guillermo F. Mendoza & Hal E. CardwellDoes modeling have a role in the implementation of IWRM? Theauthors answer in the affirmatve, and illustrate that collabora-tive modeling is a powerful, practical, and tested tool to imple-ment IWRM at the river basin level.

21 The International Center for Integrated WaterResources Management (ICIWaRM): New Opportunitiesfor Scientists, Engineers, Managers, and Planners toEngage With UNESCO ... Robert A. Pietrowsky,Eugene Z. Stakiv, & William S. LoganThe authors describe the creation and mission of ICIWaRM, anew UNESCO center based in the United States that will pro-mote IWRM and international opportunities for waterresources professionals.

25 Managing One Water ... Benjamin H. GrumblesThe author describes the concept of One Water, the newmantra of urban water leaders that is analogous to IWRM asit prescribes a unified approach to water management. Doesit work? Read about the efforts of Los Angeles and New YorkCity.

Other features in this issue ...

� AWRA BUSINESS

24 Highlights of April 2011 JAWRA Papers

27 Send Us Your Feedback

32 President’s Message

34 Candidates for AWRA Officers andDirectors ... 2012

34 AWRA 2011 CONFERENCESMark Your Calendars | Submit an Abstract |

35 Water Resources IMPACT ... 2011Scheduled Topics for Future Issues

36 Advertising Opportunities in IMPACT

37 AWRA Membership Application for 2011

� OPINION COLUMNS

29 The New Economy of Water ... Water IndicesContinue to Cascade ... Skye Root andClay J. Landry

30 What’s Up With Water ... Acolus, TheKobayashi Maru and “What the Frak(Frack)?” ... Eric J. Fitch

31 Could We Do Better? ... The BP Gulf OilSpill: Planning and Protecting Water andWater Infrastructure ... Laurel E. Phoenix

(Opinions expressed by our columnists are their ownand do not represent the opinion or position of AWRA.)

�WATER RESOURCES PUZZLER . . . . . . . 28Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

� ADVERTISERS

Hach Hydromet . . . . . . . . .Inside Front CoverCampbell Scientific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13GoldSim Technology Group, LLC . . . . . . . .23Colorado State University . . . . . . . . . . . . .27Fondriest Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33Join AWRA on Facebook, Linkedin,and Twitter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Engineering & Science CareerNetwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Think JAWRA When Publishinga Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Back Cover

CommunityConversationConnections®

VOLUME 13 • NUMBER 3 • MAY 2011

¡¡

2 • Water Resources IMPACT May • 2011

AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION4 West Federal Street • P.O. Box 1626

Middleburg, VA 20118-1626(540) 687-8390 / Fax: (540) 687-8395

E-Mail: [email protected] • Homepage: www.awra.org

EDITOR-IN-CHIEFN. EARL SPANGENBERGCollege of Natural Resources

University of Wisconsin-Stevens PointStevens Point, WI 54481

(715) 346-2372 • Fax: (715) 346-3624E-Mail: [email protected]

(Support for Dr. Spangenberg is provided by theCollege of Natural Resources

University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point)

TO PLACE AN AD IN THIS PUBLICATION CONTACTCHARLENE E. YOUNG

Phone/Fax: (256) 650-0701E-Mail: [email protected]

Water Resources IMPACT is owned and published bi-month-ly by the American Water Resources Association, 4 WestFederal St., P.O. Box 1626, Middleburg, Virginia 20118-1626, USA. The yearly subscription rate is $80.00 domesticand $95.00 for international subscribers. For the Interna-tional Priority Shipping Option, add $50.00 to the interna-tional subscription rate. Single copies of IMPACT are avail-able for $15.00/each (domestic) and $20.00/each (interna-tional). For bulk purchases, contact the AWRA Headquartersoffice.

IMPACT is a magazine of ideas. Authors, Associate Edi-tors, and the Editor-In-Chief work together to create a pub-lication that will inform and will provoke conversation. Theviews and conclusions expressed by individual authors andpublished in Water Resources IMPACT should not be inter-preted as necessarily representing the official policies, eitherexpressed or implied, of the American Water Resources As-sociation.

Mention of any trademark or proprietary product in workspublished in the Water Resources IMPACT does not consti-tute a guarantee or warranty of the product by the AmericanWater Resources Association and does not imply its approvalto the exclusion of other products that may also be suitable.

Contact the AWRA HQ Office if you have any questionspertaining to your membership status. For information onadvertising rates and deadlines, contact Charlene Young atthe e-mail address or phone number given above.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Water ResourcesIMPACT, American Water Resources Association, 4 West Fed-eral St., P.O. Box 1626, Middleburg, VA 20118-1626. Copy-right © 2011 by the American Water Resources Association.

• VOL. 13 • NO. 3 • MAY 2011 •ISSN 1522-3175

A Bi-Monthly Publication of theAMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

ASSOCIATE EDITORS

JOE BERG(www.biohabitats.com)

Biohabitats, Inc.Baltimore, Maryland

ERIC J. FITCH([email protected])Marietta CollegeMarietta, Ohio

MICHELLE HENRIE([email protected])

MHenrie | Land Water LawSanta Fe, New Mexico

JONATHAN E. JONES([email protected])Wright Water Engineers

Denver, Colorado

CLAY J. LANDRY([email protected])

WestWater ResearchBoise, Idaho

RICHARD H. MCCUEN([email protected])University of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland

LAUREL E. PHOENIX([email protected])University of WisconsinGreen Bay, Wisconsin

RICHARD A. ENGBERG([email protected])

American Water Resources AssociationMiddleburg, Virginia

SKYE ROOT([email protected])

WestWater ResearchBoise, Idaho

AWRA . . . Community,Conversation,Connections®

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT

SUBSCRIPTION RATES ~ WATER RESOURCES IMPACT

DOMESTIC ................................................................$80.00FOREIGN ..................................................................$95.00INTERNATIONAL PRIORITY SHIPPING OPTION .....................$50.00

COVER PHOTOS: WATER TREATMENT PLANT IN GEORGIA, MIS-SISSIPPI RIVER LOCK AND DAM, CALIFORNIA WATER CANAL,(istock photo.com).

INTRODUCTION

Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) hasbeen a key topic of discussion over the past decade. Therecognition that for the best environmental outcomeswater should be managed holistically rather than in com-partments is seldom disputed. The benefits of integratedmanagement include improvements in water supplyplanning, better water quality control, scale appropriatesystem management, equitable protection of in-streamand off-stream uses, and more cost effective solutions.Yet implementation of IWRM has gained little tractiondue to the inherent difficulties of this management ap-proach.

So why is integrated management so hard? Why hasthe approach advanced so slowly and typically only at theconceptual level? What would it take to propel this con-cept into reality with improved measurable resource out-comes? This article explores the obstacles to integratedmanagement, reviews the flip side to demonstrate the op-portunities for improved water resource outcomes, andpresents case studies.

OBSTACLES TO INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT

Managing water resources is akin to solving a jigsawpuzzle that continually changes, so you never really getto finish it, frame it and put it on a wall. Figure 1 illus-trates the water management puzzle and technical con-text of its pieces in two dimensions. Yet it falls short ofdescribing a multidimensional puzzle that stretches theimagination. The puzzle really includes many physical,behavioral and political pieces that are continuallychanging yet must fit together. Thus, the shape and sizeof the puzzle is subject to change on continual temporaland spatial bases. One might look at the physical puzzleas one that can be readily solved through science, engi-neering and planning. However, water remains mysteri-ous even in the physical realm as it decides its owncourse through soils and geology, on the surface, and inthe atmosphere. Throw in the stochastic (random) natureof nature (climate, rainfall, transport, storage, etc.) andmanaging water to meet human and environmentalneeds is already a daunting task.

Now, let’s have some fun and add in some of the po-litical aspects of water management. Inconvenient fact:watershed boundaries differ from political boundaries.Furthermore, political boundaries are clearly understoodby the public, as states, counties, and municipalitiescontinue to define the lands in their jurisdictions, and inmany cases further distancing themselves from neigh-boring jurisdictions. Watershed boundaries are not clear-ly defined and/or understood in the minds of most peo-ple. Yet in order to manage water effectively political bar-riers need to be softened and watershed boundaries need

to be respected. Since many federal, state, and local lawsand regulations provide water resources management onlimited geographic areas or for single purposes (e.g.,water quality), the opportunities for united planning andmanagement become limited. In addition, rules and reg-ulations from a variety of regulatory bodies are often un-coordinated in meeting environmental endpoints. For ex-ample, approvals issued by a state public utility commis-sion may conflict with water supply and conservation ob-jectives in a region or watershed.

Finally, we must look to human behavior to see if in-tegrated management is at all possible given that ourminds prefer to organize by division. Ultimately, the wayour water resources are managed depends on how wateris viewed, either as private property that individuals areentitled to, or as a common resource that needs to beprotected for future generations. Managing water re-sources on a watershed basis and integrating all aspects– water supply, water quality, ground water, surfacewater, flooding, stormwater, droughts, stream flows,channel stability, etc. – will require a lot of public educa-tion and collaboration in order to realize the necessarycultural and behavioral changes.

Volume 13 • Number 3 Water Resources IMPACT • 3

IINNTTEEGGRRAATTEEDD WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT::BBRRIINNGGIINNGG IITT AALLLL TTOOGGEETTHHEERR

KKeennnneetthh FF.. NNaajjjjaarr aanndd CCaarrooll RR.. CCoolllliieerr

Figure 1: The Water Management Puzzle(Source: Delaware River Basin Commission, 2011).

Can we really perform integrated water manage-ment within the framework of existing federaland state laws or do we need to rethink ourapproach to water ... at this time there is noone agency tasked with water management

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVED WATERRESOURCE OUTCOMES

Can we really perform integrated water managementwithin the framework of existing federal and state laws ordo we need to rethink our approach to water? At thistime, there is no one agency tasked with water manage-ment. The duty is spread over multiple agencies at thefederal and state level as well as local governments. Itmakes sense to have different water managementschemes across the country due to the vast environmen-tal and socioeconomic differences, but do we need a na-tional water vision and management strategy in order tobe better stewards of the resource as well as more inter-nationally competitive as a country?

No matter if we are thinking nationally or for a localwatershed, some of the considerations for an IWRM pro-gram are:

• Holistically manage water as a single resource – “one water.”

• Manage by watershed boundaries.• Consider how upstream actions affect downstream

uses.• Coordinate regulatory and grant programs.• Merge water quantity and quality programs.• Jointly manage surface and ground water.• Integrate water uses/withdrawals, discharges, run-

off, and in-stream flows.• Consider water supply needs for humans and eco-

logical communities.• Plan regionally and implement locally.• Collaborate on watershed efforts – bringing people

together.• Provide decision makers with evidence of the eco-

nomic and environmental value of IWRM.• Educate for protection at the local level.

CASE STUDIES

So let’s see what happens when we try to implementa program to holistically manage water resources. Twocase studies will be used to illustrate IWRM: (1) DelawareRiver Basin – a multistate,13,500 mi2 river basin, and (2) Wissahickon Creek (Montgomery County, Pennsylvania)– a 40 sq. mi. watershed.

Delaware River Basin

How do you manage a 13,500 square mile watershed(see Figure 2) that drains portions of four states and sup-plies water to over 15 million people, including the resi-dents of New York City and Philadelphia? This is an es-pecially difficult question in an area of the country with“local rule” where the 838 municipalities of the basincontrol land use decisions. Figure 3 illustrates thisdaunting task by overlaying municipal as well as countyand state boundaries on the basin map. It was deter-mined back in the 1950s that no one state was able tomanage the shared waters of the basin so a DelawareRiver Basin Interstate/Federal Compact was signed intolaw by President Kennedy and the Delaware River Basin

Commission (or DRBC) was formed in 1961 (DRBC,1961).

While there is not complete integration of water man-agement in the basin, the Commission does regulate sur-face water and ground water withdrawals, sets waterquality standards, regulates effluent discharges, andprovides for equitable water allocation among the fourstates. The members of the Commission are the Gover-nors of the four basin states – Pennsylvania (PA), NewJersey (NJ), New York (NY), and Delaware (DE), as well asa general in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)who represents the President and all federal agencies.

The commission has a small staff and the work isdone in partnership with the state and federal agenciesand multiple stakeholders. One of the most important as-pects of the Commission is that it provides a forum foradaptive management. Natural resources are alwayschanging – new science, new storms of record, new ana-lytical techniques, etc. – and the DRBC provides thevenue to assess the impacts and change course whenneeded. Over the years major issues have included:cleaning up conventional pollutants in the urban areas ofthe basin, facilitating changes to the Supreme Court De-cree on allocation of water to New York City and the downbasin states, mitigating flood impacts, cleaning up of per-sistent bioaccumulative toxics, and regulating naturalgas development. For more information check the Com-mission’s website at www.DRBC.net.

Wissahickon Creek

A microcosm of integrated river basin management iswatershed management. The watershed scale is muchsmaller, which may not make it much simpler to manage,but it offers greater opportunity for cooperation. One ap-plication of IWRM on the watershed level is a SpecialArea Management Plan (SAMP) prepared for the UpperWissahickon Creek watershed in Montgomery County,PA in 2008 (DRBC and Montgomery County PlanningCommission, 2008). The plan was prepared in accor-dance with the Pennsylvania Water Resources PlanningAct 220 and is expected to be used as a model for futureSAMPs in PA. One of the key requirements of Act 220 isthe identification of critical water planning areas whereprojected future demands exceed or nearly exceed theamount of water that will be available for use or whereother significant water resource impacts are expected. PAAct 220 calls for a plan to be prepared for these water-sheds to evaluate future water conflicts and provide amore detailed analysis of water supply, water quality,stormwater, and flooding issues.

Wissahickon Creek is a tributary of the SchuylkillRiver, which is the largest tributary to the Delaware River(see Figure 4). The Upper Wissahickon Creek study areaoccupies 40 square miles, constituting the upper two-thirds of the Wissahickon Creek watershed. WissahickonCreek supports a diversity of uses, including fishing,swimming, and drinking water within its watershedboundaries. Despite its urban/suburban setting, Wis-sahickon Creek has great historical significance and isecologically diverse.


IInntteeggrraatteedd WWaatteerr RReessoouurrcceess MMaannaaggeemmeenntt:: BBrriinnggiinngg IItt AAllll TTooggeetthheerr .. .. .. ccoonntt’’dd..



Figure 2. Map of Delaware River Basin(Source: Delaware River Basin Commission, 2011).


Figure 3: Municipal Overlay on Delaware River Basin(Source: Delaware River Basin Commission, 2011).


The Upper Wissahickon Creek study area (see Figure5) is facing numerous issues affecting its water qualityand flow. Since 1970, over 7,500 acres (30% of the wa-tershed area) have been developed, placing an ever-in-creasing demand on Wissahickon Creek to provide forand support commercial and residential users, withinand outside of the study area. Since the Upper Wis-sahickon watershed is projected to continue growing at asteady pace over the next several decades, it is critical toensure an adequate supply of suitable quality water forexisting and anticipated human uses and ecosystemneeds. Some of the challenges to achieving this outcomeinclude: low base flow, channel instability, degradedwater quality, and flooding.

The success of the Upper Wissahickon Creek SAMPlies in two critical aspects of the project: (1) the ability tointegrate previously separate water resource problemsinto a single planning process and (2) a strong collabora-tion effort. In our view the only possible way to integratewater resources management that merges the technical,political and behavioral aspects noted above, is througha collaborative process.

Stakeholders brought together for the project wereasked to address the water resource concerns of the wa-tershed. The Upper Wissahickon Advisory Committee consists of over 40 stakeholders from a diverse spectrumof disciplines and interests, including environmental and



Figure 4. Upper Wissahickon Creek Location Map(Source: Montgomery County Planning

Planning Commission, 2011).

Figure 5. Upper Wissahickon Creek Location Map (Source: Montgomery County Planning Commission, 2011).

watershed organizations, municipal officials, water sup-pliers, industrial representatives, and state and regionalofficials with expertise in the watershed. Facilitators withtechnical and planning expertise provided a collaborativeand interactive environment for the advisory committeeto share their expertise on local impacts to water re-sources and potential future improvements during fourmeetings over one year. One meeting in particular in-cluded breakout sessions to facilitate problem solving byutilizing a planning toolkit for focused discussion andbreak-out sessions.

