[Sustain] WATER PLANNING IN THE SOUTHWEST
Don Eichelberger
done7777 at sbcglobal.net
Thu Apr 10 21:21:24 PDT 2008
Martin-
Thank you for this document. It is a very
interesting analysis of water planning processes
going on in New Mexico that look like they might
hold suggestions for California water
management. The resource list at the end is also
excellent in terms of what the literature is out
there and possible groundwork for future organizing.
By way of introduction to others to whom I cced
this, you are now in California and interested in
getting the State and National Greens more
involved with water issues, modeling a
bioregional approach to organizing
stakeholders. I fully support your efforts, and
believe many others would, also. So I forwarded
this to see if there is help out there to move
this agenda, both locally and at the state and national levels.
Water policy planning and implementation is a
natural for Green Party- it is the definition of
bioregionalism, whose goal is to protect our
common watershed. It is a perfect organizing
model which, if done correctly, will result in
more realistic planning and openness in water
policy decisions and project oversite. A
rejuvenated "friends of the creeks" effort could
build support groups deep in to the grassroots, wherever there is water.
Greens got away from the bioregional model a few
years ago when we adopted the current process for
dividing regions, based more on population
distributions than bioregionalism. I felt when I
first heard of the state water plan that it
presented a natural opportunity for bioregional
organizing, getting Greens on to local water boards, etc.
I haven't done much until now to follow that
up. Thank you, Martin, for lighting the fuse,
Don
At 08:00 PM 3/24/2008, you wrote:
>WATER PLANNING IN THE SOUTHWEST
>by Martin Zehr
>
>Making Bio-Regional Water Planning a Reality
>
>In the Middle Rio Grande region of New Mexico
>water planning is taking on a significant
>character that is open and inclusive. The
>Interstate Stream Commission (ISC) approved the
>50-year plan worked on for over 9 years by the
>Middle Rio Grande Water Assembly. We worked with
>the regional Water Resources Board of the Middle
>Region Council of Governments (MR COG) and
>maintained the direction and intent of the plan.
>It has been approved by the 15 municipalities of
>the region, the regional water utility
>authority, the irrigators’ conservancy district
>and the flood control authorities of the two
>counties in the region, some with particular
>caveats included in their memoranda of
>agreement. Hundreds of individuals from
>environmental groups, advocacy groups, real
>estate interests, water managers of utilities,
>planners, administrators and specialists in
>hydrology and geo-hydrology have participated
>and actively engaged the communities in the
>region for input on recommendations and preferred scenarios.
>
>The result is a plan over 400 pages long with 43
>recommendations, and a preferred scenario.
>http://www.waterassembly.org In the
>implementation of the plan, Water Assembly
>officers are working on stakeholder advisory
>committees such as the Ad Hoc Committee of the
>Interstate Stream Committee (ISC), the Water
>Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) of the
>Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Water Utility
>Authority, the Albuquerque Reach Watershed
>Advisory Group and the Water Resources Board of
>the Middle Rio Grande Council of
>Governments. These advisory committees are
>integrated with governmental entities and play
>an important role in providing real input into their decisions.
>
>One should never presume that these advisory
>committees are opposed to a Green agenda or that
>citizen activist Greens should not be likewise
>considered as candidates for these positions.
>Even further, Greens can play an active role in
>the political appointments within the Interstate
>Stream Commission, the appointed/elected
>positions (taken from the City Council, the
>County Commission and the Mayor) within the
>Utility Authority or the elected officials of
>the irrigators’ Middle Rio Grande Conservancy
>District. These are precisely the types of
>low-profile local positions that make
>significant policy decisions regarding water
>administration. Focused electoral activity in
>these bodies could have huge dividends in the
>construction of a system of water management driven by stakeholder mandates.
