Policy Blog
« Water Policy Committee to Study Governance | Main | What we heard in the initial poverty discussions »
October 20, 2008
Findings, Vision, and Guiding Principles in Water Governance
At last Thursday's Water Policy Study Committee meeting, the committee began to brainstorm a vision for water in Minnesota and the principles that should direct water management. Using the vision as our future state and the principles as a guide of how to get there, the committee plans to develop recommendations that can improve our water management system.
I want to use this blog to put down what I'm seeing as some of the conclusions the committee is coming to -- both its findings and the results of the brainstorm on vision and principles. The committee has NOT agreed on these -- it's just a starting point based on the meeting on the 16th -- and I would really appreciate feedback. Also, please take a look through the complete list of ideas from our brainstorm and help pull out what I'm missing.
Findings:- The water governance system is fragmented. The system has been developed piecemeal, without an overarching picture of how all the pieces fit together. The system is not organized by an overall set of goals nor through good coordination among executive agencies, resulting in multiple and often unclear lines of responsibility and unclear and at times overlapping authority. However, there are benefits to this system at well. Competing agencies can act as advocates for their areas of responsibility, balancing the various interests at play. Bottom line: there's no evidence that drastically overhauling the system to make it more streamlined would lead to better results.
- There seems to be general agreement that the most effective way to manage water is on a watershed basis. Political units are restricted to their borders, which do not usually fall along watershed lines -- a downstream county, for example, has little control over what is happening upstream. Watershed-based management, on the other hand, can help deal with upstream/downstream conflicts. Watershed units can also engage people meaningfully, because they can (and should) work on a local level.
- The state does not have good data on outcomes, such as water quality or groundwater supply, so it can be difficult to tell when practices and policies are working.
- Evaluations of Minnesota's water management system are most often focused on the executive agencies involved. We should also consider how the Legislature is organized to deal with these issues and what effects that has on statutes and budgets, as well as the roles of businesses, nonprofits, communities, and citizens.
- Governance is generally program-oriented. Most funding goes toward specific programs, and most inter-agency coordination is done on a program basis.
- Clean, plentiful waters, both for human use (drinking water, recreation, business and industry) and wildlife
- Equity of access -- including affordability of drinking/tap water and access to lakes and rivers
- Clarity -- clearly defined goals guide governmental decisions, and the role of citizens in water management is clear
- Water management is a shared responsibility -- upstream users take into account those downstream, and we manage water for future generations
- Knowledge of the resource -- we understand the problems that need to be dealt with, and we know the quantity of water available in the state
- Governance is efficient and cost-effective
Jack Ray put together a nice vision statement at the meeting: "Water is life. Earth is our home because it is the blue planet, the water planet. Access to adequate clean water in our homes and in our lakes, streams and groundwater is a fundamental human right. Water is not merely a commodity. Private transactions in water must never violate the highest public trust, the public stewardship of our collective treasure, our state's water resources."
Principles:- Transparency -- clearly define principles and/or goals behind government actions and decisions. Clear roles for citizens. Clear where responsibilities lie.
- Outcomes-based
- Accountability -- this requires that the responsibility given to a government body is matched by their authority
- Comprehensive -- water management integrates quality/quantity, incorporates multiple and sometimes competing interests
- Water has value -- we shouldn't treat it as if it were free
- Hydrologic basis for water governance -- I'd like to explore more what this means
- Policy decisions based on data where possible (and water viewed as a finite resource). Precautionary principle where we don't have enough information.
- Incentives as well as regulation
One of the areas of tension that stands out so far is: to what degree should priorities be developed by citizens and on a local level vs. the need for a statewide water plan?
I also want to draw attention to Larry Baker's comment following the meeting on the 16th, with some ideas of how to move forward. It probably should be attached to this post, but I didn't get it up quickly enough.
Posted by Annie Levenson-Falk at October 20, 2008 3:15 PM
Comments
As far as findings on governance, I would say I understand the idea behind the defense of it, because it basically endorses the concept of checks and balances. It's worth noting, however, that if there is going to be such a system for water policy governance to be established, there should be a designed structure to it -- a "constitution" of water governing agencies, if you will, that clearly define the role of each institution and what it is responsible for governing. Without such an overarching structure, it seems some institutions could easily be overly "checked and balanced," and others not really "checked or balanced" at all. The current system sounds like a nightmarish maze of red tape, with little rhyme or reason to it. That does not sound like an idea governing model.