It became clear during the process that the solutionset required to address water resource impacts in theUpper Wissahickon watershed would be too broad with-out some way of integrating across problem areas formultipurpose solutions (i.e., the most bang for the buck).This established an economic incentive for integration.The results of collaborative efforts towards IWRM includethe development of six recommendations:

1. Retrofit Stormwater Basins,2. Review and Update Ordinances.3. Protect Source Water.4. Restore Stream Channels and Riparian Corri-

dors, 5. Educate Homeowners to Implement Backyard

Best Management Practices.6. Create a Stormwater Partnership.

Each recommendation focuses on an identified prob-lem and includes a specific implementation strategy foreach area of the watershed. Implementation of the planwill help balance economic vitality and environmentalquality in this area. The recommendations developed toaddress these issues can be helpful to watersheds facedwith water supply, water quality and other problems thatare best addressed through integrated management.

REFERENCES

Delaware River Basin Commission, 1961. Delaware River Basin Compact. Available at http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/regs/ compa.pdf.

Delaware River Basin Commission, 2011. Maps. Available athttp://www.state.nj.us/drbc/edweb/maps.htm.

Delaware River Basin Commission and Montgomery County Planning Commission, 2008. Upper Wissahickon Special Area Management Plan. Available at http://planning.montcopa.org/planning/cwp/view.a.1607.q.63757.asp.

Montgomery County Planning Commission, 2011. Maps. Avail-able at http://planning.montcopa.org/planning/cwp/view.a.1607.q.58703.asp

Kenneth F. Najjar, Ph.D., P.E.Branch ManagerPlanning & Information Technology Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC)

25 State Police DriveWest Trenton, NJ 08628(609) 883-9500 x256Fax: (609) 883-9522

[email protected]@drbc.state.nj.us

www.drbc.net

Kenneth F. Najjar, Ph.D., P.E. is Manager of the Planningand IT Branch of the DRBC, where he is responsible forcomprehensive planning for the 13,500 sq. mi. riverbasin, watershed planning, water quality management,Special Protection Waters program, water sup-ply/demand studies, water conservation, data manage-ment systems, regulatory programs, and public educa-tion and outreach. In addition, Dr. Najjar is an AdjunctProfessor at Villanova University and Rider University,where he teaches courses in Civil/Environmental Engi-neering and Geological, Environmental and Marine Sci-ences.

� � �



AUTHOR LINK

E-MAIL

WEBSITE

VISIT www.AWRA.org for thelatest conference information andjoin AWRA June 27-29, 2011,in Snowbird, Utah, for AWRA’sSummer Specialty Conference

“INTEGRATED WATERRESURCES MANAGEMENT:

THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHESOR INDISPENSABLE PROCESS?”

COMMUNITY, CONVERSATION,CONNECTIONS

NETWORKING OPPORTUNITIESGALORE

DON’T MISS THIS UNIQUEOPPORTUNITY TO

ATTEND A GREAT MEETING!

SEE CENTER PGS IN THISISSUE FOR DETAILS

Highlights...Information...HappeningsRegistration Form

Program-at-a-GlanceH H H

DON’T MISS ANY OF AWRA’SFUTURE MEETINGS

SEE A COMPLETE LISTINGON PG. 34

Each day, water resource managers throughout theUnited States are faced with the challenge of balancingcompeting needs for increasingly precious water suppliesincluding drinking water, environmental needs, recre-ation, and other uses. Integrated water resource man-agement techniques allow optimization of limited sup-plies by identifying multibenefit solutions that incorpo-rate the needs and concerns of a variety of stakeholders.

Nearly ten years ago, the State of California em-barked on a venture to implement integrated planning atthe regional level, known as Integrated Regional WaterManagement (IRWM) planning. Over time, this programhas evolved into a major water resources planning frame-work implemented statewide, and the California WaterPlan cites IRWM as a new paradigm for water planning.Through the IRWM program, the State of California hasencouraged collaboration among water supply andwastewater agencies, flood control and stormwater pro-tection districts, resource and regulatory agencies, non-governmental organizations, local governments, and vol-unteer groups to enhance integration in water manage-ment planning – all at the regional level. Through thisplanning framework, the efforts of individual entities andcommunities are combined to leverage resources andmeet multiple water resource management objectives.Figure 1 identifies the 46 IRWM regions currently en-gaged in IRWM planning in California.

This unique approach to water resources planning –and the lessons learned through years of implementationin California – may serve as a model for other states andregions currently struggling to find the best way to en-gage vastly different stakeholders in a truly inclusive andintegrated water resources management planningprocess. The following sections provide background onthe program and its evolution, as well as examples ofsome of the regional planning efforts underway.

BACKGROUND

In November 2004, the California Department ofWater Resources (DWR) and the State Water ResourcesControl Board (SWRCB) jointly released guidelines for thenew IRWM Planning program. The program was fundedby $500 million made available by Proposition 50, theWater Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and BeachProtection Act of 2002.

The intent of the initial IRWM Program was to pro-mote a new model for water management by encouragingintegrated regional strategies for management of waterresources and to provide funding, through competitivegrants, for projects that protect communities fromdrought, protect and improve water quality, and improvelocal water security by reducing dependence on water im-ported from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta andColorado River. Funding for integrated planning and pro-ject implementation at the regional level was a majorcomponent of the program, providing incentive for re-gions to engage in this new form of planning. Plans de-veloped through the program were required to address aseries of requirements – preparation by three or more en-tities with water management authority; identification ofregional water management objectives and prioritiesspanning multiple water management functional areas;integration of water management strategies to achieve re-gional objectives; and engagement of the public, includ-ing disadvantaged and environmental justice (DAC andEJ) communities – in robust stakeholder involvement ef-forts.


This unique approach to water resources planning –and the lessons learned through years of imple-mentation throughout California – may serve as amodel for other states and regions currentlystruggling to find the best way to engage vastlydifferent stakeholders in a truly inclusive and integrated water resources management planningprocess

CCAALLIIFFOORRNNIIAA’’SS IIRRWWMM PPRROOGGRRAAMM:: AA RREEGGIIOONNAALL FFRRAAMMEEWWOORRKKFFOORR IINNTTEEGGRRAATTEEDD WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT

AAllyyssoonn WWaattssoonn,, RRoossaallyynn PPrriicckkeetttt,, AAllii TTaagghhaavvii,, aanndd TThhoommaass WWeesstt

Figure 1. The Majority of California is CurrentlyOrganized Into 46 IRWM Planning Regions.

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

The IRWM Plans developed through Proposition 50represented the first generation of IRWM planning. Fol-lowing Proposition 50, an additional $1 billion in fundingwas made available for IRWM planning and implementa-tion through passage of the Safe Drinking Water, WaterQuality and Supply, Flood Control, River and CoastalProtection Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 84), providingfurther incentive for regions to redouble their IRWMplanning efforts. With this next wave of funding, DWRimplemented a series of changes designed to enhance theIRWM program and refocus attention in the areas identi-fied in Table 1.

REGIONAL DIVERSITY

California’s water resources are marked by tremen-dous diversity, and this diversity is reflected in its IRWMplanning regions. Currently, there are 46 approvedIRWM regions in California, including very rural, agricul-turally-focused regions, as well as highly urbanized re-gions. The following examples, highlighted in Figure 2,represent just a few of the many, diverse IRWM regionsengaged in planning statewide.

IRWM Planning in a Highly UrbanizedRegion: Los Angeles

The Greater Los Angeles County IRWM Planning Re-gion, largely comprised of the coastal watersheds of LosAngeles County, is home to more than 9 million resi-dents. The population size and density, coupled with agenerally arid climate prone to occasional, intense rainevents, creates significant water management challenges.As imported supplies that have sustained the region formore than 30 years become less reliable due to environ-mental constraints and long-term drought, focus is shift-ing to local water resources, such as water recycling,conservation, desalination, stormwater capture, andground water recovery. Urban runoff continues to createissues with trash, bacteria, metals and nutrients in theregion’s streams and beaches. Finally, as urban sprawlover the past 70 years has eliminated over 90 percent ofnative ecologies and open space, tremendous interestand value is being placed on preserving what remainsand creating restoration opportunities where possible.

To address these needs, the region’s water manage-ment entities have formed a multilayered institutionalstructure that provides for both region-wide planning aswell as more specialized planning at the watershed level.This structure has achieved a number of significant mile-stones, including establishing combined water manage-ment objectives for water supply, water quality and environmental needs; identifying and prioritizing projects


CCaalliiffoorrnniiaa’’ss IIRRWWMM PPrrooggrraamm:: AA RReeggiioonnaall FFrraammeewwoorrkk ffoorr IInntteeggrraatteedd WWaatteerr RReessoouurrcceess MMggmmtt.. .. .. .. ccoonntt’’dd..

Table 1. Summary of IRWM Program Enhancements.

Focus Area Initial Approach Program Modifications

Regional Boundaries The definition of regional boundaries was left A formal Regional Acceptance Process wasto the regions. The result was mixed - some developed, which required regions to justifyregions represented large areas covering their boundaries in order to quality for futuremultiple jurisdictions with complex water program funding. This process providedresources challenges, while other regions assurances at the State level that planningwere equally limited in scope. was being conducted at an appropriate scale.

Governance The concept of developing a unified, long- Regions were asked to develop long-term self-term governance and institutional structure sustaining governance and institutionalamong newly cooperating agencies was new, structures that could further regionaland many regions needed additional time to planning even in the absence of future grantachieve consensus on an appropriate funding.structure for governance, decision-making,and long-term planning.

Geographic Equity Under Proposition 50, all regions competed Under Proposition 84, available funding wasfor funding at the State level. This was a divided among hydrologic unit “funding very competitive program, and many regions areas” based on population. Regionswent unfunded. competed for the funding allocated to their

respective funding areas.

Disadvantaged While DACs and EJ communities were A portion of funding was reserved specificallyCommunity addressed in the first phase of IRWM for DAC and EJ capacity building, andAssistance planning, the logistics associated with additional emphasis was placed on DAC and

engaging DACs and EJ communities at the EJ engagement.regional level proved challenging at best.

to achieve these objectives; and preparing a region-wideIRWM Plan.

IRWM Planning in a Rural Region:Mokelumne/Amador/Calaveras (M/A/C) Region

The M/A/C IRWM region consists of Amador County andportions of three other counties in the Sierra Nevadafoothills of Northern California. The approximately1,950-square-mile, primarily rural region derives muchof its water supply from the Mokelumne, Calaveras, and Consumnes River watersheds. Although the region is

famous for its mining history (asbestos, gold, industrialminerals, limestone, sand and gravel), current land usesalso include cattle ranching, orchards, timber, vineyardsand row crops. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) operatesmultiple hydroelectric facilities in the region.

Unlike many IRWM regions, the M/A/C region in-cludes an abundance of rivers, creeks, ponds, lakes, andreservoirs, including the Upper Mokelumne River,stretches of which have been designated as wild andscenic. As such, the region is home to a number ofthreatened, endangered, and special status species. Keyregional objectives include maximizing coordination

among individual water dis-trict, agency, and city pro-grams for mutual benefit andoptimal regional gain, and de-veloping collaborative pro-grams that extend beyond thecapability of a single entity.Challenges facing the regioninclude limited resourcesspread over a relatively largegeographic area.

Stakeholder-Driven IRWMPlanning: San Diego

The San Diego IRWM regionincludes 11 small, parallelwatersheds that discharge tocoastal bays, estuaries, or la-goons within San Diego Coun-ty. The region contains ap-proximately 3 million resi-dents, including 18 NativeAmerican reservations.Coastal areas of the region areurbanized, but significantopen space exists in the upperwatersheds. Precipitation andstreamflows are highly sea-sonal. Depending on hydro-logic conditions, importedwater supplied from NorthernCalifornia and the ColoradoRiver comprises 70 to 90 per-cent of the region’s water sup-ply. The IRWM program seeksto expand local supply diversi-ty through aggressive waterconservation, stormwater cap-ture, ground water develop-ment, and recycling. Keywater quality issues associat-ed with coliform bacteria, nu-trients, salinity, metals, andtoxic organic compounds areaddressed through sourcewater protection and streamrestoration throughout the re-gion’s watersheds.



Figure 2. IRWM Region Examples

The San Diego IRWM program has a tiered gover-nance structure with a management group including SanDiego County Water Authority, City of San Diego, andCounty of San Diego; a regional advisory committee; andad-hoc workgroups. Maintaining a dynamic stakeholderoutreach program has allowed the IRWM program toserve as a forum for discussion of timely water resourcetopics, such as salinity and nutrient management inground water supplies. Additionally, San Diego is one ofthree regions in Southern California working together toensure funding and regulatory certainty. Current plan-ning addresses surface water quality regulations and therole of recycled water in augmenting river flows. The suc-cess of this collaborative effort has been shared through-out California as a model for integrated planning.

IRWM Planning in an AgriculturalRegion: Kings County

The Kings Basin is located in the-central SanJoaquin Valley in California and is bounded on the northby the San Joaquin River and the Kings River on thesouth and west. The Kings Basin includes Fresno, Tu-lare, and Kings Counties. Agriculture is the principal in-dustry in the county. In 2000, Fresno County was the topagricultural producer in the nation, with major crops in-cluding: grapes, cotton, almonds, tomatoes, fruit, andmilk.

The Upper Kings Basin Water Management Authori-ty was formed based on a shared vision to coordinatewater management strategies and a planning process tothe ground water overdraft conditions of the basin. Theoverdraft problem in an expansive and interconnectedground water basin cannot be effectively managed bylocal measures and actions taken individually by overly-ing users. In addition, a comprehensive exploration ofwater resources management alternatives requires an in-tegrated look at the entire watershed and ground waterbasin beyond the jurisdictional boundaries of any singlelocal agency. Key issues facing this primarily rural, agri-cultural region differ from those experienced by morerural regions and include the challenge of engagingstakeholders over a large, rural area and overcoming sig-nificant funding hurdles.

THE FUTURE OF IRWM

IRWM Regions throughout California are currentlycompeting for funding through Proposition 84. In Febru-ary 2011, DWR recommended more than $21 M in fund-ing for IRWM Plan updates focused in the followingareas.

• Data Management. As regions implement theirIRWM Plans, they will similarly need to implement thedata management programs outlined in these Plans.Plan updates will emphasize data management refine-ments to streamline the process of collecting, compiling,and disseminating the data developed through IRWMPlan implementation.

• Salinity and Nutrient Management. Califor-nia’s Recycled Water Policy requires that Salini-ty/Nutrient Management Plans (SNMPs) be developed tomanage salts, nutrients, and other significant chemicalcompounds on a watershed- or basin-wide basis. TheSNMP goals of ensuring compliance with basin waterquality objectives and protecting ground water beneficialuses ground water overlap with IRWM program goals. Assuch, coming Plan updates will include and/or coordi-nate with regional SNMP efforts.

• Climate Change. IRWM Plan standards havebeen updated to incorporate changes to the resourcemanagement strategies required for consideration. No-tably, plans are now required to consider the impacts ofclimate change on water resources.

• Stormwater and Flood Management. In thewake of Hurricane Katrina, California became acutelyaware of the risk to property and water supplies posed bysevere flooding. Further, compliance with stormwaterquality regulations may cost California cities and coun-ties billions of dollars. The IRWM program, through newguidance and grant funding, is encouraging developmentof integrated flood and stormwater projects that also helpdevelop new water supplies.

CONCLUSIONS

California’s IRWM program has generated significantcoordination among water management entities state-wide. Though imperfect, the program has evolved to bet-ter focus efforts and respond to common challenges facedby planning regions. Key lessons learned from Califor-nia’s program include:

• Adaptive Management is Key. As program is-sues and challenges are identified, the program must besufficiently flexible to respond and adapt. This ongoingadaptive management has enabled planning processes tofocus on changing program needs.