>
>New Mexico state law authorizing the development
>of regional water plans alludes to the active
>role of the 16 regional plans that have been
>developed or are in the process of being
>developed. The experience of the Middle Rio
>Grande Water Assembly would seem to suggest that
>there is a need in this enabling legislation to
>make the regional planning process directly
>linked to the state legislature’s power to
>develop and fund appropriate legislation or the
>executive’s power to administer the state waters
>for enacting and implementing the plan once
>agreed upon by stakeholders. Otherwise, there
>remains structural issues and, in this case,
>opposition by full-time staffers, as well as
>elected officials, of the municipal entities.
>This is one lesson of this experience that
>became fairly evident during the development of
>the plan. MR COG demonstrated continual
>opposition to growth management aspects of the
>plan’s recommendations and continuously worked
>to delete them. Further, as the entity that was
>designated to receive state funds, it was hardly
>possible to avoid this conflict and still
>provide the science and input needed to construct a sound plan.
>
>In New Mexico, the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County
>Water Utility Authority was established to
>empower an entity in a regional context. It
>arose at the same time as the state legislature
>developed a plan for a unification of the city
>of Albuquerque and the county of Bernalillo.
>This effort has been defeated in the referenda
>three times because of concern by county
>residents about sprawl and uncontrolled growth.
>The enacting legislation for ABCWUA designated
>three city councilors from Albuquerque, three
>county commissioners from Bernalillo County and
>the Mayor of Albuquerque to sit on the board.
>Future legislation in other states should
>anticipate the problems when a political entity
>with authority is established that is not
>elected directly by the people. Besides the
>loopholes it creates in accountability within
>the Authority, it really is not establishing a
>character to the Authority based on its
>functions and purposes. Taking individuals from
>the city and the county does not increase the
>likelihood that the board will be made of
>qualified water managers, specialists or
>advocates of the various stakeholder interests.
>The key here is to provide such entities
>established by the state, such as the
>Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Water Utility
>Authority, to be popularly elected and that
>representatives be designated to represent
>particular “stakeholder interests” rather than
>districts. Ideally, such a scenario would have
>the Authority established within a given
>watershed and that stakeholder groups would be
>apportioned a given number of representatives.
>
>Proposals dealing with issues ranging from water
>quality to conjunctive management of surface and
>ground waters, and from establishing funding
>sources for water programs to increasing water
>supply and decreasing water demand have all been
>incorporated into the recommendations.
>Conservation of urban individual and large-scale
>users’ withdrawals, improving irrigation
>efficiency of agricultural users, and
>development of growth management in urban areas
>to integrate land use and transportation
>planning with water management are addressed by
>the plan and provide it with a holistic
>approach. These policy issues provide new
>relevancy to the Green presence in elections.
>The water planning process and other examples of
>adaptive governance are integral components of
>the political work of the Green Party. Here, an
>active model presents itself for Greens to
>actively engage in that combines ecological
>activism with political advocacy, structural
>reform and electoral coalition building. These
>proposals arose from public input and begin to
>provide a comprehensive vision of concrete
>policies and administrative measures.
>
>In the Middle Rio Grande, there are two of the
>largest cities in New Mexico, Albuquerque and
>Rio Rancho. These cities supply over 500,000
>people solely from underground water supplies.
>Combined these cities use 151,000 acre ft. per
>year. Agriculture getting its supply of water
>from the Rio Grande River consumes 298,340 acre
>ft. per year. In the Water Supply Study Phase
>III prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of
>Engineers and the Interstate Stream Commission
>it was summarized: “Both Base Case and
>Sensitivity model results indicate that water
>demands in the Middle Rio Grande region
>currently exceed the available renewable water
>supply by a minimum of 71,000 acre-feet per year
>(groundwater withdrawals that have not yet
>impacted the river), and perhaps by as much as
>110,600 acre-feet per year. Despite that these
>results are accompanied by uncertainty as noted
>above, the analysis suggests that New Mexico
>faces significant challenges with respect to
>meeting both water demands in the Middle Rio
>Grande and Compact obligations in future years.”
>These challenges are the issues of election
>campaigns, the substance of policy decisions and
>duties of elected officials. It is within the
>ability of Green Party candidates to build a
>public consensus as an integral component of its election activities.