Posted by: Sean Skibbie | October 27, 2008 1:40 AM
The best designed plan to couple responsibility, authority, and outcomes is ideal. But,don't we need to somehow include adequate funding in the equation? Without funding, at the end of the day, our suggestions will fall short.
Posted by: Karen Chesebrough | October 28, 2008 2:22 PM
Greetings all. Jack Ray and I met last Friday to go through the "raw" visioning/principles info. However, after pouring over it, we concluded we are not yet ready to formulate a coherent vision. So.... no poetic paragraphs yet. BUT! The below might at least be a start. These are the themes that seemed to jump out. As Sean suggests, maybe we need a Water Manifesto?? Anyway, see what you think:
Water is a common good, a public good. It is not something that can be owned by any one person or corporation. We are all responsible, collectively, for its health and protection. We are accountable to each other for how we use it. It is our collective heritage, one we must preserve for ourselves today as well as the people of tomorrow.
Water is a human right. All humans, all life on earth, are dependent on water. It is our obligation as a just and humane society to ensure equitable and affordable access to water to sustain life and health. Water is not evenly distributed in nature, therefore we must develop allocation and distribution systems that ensure it is equitably shared among all citizens.
Water is a natural element that depends on a healthy watershed. Water impacts and is impacted by both natural and human activities occurring within a watershed. To ensure healthy waters we must responsibly manage the watershed as a whole system. This includes acknowledgment of the reciprocal relationship between our watershed’s health, land-use activities and food and energy production.
Water has value. It is deserving of our respect and reverence. We treat water as if it were free in our consumption and waste disposal habits. These activities come at a cost to our freshwater supplies and their resilience, yet such costs are not factored into the price we pay for the use of our waters.
Water must be sustainably managed. Our current approach to water use is to take what we want and then expect our natural waters and dependent ecosystems to make due with what’s left. The reverse is needed. We must develop a deeper, more comprehensive understanding of the resource. And we must apply our technologies to adjusting our needs to make due with what’s available beyond the needs of a healthy watershed.
Water management must be integrative. The variety of uses we impose on our waters are in fact interconnected, yet we don’t manage them this way. The availability of water for one use is dependent on (and will impact) how it’s used for another. The needs of people, agriculture, industry, and ecosystems must be managed as a whole, integrated system, not as separate policy spheres with separate interests.
Water governance must be democratic. All stakeholders have a right to voice their interests, but also an obligation to listen to the interests of others. Water governance must also find the right balance between local, watershed based management and state vision, standards and assistance. Appropriate authority and funding must be matched to the responsibility given to local units of government if outcomes are to be achieved. Similarly, clarity in statutes, devolution of power, and available funding sources is crucial.
Water stewardship depends on citizen participation in water resource management – from visioning to planning to implementation. Clearly defining the citizen role and providing social supports for collective action in communities are key to engendering stewardship. Water is best managed at the local, watershed level. Our attachment to water is place based, and our intimate knowledge of the local resource a great advantage in responsible management. Citizen estrangement from water can occur when management is framed as strictly government purview. The result is disempowerment, passivity, and misuse and abuse (inadvertent or not) of the resource.
Water is a core identity among Minnesotans. Our sense of home includes the surrounding landscape replete with clean and plentiful waters. The decline and uncertain future of our waters causes deep concern for us. Not only do we cherish the natural beauty our waters provide, we also depend on our waters to connect us to one another – we are boaters, swimmers, fishermen and women. Through our interactions with water we renew our social bonds with family and friends. Losing our waters would feel like losing ourselves. We need a water ethic.
Posted by: Janna | October 28, 2008 4:06 PM
I have put some thought into the idea of the 'vision statement' for water and I am still a little confused. What is the purpose of this statement? And what practical purpose does this statement serve?
I think that we have to be careful when we look at the principles and vision. Our group is made up of individuals who have a interest in water, policy or both. Our views may not be representative of other residents (e.g. a farmer in rural Minnesota, or a manager of a power plant etc). When counties put together a water plan the citizen group is made up of individuals with different backgrounds (farmer, lake resident, hobby farmer, etc). Can our group put together a representative view of water for Minnesota?
Posted by: Danielle W | October 28, 2008 10:43 PM
Steve Woods, with the Board of Water and Soil Resources, emailed me some comments on this blog that I want to share (with his permission, of course):
Principles for any revised system in my mind:
Posted by: Annie Levenson-Falk | October 29, 2008 4:16 PM