• Different Regions Have Different Needs. Be-cause different regions have significantly different char-acteristics, the needs and drivers of each region vary.The program must allow the planning process to identifythe specific needs to the region, such that effective,multibenefit solutions may be developed.

• Regional Planning is a Process.While differentregions face different challenges, developing a cohesiveworking relationship among differing regional watermanagement interests is a common challenge that in-volves significant time and resources. Identifying a work-able governance structure and decision making processrequires trust and understanding, both of which requiretime to foster.

• IRWM Planning Yields Significant Benefits.Through this planning framework, the efforts of individ-



So is IRWM planning just a passing fad in waterresources management? While early program suc-cesses suggest that this new approach to waterresources management may be here to stay, onlytime will tell

ual entities and communities may be amplified to achievegreater results. Regional collaboration promotes a moreefficient, comprehensive, and effective approach to waterresources management. Regional planning is not a sub-stitute for sound local planning, but it may effectivelycomplement local planning processes to identify greateropportunities at the regional level. An ancillary benefit ofthis new approach to planning is a greater understand-ing of the water needs and challenges among variouswater management entities, including water suppliers,environmental advocacy groups, and regulators.

The IRWM planning program is far from perfect.However, it has spawned a new era of water resourcesmanagement and planning in California. Through thisnew, idealistic approach to water management, regionsacross California strive to achieve their water manage-ment objectives collaboratively, balancing and prioritiz-ing myriad needs for limited water supplies as a collec-tive group.

So is IRWM planning just a passing fad in water re-sources management? While early program successes

suggest that this new approach to water resources man-agement may be here to stay, only time will tell.

Alyson Watson, P.E.Senior Project ManagerRMC Water and Environment222 Sutter Street, 7th FloorSan Francisco, CA 94108(415) 404-6442/Fax: (415) 404-6544Cell: (415) 734-0049

[email protected]@[email protected]@rmcwater.com

Alyson Watson is a Senior Project Manager with RMCWater and Environment in San Francisco, California. Aregistered engineer in California and Massachusetts, Ms.Watson specializes in water supply and water qualityplanning, including integrated water resources manage-ment and has led or supported four IRWM processes.

� � �



1/2-pg. ad.Campbell ScientificSAME AS PG. 15 INMarch 2011 ISSUE

AUTHOR LINK

E-MAIL

At Campbell Scientific, we combine our rugged dataloggers with a variety

of sensor and telemetry products to build stand-alone water monitoring

systems. Whether you need to monitor water quality, level/flow, or both,

we can configure a system that meets your needs.

Find out more: www.campbellsci.com/h2o435.753.2342

Dataloggers, Sensors, Telemetry

35TH ANNIVERSARY

ADVERTISE YOUR PRODUCTS AND SERVICESREACH A WORLD-WIDE WATER RESOURCES AUDIENCE

(SEE PAGE 36 FOR DETAILS)

INTRODUCTION

It has been increasingly observed that ineffectivewater management, rather than a lack of water re-sources, is the greatest obstacle to sustainable water ac-cess in the developing world. While water is considered arenewable resource, its ability to renew itself increasing-ly depends on how it is managed (Haughn, 2009). Waterfor People (WFP; http://www.waterforpeople.org) is aU.S. based nonprofit organization that envisions a worldin which all people have access to safe drinking waterand sanitation, and centers its work on the support of lo-cally sustainable water and sanitation systems in devel-oping countries. If effective water management is indeedan integral component of sustainable water access, thenWater for People – and the development sector as a whole– face the strategic necessity to incorporate improvedwater resources management into its programmatic ac-tivities in order to ensure the fulfillment of its mission.

As Water For People’s 2010 Fellow in Innovation andSustainability, I was tasked with helping the organizationlook more critically at the concept of Integrated Water Re-sources Management (IWRM), and how it might informWater For People’s work in communities across its tencountry programs. I was specifically assigned to conductresearch in Rwanda, where the national government wasin the process of formulating a national IWRM strategy,and dialogue with respect to IWRM was just emergingwithin the political sphere.

The objective of the research was, in essence, to takeinventory of IWRM in Rwanda – to better understand thefactors that were contributing to or hindering IWRM, atthe national, local, and community levels. Essentially, ifIWRM was happening in Rwanda, where was it happen-ing, and how was it being initiated? If IWRM wasn’t hap-pening, where were the hiccups? Furthermore, whatwere the implications for Water For People and its Rwan-da program, and the long term sustainability of the watersystem services the program helped to support?

I conducted dozens of interviews in Rwanda over thecourse of several months. I interviewed government offi-cials at the national and local government levels, includ-ing the smallest subdivision of the local government. I in-terviewed members of local and international NGOs, aswell as attended the sector working group sessions as theIWRM strategy was being discussed at the national level.In addition, I chose two watershed study sites – one ruralwatershed and one peri-urban watershed near the capi-tal city of Kigali – and interviewed dozens of communitymembers up and down each watershed.

CHALLENGES TO IWRM IMPLEMENTATION

Rwanda’s IWRM policy is relatively comprehensive.A National Policy on Water Resources Management is

currently in development, and many of the principles ofIWRM are encompassed within the various Rwanda lawsand policies that govern land, water, and the environ-ment, as well as the two major policies that guide Rwan-da’s strategy for long term development (Vision 2020,and the Economic Development and Poverty ReductionStrategy).

However, according to government officials at variouslevels of government, IWRM is not truly being imple-mented in Rwanda, at least not yet. Throughout inter-views, government and NGO officials consistently identi-fied a series of obstacles to successful implementation.Among those, a general lack of data regarding water re-sources was the most frequently cited obstacle to enact-ing IWRM at any level in Rwanda. Officials in Rwandasaid plainly that they don’t know how much water, ofwhat quality, is where in Rwanda, and that this lack ofbasic hydrological information precludes successfulwater resources policy and management.

Additionally, government and NGO officials identifiedfurther obstacles to pushing IWRM beyond the policylevel, including lacks of: sector coordination between gov-ernment ministries such as Agriculture, Health, and En-vironment; funding to the environmental sector in Rwan-da in favor of funding towards agriculture and produc-tion; and technical capacity for water resources planningand management, particularly at the local governmentlevel. These obstacles to IWRM are not unique to Rwan-da; similar obstacles have been identified in Latin Amer-ica as IWRM has been evaluated there over the course ofthe last decade (Garcia, 2008).

Some government officials and NGO workers at thenational level also identified a general lack of awarenessof water as a scarce resource among the rural populationof Rwanda as a significant obstacle to IWRM. Such lackof awareness, officials reasoned, contributes to irrespon-sible or wasteful water use, as well as hinders environ-mental protection of water sources at the rural level andthe prioritizing of water management.

However, in conducting dozens of interviews at thecommunity level, there was little evidence that communi-ty members were unconscious of water as a scarce re-source. Though community members did not appear tobe engaged in many activities to protect water sources inquantity or in quality and seemed to believe themselveslargely powerless at the community level to do so, no


One woman’s response strikingly exemplified themajority of responses: “We all have to walk forwater. We all know how precious it is. No onewastes water, except for children who don’tknow any better.”

IINNTTEEGGRRAATTEEDD WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT AANNDDIIMMPPAACCTT AATT TTHHEE CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTYY LLEEVVEELL IINN RRWWAANNDDAA

SStteepphhaanniiee OOggddeenn

community members appeared to waste water or use it ina manner perceived to be irresponsible by other commu-nity members. To the contrary, community members,who often access water over long distances and steep,difficult footpaths, express an acute consciousness ofwater use and water management at the household level.

WATER ACCESS, USE, AND MANAGEMENTAT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL

According to interviews conducted in the two water-shed study sites, community members in Rwanda areusing miniscule amounts of water, even when comparedto global minimum standards. The World Health Organi-zation has defined 20 liters per person per day (lpcd) asthe recommended minimum for human subsistenceneeds. Others, such as Peter Gleick of the Pacific Insti-tute, have recommended that 50 lpcd be considered thedaily minimum to maintain long term health and basichygiene. Among those interviewed in the two watershedstudy sites in Rwanda, the estimated average water usewas 12 lpcd for all domestic needs. To put this in per-spective, 12 liters of water is less than two flushes of thetoilet in much of the developed world.

In addition, community members in the two water-sheds walk, on average, about 40 minutes round trip tocollect 20-30 liters of water, primarily from local springs

and streams. Each 20-30 liters of water weighs between44-66 lbs, and walking 40 minutes under such weightpresents a significant physical task. Water collected atthe household scale is used almost exclusively for do-mestic use, including drinking, cooking, washing clothesand dishes, and basic hygiene. Except for very fewhouseholds, water is not being used for irrigation orother similar uses; access is simply too laborious.

When I asked community members whether therewas anyone in the community who wasted water, or usedwater irresponsibly, responses were unanimous: no onewastes water. One woman’s response strikingly exempli-fied the majority of responses: “We all have to walk forwater. We all know how precious it is. No one wasteswater, except for children who don’t know any better.”

When community members across the two water-sheds were asked whether they felt they had enoughwater to meet their needs, more than half responded thatthey felt they had enough. Only 38% of community mem-bers said that they didn’t have enough or sometimes did-n’t have enough water to meet their daily needs. Remem-ber that community members are using, on average, 12liters per person per day for all of their domestic needs.

Though we might suspect that families who feel theyhave enough water are simply using more water thanfamilies who feel they don’t have enough, this doesn’t ap-pear to be the case. Families who feel that they do nothave enough water to meet their daily needs are usingcomparable amounts of water to families that feel they dohave enough (12 lpcd as opposed to 13 lpcd). However,families who respond that they do not have enough waterto meet their needs appear to travel, on average, twice asfar as families that feel they do have enough: 1,100 me-ters as compared to 570 meters.

It appears that the difference in perception betweenfamilies with respect to having enough water is not en-tirely related to the actual amount of water collected orused per person within the home, but rather, to the dis-tance that each family travels to collect water, regardlessof how much water they actually use. Though the sampleof community members conducted in each watershedsite was not large enough to draw statistically significantconclusions, these trends suggest that the concepts ofscarcity and sufficiency encompass more than simplyphysical quantities of water. It appears that, in theseareas of Rwanda at least, the concept of enough does notrely entirely on pure physical existence of a set quantityof water, but also encompasses the hardships that areencountered in obtaining it.

Finally, community members do not appear to be en-gaged in environmental protection of water resources,and appear to perceive themselves largely incapable ofdoing so. Most community initiatives, particularly thoserelating to resource and agricultural management, aremandated at the local government level. Though regulareffort is expended at the community level towards publicconcerns (for example, every last Saturday of the monthin Rwanda is dedicated to community service, and com-munity members are obligated to attend and participate),works are most often prioritized and assigned at the local


IInntteeggrraatteedd WWaatteerr RReessoouurrcceess MMaannaaggeemmeenntt aanndd IImmppaacctt aatt tthhee CCoommmmuunniittyy LLeevveell iinn RRwwaannddaa .. .. .. ccoonntt’’dd..

Figure 1. A Woman in Rural Rwanda Discusses WaterAccess, Use, and Management in Her Community.

government level, rather than being chosen by the com-munity itself.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The challenges to IWRM identified by government of-ficials and NGO practitioners in Rwanda were predomi-nantly consistent. Though commitment to IWRM existsin the policy realm, and IWRM is relatively explicit with-in the Rwandan law emergent in the past decade, IWRMdoes not yet appear to be put into practice beyond thepolicy realm. Obstacles identified throughout interviewsare lacks of data regarding water resources in Rwanda atall levels of government; funding towards the water andenvironment sectors at the national level; coordinationamong sectors at all levels of government; and technicalcapacity to manage water resources at the watershedlevel, particularly at the local government level.

Though several government and NGO officialsclaimed that lack of awareness at the community levelwith respect to water as a scarce resource as well as mis-use of water at the community level were obstacles toIWRM implementation, interviews with community mem-bers suggest that community members are conscious ofwater scarcity, and use water sparingly, almost exclu-sively for subsistence use.

This apparent misconception of community aware-ness and water use may lead to a significant misidentifi-cation of strategies towards successful IWRM implemen-tation. Several government officials and NGO workers ex-pressed the need to allocate funds towards raising aware-ness at the community level, and educating rural com-munities with respect to responsible water use practices.Similar misconceptions of community awareness inareas such as South Africa, led to controversial govern-ment investment in rural education programs there(Barnes, 2009).

In the watershed study sites, as in much of the restof Rwanda, access to water, rather than a physicalscarcity of water, still appears to be the limiting factor inhow water is used. In terms of IWRM, severely limited useof water at the community level in Rwanda means that inmany communities, there is not yet a great diversity ofstakeholders whose needs must be balanced. Stakehold-ers across each watershed share the same needs, andappear to recognize the rights of their neighbors to fulfillthose needs. Conflicts over water use currently appear tobe very infrequent. However, as water access is improved,and water is used for a greater variety of domestic, agri-

cultural, and productive tasks within each watershed,stakeholder interests are more likely to diverge. Estab-lishing mechanisms for stakeholder dialogue while stake-holder interests are similar may help to alleviate futureconflicts as increased water access contributes to a di-vergence of rural stakeholder interests.

Furthermore, governance in Rwanda has historicallybeen highly centralized, and though the government isengaging in a decentralization process, the communitymembers interviewed express an extreme deference tolocal government. As such, the priorities of the local gov-ernment are often enacted at the community level ratherthan the direct priorities of the community. Until watermanagement or environmental protection of watersources are prioritized and mandated by the local gov-ernment, community effort may not be expended in thosedirections.

From the perspective of an organization like WaterFor People that works closely with local governments andcommunity leaders to increase access to water and sani-tation services at the community level, these findingssuggest that the greatest initial impact towards IWRMmay be achieved at the local government level. Becauselocal governments often provide the motivation for com-munity initiatives in Rwanda, increasing capacity, accessto information, and commitment to IWRM and long termwater resources management at the local governmentlevel may have immediate and beneficial effects at thecommunity level, where lack of access to sustainablewater system services has the most detrimental effectslong term.

REFERENCES

Barnes, Brendon, 2009. Community ‘Participation,’ Resistance and the Water Wars. Journal of Health Management 11(1):157-166.

Haughn, Sarah, 2009. The World’s Water: Hard Facts Point To-ward the Soft Path. Circle of Blue, Jan. 13, 2009. Accessed Jan. 7, 2011. Available at http://www.circleofblue. org/waternews/2009/world/the-worlds-water-hard-facts-point-toward-the-soft-path/.

Garcia, Luis E., 2008. Integrated Water Resources Management: A ‘Small’ Step for Conceptualists, a Giant Step for Practition-ers. Water Resources Development 24(1): 23-36.

Stephanie Ogdenc/o Water For People 6666 West Quincy Avenue Denver, CO 80235(720) 488-4590

[email protected]

Stephanie Ogden recently served as Water For People’sfirst Innovation and Sustainability Fellow, working onIWRM in Rwanda. She has over six years’ field experiencein the areas of water, sanitation, and health, includingtime as director of a small nonprofit in El Salvador. Sherecently completed her master’s in environmental policyfrom Oregon State University, with a focus on water pol-icy.

� � �


IInntteeggrraatteedd WWaatteerr RReessoouurrcceess MMaannaaggeemmeenntt aanndd IImmppaacctt aatt tthhee CCoommmmuunniittyy LLeevveell iinn RRwwaannddaa .. .. .. ccoonntt’’dd..

Though several government and NCO officialsclaimed that lack of awareness at the communitylevel with respect to water as a scarce resourceas well as misuse of water at the communitylevel were obstacles to IWRM implementation,interviews with community members suggest thatcommunity members are conscious of waterscarcity, and use water sparingly, almost exclusively for subsistence use ...

AUTHOR LINK

E-MAIL

INTRODUCTION

This article looks at the potential for using collabora-tive modeling for decision support as a tool for imple-menting Integrated Water Resources Management(IWRM). Shared Vision Planning (SVP) [the U.S. ArmyCorps’ (Corps) version of Collaborative Modeling] hasbeen used by the Corps and others over the last 20 yearsto integrate systems modeling, structured participation,and traditional water resources planning into a practicalforum for decision making. This collaborative modelingapproach is consistent with the planning elements ofIWRM (UNESCO-IHP, 2008) and provides a pragmatictool to incorporate systems modeling and participation inan IWRM planning process.