>
>
>The Great Urban User vs. Economic Development Conflict:
>Or is it all just about Urban vs. Rural?
>
>Three additional constituency groups were formed
>within the Middle Rio Grande Water Assembly in
>2001, four years after the formation of the
>Assembly. These groups reformed the structure of
>the Assembly. They were added to the already
>existing groups of specialists, managers and
>reconfigured a broader group for those impacted
>by water management. (Brown, pp. 201,
>202) These groups were defined as:
>Agricultural, Cultural and Historical Users;
>Environmental Advocates; and Urban Users and
>Economic Development Advocates (UUEDA).
>
>These constituency groups provided self-defined
>structures that were represented in the Action
>Committee, the governing body of the Assembly.
>All constituency groups were given five
>representatives on the Action Committee. This
>provided for advocates of the various
>stakeholder interests to provide input into the
>writing of the plan, to review the
>recommendations being proposed and to provide
>representation of the various stakeholders in
>the decision-making process of the Water Assembly.
>
>The composition of the UUEDA group was to prove
>problematic from the beginning. Once engaged in
>the water planning process, developers, real
>estate attorneys, and commercial realtors took
>an active interest in seeking to dominate
>UUEDA’s representation on the Action Committee.
>This brought them into conflict at a very basic
>level with urban users, such as myself, who
>represented Greens in the region as
>stakeholders, and others who were urban
>residents in Albuquerque. The validity of such a
>representation of urban Greens within the
>Constituency Group structure was based on the
>various electoral results in elections ranging
>from City Council to Congress and the
>Presidency. This should put to rest the
>continued cry of liberals not to run candidates
>for higher offices and demonstrates a
>substantive payback in the willingness to run
>Greens for Congress and the Presidency.
>
>For two consecutive years, the developers were
>able to sustain a monopoly of representatives by
>sending people to the Annual Assembly where
>elections were held. In spite of an effort to
>mediate these “stacked” elections, initiated by
>myself, a monopoly of representation by
>developers on the Action Committee existed from
>the Annual Meeting in 2001 to the Annual Meeting
>in 2003. Urban users and Greens continued to
>present their perspectives within UUEDA and, as
>an Alternate, I was often able to cast an UUEDA
>vote at the Action Committee meetings. It is
>important in such activity that maximum presence
>be facilitated to stakeholders not tied to
>immediate economic interests. In 2003, the
>developers were defeated in a similar effort and
>two non-development advocates, one from the
>National Council of Churches and one from 1000
>Friends of New Mexico, were elected to the Action Committee.
>
>UUEDA was the most stable and functional
>constituency group of the five throughout this
>time, even though some urban users left while
>others came forth. Maintaining a consistent
>involvement in these Constituency Groups has its
>benefits. The Environmental Advocates
>Constituency Group had few people involved over
>the long-term and it lacked organizational
>cohesion. This resulted in the omission of
>recommendations for purely environmental
>purposes being included in the plan. On the
>other hand, urban users and economic developers
>played a role in many of the recommendations
>addressing growth management. Also, lacking
>within the plan were proposals addressing legal
>issues of water rights holders in the region.
>Clearly, while it was an individual decision in
>this case, there were obvious discussions that
>local party leadership, or a working group,
>could have had that would have benefited the
>work’s progress and assured attention to the various aspects of the plan.
>
>Policy discussions and reviews of projected
>usage created many heated discussions between
>stakeholders. Sustained advocacy by urban users,
>agricultural, environmental, specialists and
>managers developed into a working coalition
>internally that effectively negated plans
>tailored solely to promote real estate interests
>within the Action Committee. That occurred
>because these groups accepted values that
>included the preservation of agriculture in the
>region. Public opinion on this matter was
>demonstrated by a public opinion poll sponsored
>by UNM, which showed agricultural use as the 2nd
>in priority of most in the region. This
>represents a distinct model for Greens running
>for public office and proposes a new voter
>alignment of political support for the future
>that goes beyond the existing Democrat and
>Republican models, cutting into both.
