A Little Less Talk, A Lot More Action
Do We Need Another National Water Commission?
SOURCE: AP/John Bazemore
Support grows in Congress for a reprise of the 1973 National Water Commission. Studies are useful, but must lead to real change. Above: a depleted Lake Lanier in Georgia last fall.
With a new presidential administration and a new Congress taking office in January, advocates from all perspectives are looking at opportunities to translate a mandate for “change” into specific national policy reforms. Watch your step as the avalanche of recommendations begins to cascade toward Washington, D.C., around the end of the year—actions to take in the first 100 days, the first year, and so on.
The national glove box is already crammed full of road maps for our waterways.
Among the proposals already in the hopper is a congressional bill that would create a new national water commission or, more precisely, the “21st Century Water Commission.” Introduced by Rep. John Linder (R-GA), H.B. 135 moved out of House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure’s Subcommittee on Water and Environment in May, and has the support of Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), who introduced companion legislation in that chamber.
Real change in water policy would include:
- Water resource planning that takes into account the West’s hydrologic variability, recognizing that our supply is not fixed and acknowledging new and changing baseline conditions due to climate change
- Land-use decisions explicitly linked to meaningful assessments of water availability, especially in fast-growing areas that rely on groundwater for new development. New developments conditioned on water supply assessments that analyze: sustainable, long-term supply; impacts on other water users, including fish and wildlife; and feasibility of alternative sources, including conservation
- “No net increase” of water extractions from natural sources for new developments, relying instead on conservation and reallocation from other uses as the main source of “new” water
- Incentives and mandates to boost both urban/residential and rural/agricultural water conservation, enabling creative re-use of water with local goals for developing rainwater catchments and grey water systems as sources for irrigation and lawn/garden water
- Linkage between energy and water demands recognized through decision-making processes that account for: the energy costs of developing new water supply options; and impacts on water use from oil, coal, hydropower, and gas development
- Improved regional cooperation among existing public and private water managers, fostered by the creation of new watershed management authorities
- Relative rights of existing water users clarified by streamlining and expediting state water agencies’ permitting and adjudication processes, and by completing (and funding the implementation of) negotiated settlements of Native American reserved water rights
- Enhanced funding for local watershed groups and water districts that initiate stream restoration, water conservation, and education efforts through grants and loans
- Improved public dialogue and community-supported policy changes, including educating policymakers and the public about the effects of growth and climate change on our water supply
- Restored and protected rivers, floodplains, and wetlands, benefiting the overall public safety, water quality, and ecosystem services in the West’s interconnected watersheds
Linder’s bill would establish a nine-person commission with a $9 million budget and a three-year deadline to assess the nation’s water availability and demands, with a focus on the pressure points of the country in which fast-growing populations are encountering drought and other supply constraints. The legislation explicitly would not create new national water policy, but would provide data, financial incentives, and strategies for stronger and farther-looking state policies. Comparing the initiative to the interstate highway system of the last century, Rep. Linder proclaimed this bill a first step toward “a roadmap that states can use to form their water policy.”
The national glove box is already crammed full of road maps for our waterways. As Steve Malloch of the National Wildlife Federation remarked at a water policy meeting in New Mexico in May, “We’re long on good policy; we’re short on good politics.” What we need is movement on key state and federal policy reforms (see sidebar) to combat the most important factors affecting our nation’s water resources—rapid growth in dry regions and global warming.
Since the last National Water Commission completed its work, culminating in a well-researched and prescient report published in 1973, “Water Policies for the Future,” subsequent gatherings of experts—many focused on the arid West—have produced library shelves full of reports and white papers reaching remarkably consistent conclusions. For a summary of these policy recommendations and an analysis of the most promising areas for reform today, see the Western Progress report, “A New Western Water Agenda.”
Many of the most urgently needed reforms in water policy will take place in state legislatures or at the local (county, municipality) level. But federal policies can encourage improvements through a combination of incentives and regulation.
At a hearing last November, for example, water experts such as the Pacific Institute’s Peter Gleick and National Wildlife Federation’s David Conrad testified in favor of convening a new national water commission to address a wider array of concerns than is currently captured in mandates of H.B. 135. Responding to these suggestions, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) offered an amendment to H.B. 135 that would increase the size and budget for the commission, and (most importantly) charge it with analysis of the effects of climate change on our water resources.
In a May 12 blog for the American Water Resources Association, Michael “Aquadoc” Campana, praised these amendments as improvements to the commission proposed by H.B. 135. The director of the Institute for Water and Watersheds at Oregon State University and master of the informative and entertaining Waterwired web site, Campana called the bill a “long overdue start” at achieving a national water strategy.
These are all important issues that deserve attention. But the question remains. Do we need a new commission to revisit these questions? Or do we need to look more seriously at how we might mobilize the political will to implement the remarkably consistent menu of ideas that has already emerged from such gatherings of water experts over the past several decades?
At a Natural Resources Law Center conference in Boulder, CO last month, Lewis & Clark Law Professor Jan Neuman reviewed this body of work and concluded that the arsenal of ideas for water policy reform is virtually complete. Rather than pour money and time into a new federal commission, she suggested—with tongue only partly in cheek—that Congress should re-issue the 1973 National Water Commission report with a new chapter on climate change—and then focus its energies on implementation rather than further study.
As a contributing writer to the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission’s report (and a participant in a few other smaller initiatives along these lines), I can attest that these processes are cumbersome, political, and cumulative. I find Neuman’s arguments compelling and provocative.
While a new national water commission could undoubtedly shed new light on old water problems—particularly the effects of climate change on limited water resources—progressives must step up early and remain engaged throughout the process to make sure this investment pays off in positive policy reform rather than more shelf art.
Whatever the outcome of this November’s election, it is clear that voters are interested in real change and practical solutions. Let’s start with some movement on water policy—not more talk, but long-overdue reforms to move us toward a national goal of sustainability.
Sarah Bates is the deputy director for policy and outreach at Western Progress, a nonpartisan regional policy institute dedicated to advancing progressive policy solutions for the Rocky Mountain West. She has written extensively on natural resources law and policy.
Comments on this article