SVP recognizes that technocratic water resourcesplanning often fails to incorporate value systems thatoften ultimately drive political, cultural, or social decisionmaking priorities. The challenges to implement IWRM areoften not technical issues but rather institutional driversthat are often unique to the different affected sectors,such as environment, flood management, energy, min-ing, municipal, and industry. These sectors not only mayhave conflicting interests but also differing public sup-port or understanding. Shared vision planning provides a framework for interest based negotiation that is syner-gistic with the recently issued IWRM Guidelines from UNESCO’s International Hydrologic Programme (UNESCO-IHP, 2008). This article seeks to highlightthese synergies and underline how Collaborative Model-ing is a powerful, practical, and tested tool to implementIWRM at the river basin level.

UNESCO-IHP GUIDELINES FOR INTEGRATEDWATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

AT THE RIVER BASIN LEVEL

The evolutionary, adaptive implementation of theIWRM process presented by the UNESCO-IHP Guidelinesis illustrated by a ‘spiral model’ (see Figure 1). In the spi-ral model, water resources development in a basin, alongwith management principles and objectives, evolves overtime as new demands and needs emerge and innovativesolutions are implemented. Within an orderly IWRMprocess, a river basin and its management continuouslyadapt to those new demands and needs. At each turn ofthe evolutionary water management spiral, basin stake-holders must discuss over and come to agreement onnecessary tradeoffs. River basin councils or authoritiesoften exist to provide legitimacy or institutionalize agree-ments (UNESCO-IHP, 2008).

Within each turn of the evolutionary water manage-ment spiral we can identify four phases, illustrated bythe numbered nodes (Figure 1). Each complete turn rep-resents the IWRM process (implementation of four

phases) in response to impacts that can be social, envi-ronmental, economic, political, etc. As IWRM progresses(‘higher’ levels of the evolutionary spiral) the phases canrepeat themselves to address new impacts or need foradaptive management. Often, these additional iterationsrepresent more complex problems requiring better inte-gration, information exchange and negotiation frame-works. Each of the four phases is described as follows:

1. Recognize and identify the need for IWRMthrough the identification of needs and problems. In anIWRM process this often includes public awareness andaccountability efforts, and capacity building since theplanning process creates new requirements from stake-holders.

2. Conceptualize the overall structure of the prob-lem and broad actions that might be undertaken. Thisphase executes a broad assessment of the river basin itconceptualizes the structure of problems and solutions,and develops a draft plan of action.

3. Coordinate and plan with stakeholders towardreaching an agreement for appropriate actions. Thisphase requires that a coordinating mechanism betweenstakeholders exists; coordination is possible; preliminaryagreements are iteratively improved; a final plan is devel-oped; and an agreement is reached on a plan of action.


TTHHEE UUSSEE OOFF CCOOLLLLAABBOORRAATTIIVVEE MMOODDEELLIINNGGIINN DDEECCIISSIIOONN MMAAKKIINNGG FFOORR IIWWRRMM

GGuuiilllleerrmmoo FF.. MMeennddoossaa aanndd HHaall EE.. CCaarrddwweellll

The parallels between the Shared Vision Planningprocess and IWRM are obvious ... they are bothbased on traditional planning principles of identi-fying problems, then criteria, developing andevaluating alternatives, and moving toward implementation

Figure 1. IWRM Spiral (from UNESCO-IHP, 2008).

4, Implement, monitor, and evaluate the agreedsets of actions and alternatives, such that modificationscan be executed if results are not as planned. This is thecritical end point of a stage of the IWRM process becauseit provides credibility for future planning stages, permitsimplementing agreement compromises, and provides anadaptive management framework to allow progress de-spite uncertainties in current understanding or futureunknown change.

The UNESCO IHP guidelines organize case studies inthe practice of IWRM under each of the phases and sub-phases to identify ‘Keys for Success’ that supported theirimplementation. For example, a sub-phase of the guide-lines entails the consideration of “mechanisms andcourses of action for stakeholder participation during theconceptualization phase.” The readers are then refer-enced to ‘Key for Success’ of this subphase in the Davaoand Tama River case studies, as well as useful tools,such as “Grasping the positioning of Stakeholders andtheir Mutual Relationships” (UNESCO-IHP, 2008).

THE PRINCIPLES OF SVP

The Corps’ experience in Collaborative Modelingevolved from the National Drought Study where theCorps was asked to find a better way to manage waterunder scarcity. After a year of collaborative study theCorps proposed a method that went further than theFederal water resources planning guidance by requiringplanners to work with decision makers and stakeholdersto develop metrics to evaluate drought mitigation alter-natives and evaluate those alternatives using a collabo-ratively-developed, transparent computer model (Werick,2000). This collaborative modeling method for droughtpreparedness eventually evolved for general applicationin water resources planning, and became known as‘Shared Vision Planning’ (SVP). Methodological descrip-tions and case studies of the application of SVP and otherCollaborative Modeling processes are described in Sheeret al. (1989); Stephenson et al. (2007); and Tidwell et al.(2007).

SVP integrates (1) systems modeling, (2) structuredparticipation, and (3) water resources planning. Morespecifically, it provides a framework to facilitate stake-holder and decision maker collaboration in the multidis-ciplinary technical analysis and alternatives formulationand selection, such that compromises are possible beforethe end of a study or planning process. A key to successis a structured participation framework defined as theCircles of Influence (COI) with well defined rules of be-havior (Figure 2).

Using COI, SVP involves subsets and accepted lead-ers of stakeholders early and often during the planningand the technical analysis, rather than involving the en-tire public at limited, discrete instances through publicnotices, meetings, or other forums. Participants at theinner circles are technical experts, have higher time com-mitments to the process, and are often salaried. The par-ticipants at the outer circles have the institutional andworking knowledge and values base, and through astructured process, provide the rules, directions, and

validation to the technical analysis that is led by those inthe inner circles. The decision makers provide directionson what they can institutionalize and what they cannot,and receive information from all their constituents (Card-well et al., 2008).

The steps in SVP are based on traditional Federalwater planning principles and are as follows:

Step 1 Build a team with stakeholders and decision makers. Define problem-shed and institutionally feasible scope of work by team, and identify problems and opportunities for the problem-shed.

Step 2 With stakeholder leaders develop objectives and metrics for evaluation.

Step 3 Develop a collaborative model (conceptual or simulation) and evaluate status quo using met-rics from Step 2.

Step 4 Use collaborative model with stakeholder repre-sentatives to formulate alternatives.

Step 5 Evaluate alternatives and develop recommenda-tions with stakeholder leaders and decision mak-ers.

Step 6 Institutionalize the project or plan by decision makers. Given early involvement of stakeholders and decision makers in technical analysis, the feasible directions of solution crafting have been provided.

Step 7 Exercise the plan or project, and ensure mecha-nisms to adapt or update.

LINKING SVP TO INTEGRATEDWATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

The parallels between the SVP process and IWRM areobvious (see Table 1) – they are both based on tradition-al planning principles of identifying problems, then crite-ria, developing and evaluating alternatives, and movingtowards implementation. They both speak to the need toinvolve the public and to coordinate. What SVP and other


TThhee UUssee ooff CCoollllaabboorraattiivvee MMooddeelliinngg iinn DDeecciissiioonn MMaakkiinngg ffoorr IIWWRRMM .. .. .. ccoonntt’’dd..

Figure 2. Circles of Influence for StructuredParticipation Using Shared Vision Planning

(adapted from Cardwell et al., 2008).

collaborative modeling processes bring in addition aretechniques (grounded in theory and in experience) interms of the specifics of how to successfully implementan integrated, collaborative water management planningprocess. To pinpoint these techniques, let us make a tar-geted comparison between the IWRM phases and the SVPsteps.

Problem Definition: The first steps in UNESCO-IHPIWRM guidelines are to Recognize and Identify and thento Conceptualize the problem and potential solutions.SVP give specifics on how a team of stakeholders developthis problem definition, and how the team sets, and theniteratively refines criteria. The development of a collabo-rative model not only allows conceptualization of theproblem, but more importantly obtains buy-in fromstakeholders and decision makers early in an IWRMprocess. By including stakeholders in these first steps,IWRM plans are more likely to identify the most pressingproblems and define them in ways that resonate withstakeholders (Table 1).

Collaboration: In the UNESCO-IHP IWRM guidelines, co-ordinating and planning details occurs at Phase 3 afterresources have been spent Recognizing and Identifying,and Conceptualizing alternatives and drafting a plan.Conversely in SVP coordination starts at the beginning ofthe planning process and continues throughout theprocess of identifying problems, objectives, alternatives,and evaluation. Within SVP, collaborative modeling pro-vides a focus for the collaborative process, the COI con-cept structures the collaboration, and the reliance on tested planning steps ensures progress towards develop-

ment and implementation of IWRM plans. Application ofthese techniques allows intensive yet productive coordi-nation throughout the planning process and increasesthe likelihood for agreements and institutionalization ofIWRM plans. At the beginning of an SVP process, theplanning team is built under the framework of the COIthat designate who will develop the systems model andwho will guide, conceptualize, and validate its develop-ment (i.e., who will use the model).

Technical Analysis: Phase 2 of the UNESCO-IHP IWRMguidelines calls for planners to “assess, conceptualize,and draft plan.” By developing the technical analysis it-eratively and collaboratively within a structured planningprocess, SVP gets into details of “how” to do the iterativetechnical analysis and alternative development that arenecessary to identify solid solutions. By explicitly evalu-ating interactions in a systems model, SVP considers themultiple interests and uses that is so critical to IWRM.The SVP process provides detailed guidance on how tobuild collaborative models that serve to assess, concep-tualize, and create draft plans to address problems andopportunities. Moreover, it integrates quantitative engi-neering metrics with qualitative social metrics as definedby the users, and the model is developed according to itsfunctionality (i.e., how it will be used).

Reach Agreement/Make Recommendation: Two elementsof SVP support this critical stage in the IWRM process.First of all, SVP explicitly recognizes and uses best practices from environmental conflict resolution –from endorsing situational assessments at the beginningof a planning process, to promoting interest-based nego-



Table 1. Comparison of the UNESCO-IHP Phases of IWRM Planning and the Steps of Shared Vision PlanningPer Guidance of IWR-USACE (Institute of Water Resources-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)(the sentences in bold illustrate the point in planning where an agreement is reached)

UNESCO-IHP Phases of IWRM The Steps of Shared Vision Planning

1. Recognize and Identifya. Recognizeb. Identify problems and needs 1. Build teams, define COIs, and identify problems andc. Create public awareness & accountability 2. opportunitiesd. Develop capacity

2. Conceptualize 2. Develop objectives and metrics for evaluationa. Assessb. Conceptualize 3. Develop a collaborative model and evaluate the status quoc. Draft plan

4. Formulate alternatives

3. Coordinate and Plan Detailsa. Build coordinating mechanism 5. Evaluate alternatives and make recommendationsb. Coordinatec. Reach preliminary agreementsd. Finalize the plan 6. Institutionalize the plan or projecte. Reach an agreement

4. Implement, Monitor, and Evaluatea. Implement 7. Exercise and update (adapt) the plan or projectb. Monitor and evaluate

tiation, to ensuring that stakeholders’ interests and per-spectives are validated through inclusion in the analysis,to the transparent documentation of assumptions anddecisions in a collaboratively developed model that func-tions as a single text negotiating tool. Secondly, SVP’s re-liance on iteratively developed yet quantitative criteria toevaluate proposed alternatives and best practices sup-ports transparent decision making.

Monitor and Evaluate: Once an agreement has beenreached and implemented, SVP provides a vehicle to as-sist with the long-term monitoring and evaluationprocess – a living, collaboratively developed, technicaltool.

The use of SVP provides a way to increase the likeli-hood of successful IWRM planning by supplementing theUNESCO guiding document with a structured planningmethod that integrates the technical analysis and stake-holder participation. Essentially the SVP process buildsmutual understanding of the water resource systems,and builds trust between stakeholders with differences ofopinion. By using a structured planning process (similarto the phases within the IWRM spiral) SVP maintains afocus on outcomes and decisions. By involving stake-holders in the analysis at the onset of planning an earlyunderstanding and possible compromises of the differentpoints of view is achieved. Most importantly, when it istime to institutionalize an agreement, most participantsunderstand the options for alternatives, and decisionmakers are not confronted with a set of options that theywill not approve or validate.

CONCLUSION

SVP and the UNESCO-IHP guidelines for IWRM arenot in disagreement. SVP is a toolset that integratesseamlessly into the IWRM guidelines to improve its prac-tical and successful implementation. Although IWRMprocesses can be mandated by legislative action, such asby authorizing the creation of river basin councils withjurisdictions over water use, social values, interestgroups or certain water sectors can continue to createobstacles for integrated planning. Indeed, most countrieshave separate ministries that have jurisdictions over spe-cific uses of water. Not unlike the authorization of theTennessee Valley Authority, developing countries, in par-ticular, seek IWRM as a mechanism for decentralized andsustainable economic growth. This often threatens thejurisdictions of other ministries (the United States ismore complicated as one needs to add State jurisdictionsover water), which may have specific Master Plans for agiven sector. SVP provides the framework to build theteams at the beginning of the process between differencegroups at the government agency level and stakeholdergroups, and establish the rules of engagement beforeconceptualizing problems.

However, case studies that illustrate the applicationof SVP in an IWRM process are hard to come by. As a followup on to this short article we will be examiningsuch international case studies to highlight Keys for Suc-cess. For example, Peru has passed a new water law that

authorizes the establishment of River Basin Councils(RBC), initially tasked with developing IWRM plans at sixpilot basins of the arid Pacific coast. To implement IWRMplanning that can be validated by the RBC in participa-tory fashion with interest groups and stakeholders,Peru’s National Water Authority has been working withIWR-USACE to implement a modified SVP approach.

REFERENCES

Cardwell, H., S. Langsdale, and K. Stephenson, 2008. The Shared Vision Planning Primer: How to Incorporate Computer Aided Dispute Resolution in Water Resources Planning. Insti-tute for Water Resources, Alexandria, Virginia. IWR Report 08-R-2. Available at http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/docs/ iwrreports/2008-R-02.pdf.

Sheer, D.P., M.L. Baeck, and J.R. Wright, 1989. The Computer as Negotiator. Journal of the AWWA 81(2):68-73.

Stephenson, K., L. Shabman, S. Langsdale, and H. Cardwell, 2007. Computer Aided Dispute Resolution. Proceedings from the CADRe Workshop, September 2007, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, Virginia. IWR Report 07-R-6. Available at http://www.sharedvisionplanning.us/docs/SVP-2007-R-06.pdf.

Tidwell, V.C., A. Sun, G. Klise, and J. Brainard, 2007. Collabor-ative Modeling to Support the 2004 Arizona Water Settlements Act. World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2007: Restoring our Natural Habitat. American Society of Civil Engineers. Available at: http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?159468.

UNESCO-IHP, 2008. IWRM Guidelines at River Basin Level: Part 2-1: The Guidelines for IWRM Coordination. UNESCO, Paris, France, pp. 1-174. Available at http://www.unesco.org/ water/news/pdf/Part_2 1_Guidelines_for_IWRM_Coordina-tion.pdf.

Werick, W,, 2000. History of Shared Vision Planning in the Army Corps of Engineers. Presentation for the ASCE 2000 Joint Conference in Water Resources Engineering and Water Res-ources Planning and Management, Minneapolis, Minnesota, August 2000. Available at http://www.sharedvisionplanning us/resHistoryCorps.cfm

Guillermo F. MendozaIWR and ICIWaRM (Under the auspices of UNESCO)7701 Telegraph RoadAlexandria, VA 22315(703) 428-6137/Fax: (703) 428-8171

[email protected]@usace.army.mil

Guillermo F. Mendoza obtained his PhD from CornellUniversity in 2002. He worked as a modeler for New YorkCity Department of Environmental Protection, and thenin international water resources development for USAIDprojects in Honduras and El Salvador, and as a consul-tant for the World Bank. In 2007 he developed the waterprogram of the Natural Capital Project based at StanfordUniversity. Since 2009 he has been at the USACE’s In-stitute for Water Resources supporting the InternationalCenter for Integrated Water Resources Management (ICIWaRM) and the Center for Conflict Resolution andPublic Participation.