>
>
>Going with the Flow Instead of Against It
>
>Now that this process is merging with the
>efforts of local municipalities in the
>implementation and monitoring of the plan,
>developers have moved in search of other, more
>hospitable venues. They left making a statement
>declaring that they see no water “crisis” facing
>the region. They have moved on to happier
>hunting grounds where they will have more
>influence through lobbying and contact with
>public officials. Unfortunately for them, they
>left little behind in the plan itself. Their
>inability to make significant inroads in the
>plan’s development should be a flashing light to
>discouraged activists who are so accustomed to
>defeat by such interests within existing
>governmental entities. It also introduces new
>structures as emerging bioregional political
>entities based on stakeholder representation.
>
>All things considered it was a very productive
>exercise and stands on its own as a process that
>effectively promoted green values and integrated
>them with bioregional planning. Bernalillo
>County has developed a Draft Water Conservation
>Plan that explicitly traces its proposals to the
>regional water plan and is the first
>governmental entity to demonstrate a linkage
>between the plan and the development of
>appropriate ordinances and regulations to
>implement it. A water budget is in the initial
>drafting stages of input by the Water Resources
>Advisory Committee (WRAC) that may present
>substantive differences with the plan’s
>recommendations and proposals despite its effort
>to use the language of the plan. But, because of
>the Water Assembly’s leading role in the
>planning process and its representation on the
>WRAC, this will not go through without
>considerable review and new input. Much of the
>opposition to the plan’s incorporation into the
>water budget comes from staff of the City of
>Albuquerque, the Middle Region Council of
>Governments and the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority.
>
>Green efforts need to be prioritized to gain the
>most in the shortest amount of time. We need to
>work in processes that will provide regional
>engagement on green issues. Greens could have
>worked for years to elect the entire state
>legislature and we would not have produced a
>more effective array of policy proposals that
>are integrated with local and state governments.
>What remains to be addressed is the existing
>over-appropriation of 70,000-110,000 acre
>feet/year of the water resource and the
>continued effort by public officials to disregard this deficit.
>
>Politically, the New Mexico Green Party has not
>taken the opportunity to cement electoral
>campaigns to the water planning efforts. This is
>a major deficiency in establishing a real
>political will in elected public officials to
>carry through on planning of any sort. This is
>the responsibility of the Green Party. It alone
>has the role, as a political party, to mobilize
>the public support sufficient to assure the
>plan’s implementation. Greens candidates and
>campaigns could have provided an educational
>platform on the plan and sharpened the debate on
>its recommendations to provide a mandate for the plan.
>
>A citizen “Livabilty” coalition has been formed
>of individuals and groups supporting the
>implementation of the regional water plan, the
>Planned Growth Strategy (a holistic urban smart
>growth plan for Albuquerque) and the
>Metropolitan Transportation Plan. It came
>together as an expression of the frustration of
>many advocates in the failure to have the plans
>implemented after they were designed through a
>public process. It is possible that this
>coalition may develop a political strategy for
>addressing the implementation of these plans
>that have already been approved by the local
>governmental entities. This demonstrated
>frustration raises the political issue and
>brings it to the fore with a different sense of
>urgency. It also subtly establishes the priority
>of a promoting a Green political agenda over
>voting for a “winnable” duopolist candidate, who
>will not seek to implement the plans.
>
>
>This is not a panacea. It is not intended to
>represent some grand strategy that Greens should
>implement in place of electoral work. It is
>simply a process that has produced results that
>are consistent with green values. A process and
>product that can readily be supported by
>progressives and even Republican farmers. Our
>ability to work with a variety of stakeholders
>is dependent on listening to them and defining
>our own priorities within the process. We were
>all able to stand firm against efforts by the
>Regional Council of Governments to delete Goal K
>of the Water Assembly: “Balance growth with
>renewable supply”. We were able to maintain the
>goals described above regarding Growth
>Management in spite of the Water Resources Board
>of MRCOG opposing those listed after the first
>bullet. The Draft Water Conservation Plan of the
>Bernalillo County Commission specifically lists
>this goal and the growth management
>recommendations in its text. This is a major victory in itself.