� � �



AUTHOR LINK

E-MAIL

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

On December 31, 1984, the United States (U.S.)withdrew from membership in the United Nations Edu-cational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).For the next two decades, until 2003, the U.S. had nopermanent delegation to UNESCO. One of the unfortu-nate consequences of this policy decision was to limit theU.S. government’s participation in UNESCO’s Interna-tional Hydrological Programme (IHP). IHP is the onlybroadly-based cooperative science program of the UnitedNations (UN) system in water research, water resourcesmanagement, education, and capacity-building. U.S. sci-entists and engineers were able to participate in IHP inlimited ways, but were unable to take the leadershiproles that might have benefited both UNESCO and theU.S.

All that changed in 2003. The U.S. reentered UNESCO leading to reestablishment of a State Depart-ment permanent delegation to UNESCO in Paris, France.As part of this mission, three water scientists from theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) Institute forWater Resources and from the National Science Founda-tion were loaned to the State Department to serve as Sci-ence Attachés. In 2010, a permanent Foreign Service sci-ence officer position was created for the mission. At leastas important to U.S. participation, was the creation of anadvisory committee to the U.S. government: the U.S. Na-tional Commission for UNESCO, was formed. Within thisbody, a U.S. National Committee for the InternationalHydrological Programme was formed. Chaired at presentby the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), it also enjoys theparticipation of other U.S. government agencies, univer-sities, nongovernmental organizations, and professionalorganizations. Functions of the Committee include coor-dinating U.S. participation in UNESCO internationalwater resources activities, and serving as a liaison be-tween UNESCO and U.S. water scientists, engineers,managers, and planners. The committee has been veryactive in UNESCO IHP, and in 2010 the U.S. was namedto the six-person IHP Bureau as Vice-Chair of UNESCOGroup I (representing much of northern, western, andsouthern Europe, the U.S., Canada, Turkey. and Israel).

UNESCO CENTERS AND THECREATION OF ICIWaRM

One of the features of UNESCO that is unique with-in the UN’s system is the existence of a network of affili-ated centers. The IHP has taken full advantage of thisnetworking mechanism and these centers are at theheart of IHP’s mission and goals, and play a key role intraining, technology transfer, and capacity building. So-called Category 1 centers are a formal part of

UNESCO and their director is a UNESCO employee. Atpresent there is only one Category 1 center for water –UNESCO IHE Institute for Water Education located inDelft, The Netherlands. Category 2 centers are “under theauspices of UNESCO” but are created and operated bythe member countries themselves. They are designed tomaintain some degree of autonomy from both UNESCOand their foreign ministries. There are approximately 20such water related centers approved by UNESCO’s Gen-eral Conference.

Once the U.S. National Committee for IHP was es-tablished and functioning, it identified an opportunity tojoin, and provide leadership to this potentially powerfulnetwork. The committee invited proposals for a U.S.based Category 2 center, and ICIWaRM was selected fromamong the submissions. After a formal, multiyear ap-proval process, ICIWaRM’s nomination was approved bythe 193 member states at UNESCO’s 2009 General Con-ference. The U.S. government-UNESCO agreement wassigned shortly thereafter at UNESCO Headquarters inNew York City.

ICIWaRM’S ORGANIZATION AND MISSION

ICIWaRM is both a secretariat and a network of itsown. The secretariat is housed at the Institute for WaterResources of the USACE offices in Alexandria, Virginia.The secretariat keeps the center together handling bothlarge and small issues related to governance: relationswith UNESCO IHP, the U,S, National Commission for IHPand other U,S, government entities as well as communi-cations; and budgeting and much of the planning duties.However, the strength of ICIWaRM is in its core partner-ships with experts elsewhere in government as well as inthe academic, NGO, and professional sectors. Bimonthlyteleconferences are held to keep the internal network upto date and to plan new activities. The partners are com-mitted to working together in support of the strategicprogram objectives of UNESCO and its water programs.A full list of core partners can be found at www.iciwarm.org.

The overall mission of ICIWaRM is the advancementof the science and practice of integrated water resourcesmanagement (IWRM) to address water security and otherwater related challenges by regional and global action,through new knowledge, innovative technologies, collab-orative interdisciplinary scientific research, networking,


TTHHEE IINNTTEERRNNAATTIIOONNAALL CCEENNTTEERR FFOORR IINNTTEEGGRRAATTEEDD WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT((IICCIIWWaaRRMM)):: NNEEWW OOPPPPOORRTTUUNNIITTIIEESS FFOORR SSCCIIEENNTTIISSTTSS,, EENNGGIINNEEEERRSS,,

MMAANNAAGGEERRSS,, AANNDD PPLLAANNNNEERRSS TTOO EENNGGAAGGEE WWIITTHH UUNNEESSCCOO

RRoobbeerrtt AA.. PPiieettrroowwsskkyy,, EEuuggeennee ZZ.. SSttaakkhhiivv,, aanndd WWiilllliiaamm SS.. LLooggaann

UNESCO IHP is organized into a multitude ofprograms, covering everything from sharedaquifers and water conflict to the internationalflood and sediment initiatives

training, and capacity development. It focuses on readilytransferable, practical science, and technology. It aspiresto help bridge the gap between the advances in scienceand technology – performed primarily at universities andother research institutions – and their implementationon the ground in developing countries. Unlike some Cat-egory 2 centers that have a regional focus, ICIWaRM isdirected to eventually be global in geographic scope. Itsinitial focus has been on Latin America and theCaribbean, and on Africa.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNESCO’S PROGRAMS

UNESCO IHP is organized into a multitude of pro-grams, covering everything from shared aquifers andwater conflict to the international flood and sediment initiatives. ICIWaRM directly supports at least four UNESCO programs:

1. G-WADI. UNESCO's IHP has chosen ICIWaRM asthe global technical secretariat for its global network"Water and Development Information for Arid Lands," orG-WADI. The program aims to strengthen global capaci-ty to manage water resources in arid and semi-arid re-gions by building an effective global community. It inte-grates contributions from networks, organizations, indi-viduals, and UNESCO Category 2 centers. The G-WADInetwork features knowledge bases and products such asnear real time global satellite estimates of precipitation.There are regional headquarters for these activitiesacross the globe. A strong regional network exists forAsia (http://asian-gwadi.westgis.ac.cn/); other regionalnetworks are just forming, including GWADI Arabia,GWADI Sub-Saharan Africa, and GWADI Americas.

2. HELP (Hydrology for the Environment, Life and Policy). ICIWaRM has also sponsored several meet-ings of the North American HELP river basin network,bringing together Federal, state/provincial, and localgovernments along with NGOs and academic partnersworking on IWRM in seven basins in the U.S. and Pana-ma.

3. IWRM Guidelines. ICIWaRM co-chairs a UNESCO sponsored Steering Committee tasked withpreparing guidelines to assist water resources practition-ers in finding better and more efficient solutions to waterresource problems. ICIWaRM is also leading an effort totranslate into Spanish the committee’s publication seriesIWRM Guidelines at River Basin Level. UNESCO’s Re-gional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean, andthe Inter-American Development Bank, are partners inthis effort.

4. WWAP. ICIWaRM provided extensive support tothe World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP) in2010. WWAP is the flagship program of UN-Water.Housed in UNESCO, it monitors freshwater issues inorder to provide recommendations, develop case studies,enhance assessment capacity at a national level and in-form the decision making process. ICIWaRM’s supportwas primarily for its work in the areas of indicators,water policy, waterway transport, and climate changeadaptation.

COLLABORATIONS WITH OTHERCATEGORY 2 CENTERS

One of the expectations for Category 2 centers is thatthey should work together on problems of mutual inter-est. ICIWaRM has worked closely with the Centre for Aridand Semi-arid Zones of Latin America and the Caribbean(CAZALAC, in Spanish) since even before its officialrecognition as a center. Presently ICIWaRM and CAZA-LAC scientists are developing a nonproprietary DroughtAtlas software product that will be freely available tocountries that may need such a product, particularlycountries in transition and located in arid or semi-aridareas. In partnership with CAZALAC, ICIWaRM will beusing the resulting product to create a complete droughtatlas of Latin America. In addition to this ongoing workwith CAZALAC, ICIWaRM co-organized a conference onEcohydrological Processes and Sustainable FloodplainManagement, hosted by the European Regional Centrefor Ecohydrology (ERCE) in Lodz, Poland. ICIWaRM’stechnical director (EZS) chairs the Advisory Board for theJapan based International Centre for Water Hazard andRisk Management. A regional training course on hydro-logic and hydraulic modeling given by ICIWaRM instruc-tors is planned for March 2011 in Asuncion, Paraguay,hosted by the Hydro-Informatics Center (CIH) at ItaipúBinacional (Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil). Similar trainingcourses have been held in recent years in Kenya (Figure1) and Ethiopia.

OTHER ACTIVITIES

Climate change adaptation has been a major themein the international IWRM community during the pastdecade (Stakhiv, 2010). The High Level Expert Panel onWater and Disaster of the UN Secretary-General’s Advi-sory Board on Water and Sanitation recently recom-mended that “National and international hydrological in-stitutes must take the initiative to identify underlying an-alytical and data requirements to meet climate changesthat are likely to be highly uncertain and so as to supportstructural and nonstructural measures for disaster riskdeduction” (UNSGAB, 2009). Partly in response to thismandate, ICIWaRM co-organized the recent InternationalWorkshop on Non-Stationarity, Hydrologic FrequencyAnalysis and Water Management (Boulder, Colorado)(Olsen et al., 2010). Participants explored the challengesposed by climate change for hydrologic frequency analy-sis and water management, and examined some alterna-tive technical and policy paths ahead.

ICIWaRM has also been providing major support tothe National Water Authority (ANA) of Peru. A new na-tional water law establishes a clear mandate for basinscale water resources planning, integration of sectoralpolicies, participation of stakeholders, decentralization ofmanagement to the river basin level, and recognition ofwater as a social and economic good. Implementing sucha law, however, is a major challenge. ICIWaRM has pro-vided technical advice and capacity building in coordina-tion with ANA and the project lenders, the World Bankand the Inter-American Development Bank. ICIWaRM de-veloped the materials for workshops to prepare stake-holders at six pilot basins, and helped build capacity of


IICCIIWWaaRRMM:: NNeeww OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess ffoorr SScciieennttiissttss,, EEnnggiinneeeerrss,, MMaannaaggeerrss,, && PPllaannnneerrss ttoo EEnnggaaggee...... .. .. .. ccoonntt’’dd..



Figure 1. Participants and Instructors at an ICIWaRM Training Course on Watershed Modeling and Hydrology, Regional Centre for Mapping of Resources for Development, Nairobi, Kenya (Photo Credit: Jeff Harris, USACE HEC).

Peru’s ANA staff. These workshops introduced shared vision planning principles(Mendoza and Cardwell, 2011) to stakeholders, who ranged from irrigation andmunicipal water sectors to subsistence alpaca herders of the highlands.

ENGAGEMENT WITH PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES

The American Water Resources Association (AWRA) is one of about 10 corepartners of ICIWaRM, and one of only two professional societies. The key over-lap of our two institutions lies in several areas. First, both lie at the intersectionof water resources management, research, and education. AWRA’s first objec-tive is “The advancement of water resources research, planning, development,management and education” (http://www.awra.org/about/). ICIWaRM focuseson practical science, applied research, and technology development that can bereadily transferred to developing countries to improve IWRM. Second, both em-phasize the multidisciplinary nature of water resources solutions. AWRA is thehome of “water resources experts including engineers, educators, foresters, bi-ologists, ecologists, geographers, managers, regulators, hydrologists and attor-neys” (http://www.awra.org/about/). ICIWaRM’s work on IWRM guidelines andshared vision planning, and with multidisciplinary UNESCO programs such asHELP and G-WADI, testify to its commitment to broad based approaches towater resource challenges. Finally, while AWRA will likely retain its focus on“American” water resources, its occasional International Specialty Conferencesand membership on the World Water Council demonstrate the interest of bothits leadership and its membership to look beyond the borders of the U.S. to thewider world. Interestingly, AWRA’s co-host of the 2001 International SpecialtyConf. “Globalization and Water Management: The Changing Value of Water,” theUniversity of Dundee, Scotland, is now a UNESCO Category 2 center.

SUMMARY

Category I and II centers are at the heart of UNESCO IHP’s mission andgoals, and play an especially key role in training, technology transfer, and

capacity-building. They have enormous potential forbridging the gap between research in water science, tech-nology, planning, and management and the practical im-plementation of these advances. ICIWaRM’s strength isits network, and that includes AWRA leadership andmembership. Together we can pool resources, both fi-nancial and especially human. Further exploration of col-laboration activities is both welcome and essential.

REFERENCES

Mendoza, G.F. and H. Cardwell, 2011. The Use of Collaborative Modeling in Decision Making for IWRM. Water Resources IMPACT 13(3):17-20 (this issue).

Olsen, J.R., J. Kiang, and R. Waskom (Editors), 2010. Workshop on Nonstationarity, Hydrologic Frequency Analysis, and Water Management. Colorado Water Institute Information Series No. 109. Available at www.cwi.colostate.edu.

Stakhiv, E.Z., 2010. Practical Approaches to Water Manage-ment Under Climate Change Uncertainty. Pp. 62-69 In: Hy-drocomplexity: New Tools for Solving Wicked Water Problems. Kovacs Colloquium, July 2010. IAHS Publ. 338. Available at http://iahs.info/redbooks/a338/abs_338_0062.pdf.

UNSGAB (UN Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Water and Sanitation), 2009. Water and Disaster. High-Level Expert Panel on Water and Disaster/UNSGAB. Available at http:// www.unsgab.org/docs/reports/water_and_disaster_web.pdf.

Robert A. PietrowskyDirector, IWR and ICIWaRM(Under the auspices of UNESCO)7701 Telegraph RoadAlexandria, VA 22315(703) 428-8015 / Fax: (703) 428-8171

[email protected]@[email protected]

Bob Pietrowsky has been Director of the USACE Institutefor Water Resources, Alexandria, VA since 2000, and ofICIWaRM since its inception. He oversees a $50 mil-lion/year national program of Civil Works policy develop-ment, research, and technology transfer programs in ap-plied planning, hydrologic engineering, and investmentdecision making methodologies, along with managementof the nation’s navigation data and statistical informationprograms. He serves on the U.S. National Committee forIHP, the Governing Board of UNESCO IHE Institute forWater Education at Delft, The Netherlands, and the U.S.-Canada Permanent Engineering Board (PEB) for the Co-lumbia River Treaty.

� � �



�� HHIIGGHHLLIIGGHHTTSS OOFF JJAAWWRRAA TTEECCHHNNIICCAALL PPAAPPEERRSS •• AAPPRRIILL 22001111 •• VVOOLL.. 4477 •• NNOO.. 22

TECHNICAL PAPERS

In two papers, Lerch et al., analyze trends in atrazine, acetochlor, alachlor, metolachlor, and metribuzin concentrationsand loads in Goodwater Creek Experimental Watershed from 1992 to 2006, and conduct a retrospective assessment of thepotential aquatic ecosystem impacts.

Spackman Jones et al., show how turbidity can be used to develop high frequency time series for total suspended solidsand total phosphorus.

Saleh et al., calculate mass loadings for four pesticides in two watersheds with different land uses in the Central Valley,California, by using two parametric models: (1) the Seasonal Wave model (SeaWave), and (2) the Sine Wave model.

Johnson et al., estimate trends in pesticide concentrations in streams in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho aris-ing from changes in use amount and application method in their associated catchments.

Khalili et al., develop multi-site weather generator using the concept of spatial autocorrelation.

Stanfield and Jackson studied how geology and an index of land use⁄land cover influenced peak flows following rainfallevents in 110 headwater stream sites that were studied over a four-month period during a drought year. These findingsdemonstrate the challenges to accurately predict flow conditions in headwater streams during periods of extreme weatherthat concurrently have the greatest potential effect on biota.

Romeis et al., collected continuous streamflow and mixed-frequency water quality datasets from nine commercial poul-try-pasture and three forested headwater streams in the upper Etowah River basin of Georgia to estimate total P loads,and examined variability of hydrologic response and water quality of storm and nonstorm-flow regimes.

Caruso and Haynes classified streams in semiarid USEPA Region 8 based on hydrologic permanence and stream orderusing NHDPlus and GIS to provide information across broad spatial scales to aid with jurisdictional determinations.

Kibler et al., propose a refined conceptual model describing downstream geomorphic processes following small dam re-moval when upstream fill is dominated by coarse sediments.

Mittelstet et al., compared two approaches to administration of groundwater law on a hydrologic model of the North Cana-dian River, an alluvial aquifer in northwestern Oklahoma.

A full Table of Contents may be viewed at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/jawr/47/2

JAWRA ~ Journal of the American Water Resources Association

AUTHOR LINK

EMAIL

Today’s urban water managers are swimming in adaunting swirl of challenges. The confluence of new pat-terns in population, weather, energy production, and cli-mate, combined with dramatic funding declines, demandsmart decisions in investments to meet water quality andquantity needs. It is critical that managers and policy-makers approach our water resources in a more holistic,integrated fashion, using not just new techniques and or-ganization, but a whole new mindset and ethic aboutwater, its use, its management, and its worth.

For urban water leaders a new mantra has developed– “One Water.” States and municipalities are realizing theinterconnectedness between land management, agricul-ture, manufacturing, and water quality. On the quantityside, fragile supplies are providing teachable momentsfor the connections between all types of water (drinking,waste, storm, gray, produced, recycled) and water-inten-sive energy. Urban water leaders are embracing a moreholistic approach, including use of nontraditional “greeninfrastructure” approaches. A paradigm shift is occurring– but not fast enough.

Like the American Water Resources Association, theClean Water America Alliance is striving to usher inchanges that incorporate Integrated Water ResourceManagement (IWRM). This path was the subject matter ofa national dialogue sponsored by the Alliance last Sep-tember, “Managing One Water.” The meeting’s purposewas to expand the discussion about the future course ofour nation’s water policy and help chart a new path for-ward. A report from that 2010 meeting can also be down-loaded at the Alliance website (www.CWAA.us).

Participants in the “Managing One Water” dialoguehad many perspectives to share underscoring the obvi-ous, that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t make sense.Even so, there are trailblazers such as the City of Los An-geles, and New York City’s Department of EnvironmentalProtection, that make good models.

LOS ANGELES

Like other cities, Los Angeles (LA) is facing an arrayof complex water challenges. Population growth, aginginfrastructure for wastewater and stormwater, pollutedwaters at its beaches and waterways, a shortage of parksand open space, a dependence on imported water – arejust some of the obstacles underlined by a persistentshortage of funding. Departing from its traditional single-purpose planning efforts for separate agency functions,the City began a seven-year process to develop a WaterIntegrated Resources Plan (IRP), using technical integra-

tion and community involvement to guide policy deci-sions and water resources facilities planning.

The IRP incorporates the values of LA communitiesinto infrastructure planning and integrates three inter-dependent water systems: wastewater, recycled water,and stormwater. More than 100 community leadersjoined the City in planning the future of wastewater, re-cycled water and urban runoff management in LA. By re-alizing the relationships among these water resourcesand planning on a watershed basis, the community andthe environment get the highest benefit for the least over-all cost.

The benefits are impressive. After an intensive four-year process built on stakeholder preferences, 21 initialalternatives were narrowed down to four. The alterna-tives met 20% of the projected increase in wastewaterflow over the next 20 years while maximizing the benefi-cial reuse of recycled water and urban runoff; optimizingthe use of existing facilities and water resources; reduc-ing pollution; and, reducing the city’s dependency on im-ported water. The emphasis on water reclamation notonly helps the water environment of California, but alsomakes perfect sense for LA’s semi-arid environment.

IRP alternatives also reflect the community’s desireto clean up urban runoff and stormwater while using thewater resources locally and regionally. The alternativesdo NOT include a new wastewater or water reclamationplant, but emphasize maximizing use of the City’s exist-ing plants in the San Fernando Valley and at the Hyper-ion Treatment Plant in Playa del Rey.

New initiatives, regulations, programs, and projectsare being implemented to optimize stormwater manage-ment. They include the Green Streets and Green AlleysCommittee, the enactment of a Low Impact DevelopmentOrdinance, as well as numerous on-site capture and re-tention and/or infiltration projects, embodying what theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency and others de-scribe as a “slow it down, spread it out, soak it in” men-tality.

Rainwater harvesting was foundational, identifyinglocal solutions as pillars for sustainability – resulting ina downspout program that will be expanded citywide.

Transforming the City's water footprint is the ElmerAvenue green street project that includes an infiltrationgallery that captures runoff and recharges it under-ground. Neighbors embrace the bioswales with drought-tolerant native plants and permeable surfaces that adornthis appealing greenspace.


MMAANNAAGGIINNGG OONNEE WWAATTEERR

BBeennjjaammiinn HH.. GGrruummbblleess

For urban water leaders a new mantra hasdeveloped – “One Water”

The benefits are impressive. After an intensivefour-year process built on stakeholder preferences,21 initial alternatives were narrowed down to four

The South Los Angeles Wetlands Park will convert anasphalt/concrete rail yard into a 4.5-acre stormwatertreatment wetland habitat that captures and treats pol-lutants and also will include a pocket park—another win-win for the community.

The IRP also produced a 20% reduction in water usedue to conservation incentives and education. Los Ange-les' water consumption today is the same as it was 30years ago despite one million more users.

These are just a glimpse of the tremendous resultsproduced by the IRP. Because of the IRP, the City hasembraced a new way of thinking and functioning: multi-beneficial initiatives and projects with integrated plan-ning and more transparent communication with stake-holders.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OFENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

New York City (NYC) Department of EnvironmentalProtection’s (DEP) Green Infrastructure Plan includestraditional "gray" infrastructure built of steel and con-crete tanks and pipes, but also green infrastructure suchas green roofs, increased planting, greening medians,rain barrels and the use of permeable surfaces in streetsand parking lots. The advantage of the green infrastruc-ture approach is that it delivers the same degree of waterretention as "gray," but at a much lower price. When cou-pled with the traditional approach, it will allow the Cityto reduce sewer overflows into waterways 40% by 2030.If an entirely "gray" approach had been followed, reduc-tions would have cost an additional $2.4 billion, accord-ing to a DEP analysis. While NYC is by no means the firstcity to develop green infrastructure, the scale and ambi-tion of this effort are impressive.

NYC remains one of only five large cities in the coun-try not required, under the Safe Drinking Water Act, tofilter the majority of its drinking water because of up-stream source water protection safeguards in place. Byfocusing on protecting the watershed rather than treat-ing water polluted by the effects of varied land use, DEPhas accomplished many sustainability goals. To protectits source water NYC has conserved more than 115,000acres of watershed land. The City monitors farmers on itsland to ensure agricultural practices are compatible withwater quality protection and has assisted upstreamhomeowners in replacing their failing septic systems.

NYC DEP is also developing a comprehensive energystrategy with three main goals consistent with broaderCity initiatives: (1) to reduce the carbon footprint, in-cluding emissions of greenhouse gases and criteria pol-lutants consistent with the goals set out in PlaNYC; (2) toreduce electricity demand, the cost of which is expectedto almost double from $69.7 million in 2009 to approxi-

mately $132 million by 2014 in the absence of aggressiveenergy efficiency investments; and (3) to explore cleanenergy projects.

In an effort to provide better water management toolsto the customer, DEP has installed over 600,000 Auto-mated Meter Reading (AMR) devices that allow customersto check their water usage a minimum of four times perday. By January 2012, all of the City’s 835,000 cus-tomers will have AMR installed. DEP is committed tousing the AMR system to develop a proactive notificationsystem for customers. With new real time consumptiondata available through AMR, DEP will develop a notifica-tion program to let property owners know when theirwater consumption appears to deviate from normalusage.

The NYC Green Infrastructure Plan, released byMayor Bloomberg in September 2010 plans for $1.5 bil-lion investments in green infrastructure over the next 20years, on top of $2.9 billion in built or planned gray in-frastructure. The Green Infrastructure Plan lays out howthe City will improve harbor water quality by capturingand retaining stormwater runoff before it enters thesewer system by using streetside swales, tree pits, androoftop detention to absorb and retain stormwater. Thehybrid approach will reduce combined sewer overflowsby 12 billion gallons a year – more than 2 billion gallonsa year more than the current all gray strategy while sav-ing New Yorkers $2.4 billion. The Plan has been submit-ted and is awaiting approval by the State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation.

U.S. WATER PRIZE

As we work toward a national water vision, modelssuch as the City of LA and NYC DEP become essential tospreading innovation and generating better managementpractices. As part of its mission, the Clean Water Ameri-ca Alliance’s is celebrating and promoting these leadersthrough the annual U.S. Water Prize. The inauguralawards ceremony will be held this May and recognize fiveoutstanding leaders. Two are reported here, the City ofLA and NYC DEP. The other three are the MilwaukeeWater Council, National Great Rivers Research and Edu-cation Center, and the Pacific Institute. Visit the Al-liance’s website (www.CWAA.us) to learn more about thePrize and award-winning water champions. All have incommon bringing together diverse audiences, raisingpublic awareness and moving us toward a “one waterpolicy,” recognizing water as a valuable, variable, renew-able, exhaustible resource and using IWRM as a tool forintegrating and innovating.

STOCKHOLM WORLD WATER WEEK

This year’s week-long event in Stockholm, Sweden,August 21-27, 2011, focuses on “Water Sustainability inan Urban World.” With over half of the world’s populationnow in “urban” areas, the need for IRWM is more urgentthan ever before. The Alliance will share its vision inStockholm and showcase the work of cities like LA andNYC.


MMaannaaggiinngg OOnnee WWaatteerr .. .. .. ccoonntt’’dd..

New York remains one of only five large cities inthe country not required under the Safe DrinkingWater Act, to filter the majority of its drinkingwater because of upstream source water protectionsafeguards in place

COLLABORATION WITH AWRA

The Clean Water America Alliance is a relative new-comer compared to AWRA. We’ve held three national dia-logues over the last year and a half, and we’re learningquickly and growing steadily. Our two organizations canwork well together complementing each other’s strengthsand combining our outreach and education to make areal and positive impact for water resources, locally andglobally.

Benjamin H. Grumbles PresidentClean Water America Alliance1816 Jefferson Place, NWWashington, DC 20036

(202) 223-2299

[email protected]

http://www.cwaa.us

Ben Grumbles is President of the Clean Water AmericaAlliance, a not-for-profit educational organization basedin Washington, DC, and committed to uniting people andpolicies for water sustainability throughout the country.He has a long career in water and environmental policy,serving the public and teaching law students and envi-ronmental professionals, over the last 25 years. He wasborn and raised in the Beargrass Creek watershed of theOhio River, Louisville, Kentucky, four miles east ofChurchill Downs,

� � �


MMaannaaggiinngg OOnnee WWaatteerr .. .. .. ccoonntt’’dd..

AUTHOR LINK

EMAIL

WEB SITE

HAVE SOME COMMENTS ABOUTTHIS ISSUE OF IMPACT?

SEND US YOUR FEEDBACKWater Resources IMPACT is in its 13th year of pub-lication and we have explored a lot of ideas. We hopewe have raised some questions for you to contemplate.“Feedback” is your opportunity to reflect and respond.

We want to give you an opportunity to let your col-leagues know your opinions ... we want to moderate adebate ... we want to know how we are doing. For this issue send your letters by e-mail to:

Eric J. Fitch([email protected])

Michael E. Campana([email protected])

or

Earl Spangenberg([email protected])

Please share your opinions and ideas. Please limityour comments to approximately 350 to 400 words. Ifpublished, your comments may be edited for length orspace requirements.

Life Demands aDegree of Flexibility

Advance Your CareerEarn a master’s degree in civil engineering online from one of the world’s foremost authorities in water resource management.

www.CSUCivilOnline.com

ACROSS

1 follows common or sixth

6 Olivia’s and John’s movie

11 open by leverage

14 follows freight or bridal

15 high nest

16 blackthorn shrub

17 feeling of joy

19 meeting of alums

20 disributed

21 a type setter

23 fewer

24 H.S. class

25 shrewd

28 traffic turn dir.

29 made a mistake

32 part of a bridle

33 Detroit lemon

36 sign on a door

37 brews

38 followed by soup or green

39 the second tone

40 part of a dinner

42 parts of hands

44 impel (two words)

45 followed by time or estate

47 start of gothic or phyte

49 at. no. 26

50 morally offensive

52 Plato’s harps

55 mo. of a famous revolution

57 SAT or PSAT

59 blockheads

61 ______ Hunter (actor)

63 anagram of raises

66 follows floor or business

68 Laura or Bruce

70 give an account of

72 football miscue (abbr.)

73 breakfast drink

75 name meaning manly

77 a placard

79 heap

81 painter’s equipment

83 part of BTU

84 Santa Fe or Union Pacific


�� WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS PPUUZZZZLLEERR ((aannsswweerrss oonn ppgg.. 3366))

DOWN

1 zebra pattern

2 classroom staple

3 nods off

4 in place (Lat.)

5 a group of nine

6 followed by pipeline or station

7 aided

8 hosp. part

9 pilots

10 ooze

11 tools

12 cock

13 urges

16 TV show

18 Koch and Asner

22 the elevator guy

26 test question response

27 to capsize (with over)

30 followed by finger or leader

31 sign on a door

34 a structure

35 child’s building block

37 mailed

38 to make dull

40 build41 followed by beer or canal42 ma’s mate43 lively44 alien’s transport45 goes to bed46 half of an em48 followed by car or tax51 _____ and feather53 3 ft54 lassos56 little bit58 conger60 anagram of drones62 a brute creature63 a mountain range in SA64 an underground conduit65 a dupe67 Grant’s _____69 hosp. worker71 start of booth or gate74 to rattle76 cheer78 ring decision80 syst. of units82 sixth tone

� � �

6

28

3

31

19

7

14

44

27

29

40

26

17

1 11 13

72

16

45

23

5 9 10

15

42

37

47

54

59

32

36

52

56

18

68

51 53

65

8 12

22

30

2524

62

70

50

20

6361

35

46

66

79 80 81 82

83 84

34

41 43

57

42

21

69

39

64

48

74 76 77

67

78

58

71

38

55

33

49

7573

60

The past decade showcased a growing number of water-related financial and physical indices, and the recent in-troduction of the Water Impact Index by Veolia Water con-firms water indices are still a hot topic. The implications ofwater scarcity are at the core of all water indices, butwhich type of index is the better measure of true waterscarcity, physical or financial? This month we highlightspecific physical and financial indices (Table 1) that appearto be competing to add the latest relevant variable intend-ed to further the reporting of water scarcity via indices.

PHYSICAL WATER INDICIES

Water usage, quality, geography, and site specific riskare foundational measurements underlying physical waterindices. The irony is that the cutting edge, largely experi-mental physical indices have the potential to heavily influ-ence the financial indices because they inject additionalconsiderations into the decision-making process. Physi-cal indices such as the Water Index (see pg. 21, March2010 IMPACT), Water Stress Index, Water Scarcity Index,Water Poverty Index, and the recently announced WaterImpact Index aim to thrust water market participants to-wards more perfect information. But ultimately, each ofthese physical indices is measuring some form of waterscarcity dressed up for a specific audience.

The Water Impact Index (WII), introduced during the2010 International Water Association’s World Water Con-ference and Exhibition by Veolia Water North Americanthrough a white paper publication, intends to measure theimpact of human activity on water resources and how theyare managed. Speaking of the WII model, Laurent Auguste,President and CEO, Veolia Water Americas, said, “Publicauthorities, citizens and industries must all work togetherto ensure the sustainable future of our local water re-sources. Richer and more robust data is required for build-ing necessary solutions.”

The WII model analyzes consumption, site-specificwater resource stress, and water quality as additional vari-ables to the existing volume-based water resources mod-els. The index aims to analyze the ‘cradle to grave’ analysisof water resources from the context of direct and indirectinfluences. In effect, WII seems to be strategically combin-

ing key aspects of several existing indices to develop a“best in class” model for the water community. Will itmove the water industry closer to measuring true waterscarcity?

FINANCIAL WATER INDICIES

In general, this type of index aims to track the perfor-mance of the larger companies in the water sector. Theysummarize corporate performance in areas such as waterutility, filtration, treatment, and equipment suppliers. TheMarch 2010 IMPACT column (see pg. 21) discussed thePalisades Water Index, the World Water Index, and the S-Network Global Water Index (formerly the Janney GlobalWater Index) as being some of the leading water-related in-dices. The February, 2011 issue of American Water Intelli-gence introduces a preliminary new financial water indexcalled the Water Rights Price Index (WRPIx) developed byWestWater Research. The WRPIx “draws on prices from theWest’s most active water rights markets.” These indicestrack the important financial aspects of water, but are notperfect in their measuring of water scarcity.

Physical indices such as the WII will continue to de-velop as crucial inputs of water resources management.As the various physical indices are refined to more fully re-flect true water risk and exposure, it is reasonable to as-sume the water financial indices will utilize the informa-tion and push the water community, and those investingin this sector, towards more perfect information. Whilereal life concerns continue to exist on the scarcity of water,there seems to be no shortage of water indices reportingthe scarcity. The answer to the introductory question re-garding which type of index is a better measure of waterscarcity is in the eye of the beholder. However, in the mar-ketplace for ideas we want competing indices to ensure ahealthy debate continues.

For more information on the Water Impact Index see http://www.veoliawaterna.com/north-america-water/resources/documents/1/10975,Water_Impact_Index-White_Paper.pdf.

[email protected] / [email protected]� � �


WWAATTEERR IINNDDIICCEESS CCOONNTTIINNUUEE TTOO CCAASSCCAADDEE

SSkkyyee RRoooott aanndd CCllaayy JJ.. LLaannddrryy

The New Economy of Water ... OPINION

Table 1: Water Index Roundup.Name Measure Developer

GWI Water Index Financial Global Water IntelligenceISE Water Index Financial International Securities Exchange (ISE)Palisades Water Index Financial Palisades IndexesS&P Global Water Index Financial Standard and PoorS-Network Global Water Index Financial Janney Capital MarketsThe Water Impact Index Physical Veolia Water AmericasThe Water Index Physical World Resources Institute, Goldman Sachs and General ElectricThe Water Poverty Index Physical Peter Lawrence, Jeremy Meigh and Caroline SullivanThe Water Scarcity Index Physical UNEP-Vital Water GraphicsThe Water Stress Index Physical MaplecroftWater Rights Price Index Financial WestWater ResearchWorld Water Index Financial Unknown

E-MAIL CONNECTION

As recounted in the epic Greek poem the Odyssey, KingOdysseus (Ulysses) when returning from the Trojan Warencountered many obstacles placed in his way by the godPoseidon and/or by the choices he and his crew made. Itappears at one point mid-story they will literally have“clear sailing” when the keeper of the winds, the god Ae-olus, gave him a bag containing all the winds except thesteady Westerly. He was to keep the bag closed until afterhe was safely home in Ithaca. Literally in sight of thehome island, Odysseus fell asleep. His crew out of greed,thinking this bag guarded by Odysseus held treasure,opened it. The freed winds blew them all the way back toAeolus ’island. Having squandered the gift, the god re-fused to give Odysseus more aid. This is but one talefrom the ancients on how we long for command of the el-ements of nature to provide us with, amongst otherthings, clean, free, limitless energy. For untold millennia,humans were only able to harness the energy of their anddomesticated animals’ muscles for labor, and blowingwinds and running waters in comparatively minor waysto generate energy. Fire was used for heating, cooking,firing, smelting, and forging, but not as a source of me-chanical energy.

As history teaches, what made the industrial revolu-tion work and hence the grand transformation ofeconomies and lifestyles was the ability to harness theconcentrated heat energy of fossil fuels first throughsteam and then internal combustion to do work. Geolog-ic processes of hundreds of millions of years in the pastprovided humankind with fuels for our endeavors, but al-ways at a cost. Fossil fuel extraction, processing and useall have been and continue to be significant sources ofpollution and environmental degradation. Additionally,this captured light of ancient daylight is nonrenewableand present in finite amounts. Human ingenuity has al-lowed us to do great works with the energy released fromthese fuels but has also led us into a trap where the con-tinuation of modern civilization depends upon burningthese fuels despite the fact that these very acts poisonour lands, waters, and air.

Society is being told that we not only must continueto use fossil fuels, we must go even further and engage inever more risky practices. From digging coal out of theground and drilling to produce oil and natural gas fromever deeper and more remote sources, the difficulty anddanger to humans health, safety, and environmentalquality seems to be ever up to be sacrificed to the everhungry maw of our energy needs. Newer approaches forwresting fuel out of the earth from cracking oil out ofshale, to pulling oil out of tar sands, to the flavor of theday fracking (hydrofracking) natural gas out of tightlyheld formations all present massive threats to water re-sources both surface and ground. On first glance, thisappears to be a classic no win situation like one from amore modern myth than the Odyssey; the famous

Kobayashi Maru test of Star Trek fame. For those unfa-miliar with this test (i.e. you aren’t a Trekkie), the testwas a simulation in which a Starfleet academy cadet isplaced in command of a simulated starship. The ship re-ceives a distress call from the freighter Kobayashi Maruand becomes embroiled in conflict with an enemy thathas overwhelming numbers and firepower. The test wasdesigned to see how the cadet faced defeat and imminentdeath – a no win scenario. Like those enemy aliens in thesimulation, special interests are telling our leaders thatthe energy future of America and the world lies with fos-sil fuels, especially natural gas, which is “cleaner” thancoal or petroleum. And if some other environmental cap-ital like clean ground water must be sacrificed, well thenthat sacrifice we are told is the price for civilization.

In the Star Trek mythos, Ensign James T. Kirk wasthe first and for many years the only Star Fleet Academycadet to beat the Kobayashi Maru scenario: he did so byshowing “initiative,” even receiving a commendation forit. He refused to accept the conditions of the exercise andbefore his test he broke into the simulation program andreprogrammed it. He refused to accept the assumptionsothers laid out for him and won. Human ingenuity at itsfinest: it got us into this mess, it can get us out. Combi-nations of solar, biomass, biofuel, wind, wave, low flowhydro, hydrothermal, geothermal, fission, fusion, andeven more esoteric technologies hold great promise forenvironmental and economic sustainability as well as en-ergy independence. What stands in the way? Archaic ac-counting that does not, including natural capital lossesin the valuation of fossil fuel development and use; polit-ical systems that allow oil, gas, and coal oligarchs to buytheir way out of proper regulation and taxation at bar-gain basement rates, and the lack of support and incen-tives to promote energy efficiency and the developmentand use of green energy that will protect critical re-sources, especially water quality and supply.

One last note tying together energy, water, and pop-ular culture: as mentioned earlier, a technology that isbeing touted as a way to extract vast new reserves of nat-ural gas is called hydrofracking or fracking for short. AnAcademy Award nominated documentary “Gasland” aswell as numerous new reports and studies have shownthe great risk that this technology can pose to waterquality and the environment. Once again we are beingtold this is the salvific technology and to just put up withit. To this I respond as would a colonial officer from Bat-tlestar Galactica: Frak that!

[email protected]

� � �


AACCOOLLUUSS,, TTHHEE KKOOBBAAYYAASSHHII MMAARRUU AANNDD ““WWHHAATT TTHHEE FFRRAAKK ((FFRRAACCKK))??””

EErriicc JJ.. FFiittcchh

What’s Up With Water ... OPINION

E-MAIL CONNECTION

As the magnitude of British Petroleum’s (BP’s) oil spill be-came apparent, questions arose regarding the potential im-pact this or other massive oil spills would have on Gulfcoast public utilities such as drinking water and electricpower plants. Since the public hadn’t realized such a largespill was possible, it was fair to ask if the designers andmanagers of these utilities had planned for such an im-possibility. If you remember my January column, I said“We have no practical methods to protect near shore areasfrom oil,” and this applies just as much to utilities as itdoes to beaches and wetlands. This column will pose ques-tions of risk and risk prevention if nuclear power plants,desalination plants, and conventional water plants nearcoastal river mouths had to shut down.

REACTING TO UNANTICIPATED EMERGENCIES

After 9/11, public utilities were put under the umbrel-la of national security, so the public has no way of deter-mining if these facilities have adequate oil spill plans andthe means to immediately implement those plans if neces-sary. The degree of oil contamination in the water wouldaffect various utilities differently. Nuclear power plants re-quire enormous and continuous inputs of water to keeptheir fuel rods cooled, and their secondary systems can becooled using seawater. If a slick approached the plant andfloating booms were emplaced in time (and assuming nowave action or hurricanes), then most of the oil wouldn’tget sucked into the plant but oil dispersed by waves (orchemical dispersants) would, and I don’t know if smalleramounts of oil in the coolant water would cause problems.However, in the case of waves or hurricanes, nuclearplants would have to assume too much oil would entertheir intake pipes, requiring shutdown.

For desalination plants, any oil entering the plantwould ruin their very expensive filters and they would haveto shut down and replace all the filters and wait for thelocal water to become “clean” again. As each successivestorm could stir up the oil caught in lower currents or thesea bottom, and with dispersants keeping oil suspendedfar longer (and travelling farther), it would be hard to sayhow long they would have to wait to feel safe about turn-ing their intake pumps back on.

For conventional water treatment plants upriver fromthe coast, their risk of having oil-fouled water would onlycome if they were somewhat close to the typical tidal sea-water flows and a strong storm surge drove oiled seawaterfarther up the river. Not being designed to treat much oilin their intakes, they would need adequate warning to shuttheir pumps off.

Before these utilities can implement emergency plansto protect the facilities and the public they serve, they firsthave to be told there is an emergency! This brings up ques-tions about communications between BP, the CoastGuard, the former Minerals Management Service and all ofthe utilities that could be threatened by the spill. Who was

responsible for notifying communities and utilities of theemergency? None of these questions were sufficiently an-swered by any government agencies as the spill was grow-ing. Had there not been an explosion and deaths on the BPplatform, who knows how long it would have been untilcommunities and utilities were notified. Timeliness of thewarning has even more importance for a nuclear plantthan a water treatment plant, as nuclear plants need moretime to start the shutdown process, whereas drinkingwater plants can shut down fairly quickly.

DIFFICULTIES OF PLANNING DESIGN FLEXIBILITY INTOLONG TERM CAPITAL ASSETS

When designing infrastructure meant to last 30, 40,50 years or more, it is common to design for known poten-tial events, for example: 100-year floods, high windspeeds,direct lightning strikes, and in the case of nuclear powerplants, plane impacts. No design is chosen providing extraprotection from unlikely events. Consequently, as expertshave been warning of rising seas and impacts on existingcoastal infrastructure (see Timothy Beatley’s Planning forCoastal Resilience), we find infrastructure that was locat-ed and built without anticipating rising seas. Most of thesefacilities were built before anyone would have believed thatseas could rise enough to threaten them. This also appliesto unnatural disasters like catastrophic oil spills, since wedon’t have a long enough history of these to think theymust be accounted for in building design or location. Theyhaven’t occurred often enough in the same area (like in theGulf) to get sufficient public attention, and also don’t lastlong in news cycles so the rest of the country forgets quick-ly. If a BP Gulf spill happened every year, we would havequite a different view of the risks of deep water drilling.

WHAT DID WE LEARN?

We can’t be sure that agencies are capable of monitor-ing offshore wells adequately, or that emergency commu-nication plans to potentially affected communities andutilities are clearly established. National security designa-tions for utilities and the spill itself leave the public hopingwithout proof that agencies are prepared for another dis-aster such as the BP spill. For utilities, designing thebuilding is much easier than redesigning the processes ofhow fuel rods get cooled or how water treatment plants canrepel oil from their intakes. With no practical methods toprotect near shore areas, and since water intakes of powerand water plants are uniquely vulnerable to the presenceof oil, this argues against more deep water drilling. Recog-nizing that the risks of drilling are conveniently transferredonto coastal communities and taxpayers makes deep waterdrilling all the more absurd.

[email protected]� � �


TTHHEE BBPP GGUULLFF OOIILL SSPPIILLLL:: PPLLAANNNNIINNGG AANNDD PPRROOTTEECCTTIINNGGWWAATTEERR AANNDD WWAATTEERR IINNFFRRAASSTTRRUUCCTTUURREE

LLaauurreell EE.. PPhhooeenniixx

Could We Do Better? ... OPINION

E-MAIL CONNECTION

I trust that Spring has finallysprung wherever you are. And I’mhoping that you’re getting a good-ly amount of spring runoff, butnot in unmanageable amounts.

This month I’ll focus on ourSummer Specialty Conference, sotake a few minutes to read theIWRM articles in this issue. Theywill give you a good taste of whatto expect at the conference, whichwe will convene next month (June27-29) at the spectacular Snowbird Resort, easily acces-sible from Salt Lake City International Airport. It’s a greattime of year to be in the Utah mountains, and you willfind plenty to do both inside and outside the meetingrooms.

SPRING SPECIALTY CONFERENCE

We just finished our Spring Specialty Conference,Managing Climate Change Impacts on Water Resources:Adaptation Issues, Options, and Strategies. I want tothank General Chair C. Mark Dunning, Technical Co-Chairs Jerry Sehlke and J. Rolf Olsen and the entire or-ganizing committee: Carol R. Collier, Ari Michelsen, Kath-leen D. White, Lisa Engelman, Noel R. Gollehon, DavidEslinger, Christopher M. DeChantal, and Karen Metchisfor their hard work. It was an excellent meeting.

ANNUAL WATER RESOURCES CONFERENCE

Planning for our 47th Annual Water Resources Con-ference in Albuquerque, New Mexico, November 7-10, isprogressing nicely. You’ll be reading this message justabout the time abstracts are due (May 13) so considersubmitting one (the site usually stays open a few daysbeyond the posted due date). The 2011 Annual Confer-ence includes over 35 Special Sessions from which tochoose. The Special Sessions have been organized bywater resources professionals from across the country;topics are timely and relevant, and reflect the diverse in-terests of AWRA members. And don’t forget that the Fallis a beautiful time in New Mexico.

SUMMER SPECIALTY CONFERENCE

Curious about IWRM? So am I! If so, be sure to at-tend our Summer Specialty Conference at the end ofJune, Integrated Water Resources Management: The Em-peror’s New Clothes or Indispensable Process? You’ll finda Program-at-a-Glance elsewhere in this issue. The con-ference title frivolously asks the question we seek to an-swer: Is IWRM a truly indispensable, useful process forwater resources management, or do people employ it be-cause they think it is de rigueur and do not want to ap-pear stupid or incompetent?

Recall that in 2002 the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment in Johannesburg called for all countries to

establish national Integrated Water Resources Manage-ment plans.

So just what is IWRM, and what does it entail?

According to the Global Water Partnership, IWRM isa “process which promotes the coordinated developmentand management of water, land, and related resources inorder to maximize the resultant economic and social wel-fare in an equitable manner without compromising thesustainability of vital ecosystems.” Is such a definitionworkable?

You’d probably expect me to say that I am really look-ing forward to this conference. After all, I’m the chair andthat is what I am supposed to say, right? But when I saythat I am really looking forward to it, it’s not just promo-tional fluff. Why not? Well, I cast a skeptical eye uponIWRM, just as I do at the word ‘sustainability.’ The termIWRM is held up as a water management approach, yetit seems far too unrealistic for implementation. I want tosee some real world applications, monitoring and evalu-ation, and outcomes assessments of IWRM. I am espe-cially anxious to see its application to ground water dom-inated systems. And can IWRM be modified to accountfor nonrenewable ground water development?

So how do we plan to address the efficacy of IWRM?With the following:

• Keynote presentation featuring Steven L. Stockton,P.E., Director of Civil Works, U.S. Army Corps of Engi-neers, and Karen Krchnak, Director of InternationalWater Policy, The Nature Conservancy

• Plenary session featuring experts discussing vari-ous aspects of IWRM: Dr. Jerry Delli Priscoli, Institute forWater Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; andFrançois Brelle, President, French Association for Water,Irrigation and Drainage (invited).

• Twenty-four technical sessions featuring the follow-ing aspects of IWRM: water quality, flood management;geomorphology; regional planning, economics, groundwater, utilities management, agriculture, case studies,ecosystems, collaborative modeling, and more!

• A full-day Symposium on Collaborative Modelingfor Decision Support organized by the USACE’s Institutefor Water Resources and Sandia National Laboratories.This unique symposium will be embedded within theconference and feature presentations on collaborativemodeling – also known as shared vision planning or me-diated modeling – from around the world.

• Special session featuring UNESCO HELP (Hydrolo-gy for the Environment, Life, and Policy) case studies.

• Pre-conference Sunday afternoon workshop, Intro-duction to System Dynamics Modeling, taught by


�� MMEESSSSAAGGEE FFRROOMM TTHHEE PPRREESSIIDDEENNTT ...... MMiicchhaaeell EE.. CCaammppaannaa,, 22001111

Vincent Tidwell of Sandia National Laboratories andJohn Tracy of the Idaho Water Resources Research Insti-tute.

• Special Session on California’s Integrated RegionalWater Management (IRWM) planning program.

• Ample time and space for attendees to network anddiscuss IWRM and related concepts.

• Planned ‘walking field trip’ to see how the SnowbirdResort manages water at its site

• Closing Plenary Session: IWRM: Quo Vadis? A dis-cussion of what we’ve learned about IWRM and where weneed to take IWRM.

AND

• Special guest appearance by The Emperor of IWRM!

The symposium on Collaborative Modeling for Deci-sion Support is unlike anything we’ve ever done at anAWRA conference. It has generated quite a lot of interest.I think we will see more such ventures at future confer-ences.

You know that AWRA conferences always provideample opportunities for networking and interaction in acongenial atmosphere and the 2011 Summer SpecialtyConference will be no exception. We will employ our high-ly successful “Ask Me About” program which invites at-tendees to discuss topics of mutual interest with otherattendees.

I look forward to meeting each of you in Utah thisJune as we continue AWRA’s august tradition of foster-ing “Community, Conversation and Connections” be-tween and among professionals working in the nascentfield of Integrated Water Resources Management. If you

attend only one IWRM conference, this is THE one to at-tend!

Be forewarned: if you do not attend, The Emperor ofIWRM will find you. And he will be unhappy. AWRA andI cannot assume responsibility for his actions!

EL FIN

That’s it for this issue. I expect to be heading to theAWRA Florida Section’s meeting in Key West at the end ofJuly. Quite a contrast to my trip to Chena Hot Springs,Alaska, for the wonderful meeting of AWRA’s AlaskaState Section in early April.

I’ll leave you with this gem, courtesy of Sam Luoma(retired USGS):

The biggest problem in the environment is people's quest tofind the biggest problem in the environment.

Jared Diamond

[email protected]

� � �


MMeessssaaggee FFrroomm TThhee PPrreessiiddeenntt ...... MMiicchhaaeell EE.. CCaammppaannaa ...... ccoonntt’’dd..

E-MAIL CONNECTION

Have Questions About IMPACT?Contact AWRA HQ

By Phone • (540) 687-8390By Fax • (540) 687-8395By E-Mail • [email protected]

Check Out Our Home PageAt www.awra.org

� � � � �


The Nominating/Awards Committee of the American Water Resources Association, chaired by Past President Ari M.Michelsen, announces the following slate of candidates for Officers and Directors positions for terms commencing Janu-ary 1, 2012:

PRESIDENT-ELECT(1-YEAR TERM)

CAROL R. COLLIERDelaware River Basin Commission

West Trenton, New Jersey

DIRECTOR(3-YEAR TERM)

JIM EISENHARDT NOEL COLLEHONJohnson, Mirmiran and Thompson USDA ~ Natural Resources and Conservation Service

Newark, Delaware Beltsville, Maryland

JOHN TRACY JOHN WELLSUniversity of Idaho Minnesota Environmental Quality Board

Boise, Idaho St. Paul, Minnesota

As set forth in Article III, Section 5D of the American Water Resources Association’s Bylaws “members may nominate ad-ditional candidates by submitting a written petition to the Association Headquarters signed by not less than 25 associa-tion members in good standing. A letter signed by the nominee expressing a willingness to accept the nomination and toserve if elected and a brief biographical sketch must accompany the petition. Such petition with the requisite signatures,the acceptance letter, and the biographical sketch must be received no later than May 31, 2011.”

�� AAWWRRAA FFUUTTUURREE MMEEEETTIINNGGSS ...... AADDDDIITTIIOONNAALL IINNFFOO ...... WWWWWW..AAWWRRAA..OORRGG

2011

JUNE 27-29, 2011AWRA’S SUMMER SPECIALTY CONFERENCE

INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT:THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES OR INDISPENSABLE PROCESS?

SNOWBIRD RESORT ~ SNOWBIRD, UTAH

(SEE SPECIAL CENTER SECTION FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND REGISTRATION FORM))(DETAILS ARE ALSO AVAILABLE IN THE PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE ON PGS. 32 & 33)

NOVEMBER 7-10, 2011AWRA’S ANNUAL WATER RESOURCES CONFERENCE

HYATT REGENCY ~ ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO

�� CCAANNDDIIDDAATTEESS FFOORR AAWWRRAA OOFFFFIICCEERRSS AANNDD DDIIRREECCTTOORRSS ...... 22001122

Editor’s Note: The title of Clay Landry and Skye Root’s “The New Economy of Water” column (pgs. 1 and 20 in the March2011 issue of Water Resources IMPACT) should have read “Climate Change and Water Risk: Where Are Regulatory Re-porting Requirements Headed? (The next to the last word should have been “Requirements, not Repairments.” We sin-cerely apologize for this error and hope it has not caused any problems for anyone.


�� SSCCHHEEDDUULLEEDD TTOOPPIICCSS FFOORR FFUUTTUURREE IISSSSUUEESS OOFF IIMMPPAACCTT

JULY 2011HYDRAULIC FRACTURING (HYDROFRACKING)

N. EARL SPANGENBERG(EDITOR-IN-CHIEF)

[email protected]

SEPTEMBER 2011WATER MARKETSCLAY J. LANDRY

(ASSOCIATE EDITOR)AND

SKYE ROOT(IMPACT BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT)

[email protected] / [email protected]

NOVEMBER 2011WATER HISTORYRICHARD H. MCCUEN(ASSOCIATE EDITOR)

[email protected]

The topics listed above are subject to change. For information concerning submitting an article to be included in theabove issues, contact the designated Editor or the Editor-in-Chief Earl Spangenberg at [email protected].

Search for American Water Resources Association on these social networking sites & add AWRA to your network!


®


Solution to Puzzle (pg. 28)USE WATER RESOURCES IMPACT TOADVERTISE YOUR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES

A BI-MONTHLY NEWS MAGAZINEOF THE AMERICAN WATERRESOURCES ASSOCIATION

REACH A WORLD-WIDE WATERRESOURCES AUDIENCE

CONTACT THE AWRA PUBLICATIONS OFFICE FORSPECIFICATIONS AND PRICING INFORMATION

ADVERTISING SPACE AVAILABLE FOR 1/6, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2,2/3, AND FULL-PAGE ADVERTISEMENTS

CCAALLLL:: ((225566)) 665500--00770011

EE--MMAAIILL:: iinnffoo@@aawwrraa..oorrgg oorr

cchhaarrlleennee@@aawwrraa..oorrgg

AWRAʼs unique multidisciplinary structure providesyour company the opportunity to advertise toreaders representing over 60 professions andliving in over 65 countries around the world!

As the nation turns to advancing its infrastructure, now is the time to get your resume posted on the AWRA Career Center.Since AWRA is a part of the Engineering & Science Career Network, more hiring managers will see your resume. Plus you'll enjoy a wide selection of open positions in your industry. Don'tDon’t miss this unique opportunity to expandyour job search. Visit the AWRA Career Center today!

Get Your Career on Solid Ground.The AWRA Career Center should be your first stop.

AWRA | PO Box 1626, Middleburg, VA 20118-1626 | Phone: 540.687.8390 | Fax: 540.687.8395

[INSERT ASSOCIATION

LOGO]

The ESCN is a strategic industry alliance formed by AWRA and other top trade and professional associations that serve engineering and science professionals and companies searching for your unique skills.

careers.awra.org

®

AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION – 2011MMAAIILL TTHHIISS FFOORRMM TTOO .. .. .. AWRA • C/O MIDDLEBURG BANK • P.O. BOX 2217 • LEESBURG, VA 20177-2217FFOORR FFAASSTTEESSTT SSEERRVVIICCEE .. .. .. FAX THIS FORM (CREDIT CARD OR P.O. ORDERS ONLY) TO (540) 687-8395

QQUUEESSTTIIOONNSS?? .. .. .. CALL AWRA HQ AT (540) 687-8390 OR E-MAIL AT [email protected]

�� COMPLETE ALL SECTIONS (PLEASE PRINT)

LAST NAME FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL

TITLE

COMPANY NAME

MAILING ADDRESS

CITY STATE ZIP+4 COUNTRYIS THIS YOUR � HOME OR � BUSINESS ADDRESS?PHONE NUMBER FAX NUMBER

E-MAIL ADDRESS

RECOMMENDED BY (NAME) AWRA MEMBERSHIP #�� MEMBERSHIP CATEGORIES

REGULAR AND STUDENT MEMBERS� REGULAR MEMBER...............................................................$165.00� REGULAR (HALF-YEAR: JULY 1-DECEMBER 31) .......................$82.50� STUDENT MEMBER (FULL YEAR ONLY) ....................................$30.00REGULAR AND STUDENT MEMBERS RECEIVE ONLINE ACCESS TO 40 YEARS OFRESEARCH IN JAWRA (REGULAR MEMBERS RECEIVE A PRINT VERSION ASWELL), ONLINE ACCESS TO CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS, ONLINE AND PRINTVERSIONS OF WATER RESOURCES IMPACT, AND DISCOUNTS ON PUBLICATIONSAND CONFERENCE REGISTRATIONS. ASSOCIATE MEMBER – SINGLE OFFICE� FULL YEAR ..........................................................................$500.00� HALF-YEAR (JULY 1-DECEMBER 31)......................................$250.00

ASSOCIATE MEMBER – ENTERPRISE OFFICE� FULL YEAR .......................................................................$2,000.00� HALF-YEAR (JULY 1-DECEMBER 31)...................................$1,000.00ASSOCIATE MEMBERS RECEIVE PROMINENT VISIBILITY ON AWRAʼS WEB-SITE, DISCOUNTS ON EXHIBIT OPPORTUNITIES AND AWRA JOB POSTINGS, ANDWATER RESOURCES IMPACT ONLINE AND IN PRINT (SEVERAL COPIES, IFREQUESTED).

� AWRA MEMBERSHIP CERTIFICATE..............................................$11.00

� STUDENT MEMBERS MUST BE FULL-TIME AND THE APPLICATIONMUST BE ENDORSED BY A FACULTY MEMBER

PRINT NAME SIGNATUREANTICIPATED GRADUATION DATE (MONTH/YEAR):FACULTY SIGNATURE ENDORSEMENT:

� FOREIGN AIRMAIL OPTIONS: CONTACT AWRA FOR PRICING.�� PLEASE NOTE∗∗ MEMBERSHIP IS BASED ON A CALENDAR-YEAR (JAN. 1-DEC. 31); AFTER

JULY 1, REGULAR AND ASSOCIATE MEMBERS MAY ELECT A SIX-MONTHMEMBERSHIP FOR ONE-HALF THE ANNUAL DUES.

∗∗ STUDENTS DO NOT QUALIFY FOR HALF-YEAR MEMBERSHIP.∗∗ REMITTANCE MUST BE MADE IN U.S. DOLLARS DRAWN ON A U.S. BANK.

�� PAYMENT MUST ACCOMPANY APPLICATIONPAYMENT MUST BE MADE BY CHECK OR ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CREDIT CARDS:

� VISA � MASTERCARD � DINERS CLUB � AMEX � DISCOVER

CARDHOLDERʼS NAMECARD # EXP. DATE CSC #SIGNATURE (REQUIRED)

�� YOUR PRIMARY REASON FOR JOINING? (CHECK ONE)� TO RECEIVE INFORMATION THROUGH JAWRA AND IMPACT� NETWORKING OPPORTUNITIES� TECHNICAL COMMITTEE INTERACTIONS� CONFERENCE DISCOUNT� EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES� OTHER:

�� HOW DID YOU LEARN OF AWRA? (CHECK ONE)� PROMOTIONAL MAILING� INTERNET SEARCH� JOURNAL (JAWRA)� IMPACT� BOSS/FRIEND/COLLEAGUE� EMAIL RECEIVED� OTHER:


DEMOGRAPHIC CODES(PLEASE LIMIT YOUR CHOICE TO ONE IN EACH CATEGORY)

JOB TITLE CODES EMPLOYER CODES WATER RESOURCES DISCIPLINE CODESCF Consulting FirmEI Educational Institution (faculty/staff)ES Educational Institution (student)LR Local/Regional Govʼt. AgencySI State/Interstate Govʼt. AgencyIN IndustryLF Law FirmFG Federal GovernmentRE RetiredNP Non-Profit OrganizationTG Tribal GovernmentOT Other

EDUCATION CODESHS High SchoolAA AssociatesBA Bachelor of ArtsBS Bachelor of ScienceMA Master of ArtsMS Master of ScienceJD Juris DoctorPhD DoctorateOT Other

AG Agronomy GI GeographicBI Biology InformationCH Chemistry SystemsEY Ecology HY HydrologyEC Economics LA LawED Education LM LimnologyEG Engineering OE OceanographyFO Forestry PS PoliticalGR Geography ScienceGE Geology OT Other

JT1 Management (Pres., VP, Div. Head,Section Head, Manager, ChiefEngineer)

JT2 Engineering (non-mgmt.; i.e., civil,mechanical, planning, systemsdesigner)

JT3 Scientific (non-mgmt.; i.e., chemist,biologist, hydrologist, analyst,geologist, hydrogeologist)

JT4 Marketing/Sales (non-mgmt.)JT5 FacultyJT6 StudentJT7 AttorneyJT8 RetiredJT9 Computer Scientist (GIS, modeling,

data mgmt., etc.)JT10 Elected/Appointed OfficialJT11 Volunteer/Interested CitizenJT12 Non-ProfitJT13 Other

PPLLEEAASSEE NNOOTTEE YYOOUURR SSEELLEECCTTEEDD CCOODDEENNUUMMBBEERRSS FFRROOMM AABBOOVVEE

JJOOBB TTIITTLLEE CCOODDEE ............................................................................EEMMPPLLOOYYEERR CCOODDEE ..........................................................................WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS DDIISSCCIIPPLLIINNEE CCOODDEE........................

EEDDUUCCAATTIIOONN CCOODDEE ........................................................................

Non-Profit Org.U.S. Postage

P A I DPermit No. 3245Minneapolis, MN

4 West Federal St., P.O. Box 1626Middleburg, VA 20118-1626 USATelephone: (540) 687-8390

ISSN 1522-3175

AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

DDAATTEEDD MMAATTEERRIIAALL EENNCCLLOOSSEEDD

®

2011 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

PRESIDENTMICHAEL E. [email protected]

PRESIDENT-ELECT SECRETARY/TREASURERWILLIAM A. BATTAGLIN DAVID R. WATT

[email protected] [email protected]

PAST PRESIDENT EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENTARI M. MICHELSEN KENNETH D. REID, [email protected] [email protected]

Documents

INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT: THE … · measurement and monitoring Brought to you by: Precipitation Monitoring OTT Pluvio2 Precipitation Gauge All-weather weighing precipitation