>
>It is necessarily a long process that not
>everyone will be able to sustain, but there are
>payoffs at the end. The length of the process
>may improve the local party’s orientation in
>regards to the technical, as well as the
>political aspects of water planning. The
>planning process will not automatically provide
>solutions to political issues. Greens should
>reach out in such work and begin to develop a
>working coalition with voter blocs that have
>common interests and agendas. They should work
>with the variety of activists to develop
>strategies for implementation of recommendations
>in the face of opposition by public officials
>and administrators. Greens need to discuss the
>planning process with their supporters and get
>input. Too many times in this particular
>process, state and regional party leadership did
>not take the planning process as something that
>would help to build the role and influence of
>the Green Party. Nor was there any attention
>paid regarding the details of the plan’s
>recommendations and what independent positions
>were considered as important for the party to
>fight for. This breakdown in party structure in
>New Mexico presaged the collapse of the party’s
>organization throughout the state.
>
>It is important that such bioregional water
>planning be authorized by the state legislature
>to empower and fund it upon completion. It is
>worthwhile to begin assimilating the open and
>inclusive nature of such a planning process into
>policy proposals for structural reform of
>governmental entities as proposed in works on
>Adaptive Governance. (see below for
>references) Clearly, Greens can initiate and
>support proposals for structural reform in local
>governance and planning that begin to
>incorporate the role of stakeholders in the
>decision-making processes. This can take place
>in charter changes and at the state level in
>getting such statutes sponsored that would move in that direction.
>
>The Green Party needs to define itself and
>represent a particular group of constituents and
>define its agenda in that context. Going beyond
>Ecological Wisdom to Ecological Restoration is
>one way to do it. Focusing issue work starting
>from that point removes the problem of turf
>battles between the Democratic Left and Greens.
>It forces us to look at the substance of the
>Platform in new ways. It opens up the
>possibility of uniting voters around an Earth,
>Water, and Air Party- a real GREEN Party. To do
>this it is absolutely necessary that the Green
>Party begin to structure itself so that it can
>process the organizing experiences and share
>them with others. The recent formation of the
>EcoAction Committee provides a means to
>distribute summaries of work and activity that
>are related to the party’s tasks. It is
>important that the Green Party increases its
>visibility and sharpens its Platform to focus on
>the political agendas that evolve in such processes.
>
>Bioregional planning is a learning experience
>that helps people identify actively engaged
>people of the region, as well as learning local
>movers and shakers that often work behind the
>scenes for the developers, home construction and
>related interests. It helps provide a
>self-education in hydrology and forces people to
>become more informed on the resource. It is also
>democracy at work at the most fundamental level
>and in the most fundamental area of policy
>determination impacting on water management. The
>incorporation of Town Hall meetings, Community
>Conversations, and open and inclusive input in
>such processes go beyond that currently modeled
>in municipal and other local governmental
>entities. The process can be effectively
>developed not only for water resource planning
>but for other areas of policy making, such as
>urban growth, fish and wildlife management, and
>forest and range land restoration.
>
>The challenge ahead in implementation of the
>regional water plan for the Middle Rio Grande
>once again demonstrates the urgency of an
>ecologically based agenda for the Green Party in
>its campaigns and presents a distinct model for
>electoral activity. Neither the Democrats nor
>the Republicans are prepared to defy the
>interests of the high-tech industries, defense
>labs and the developers and home construction
>industry. There are no perfect models of
>resource planning that will address the myriad
>of factors undermining the establishment of
>sustainable planning systems. But, Greens can
>begin to comprehend the various defined local
>interests, actors and entities and their role in
>the growth-driven models of the present and can
>begin to construct new models for the future. We
>can begin to learn from this process and we can
>begin to define a new Green agenda while the
>window of opportunity is open. For Greens, it’s
>like floating downstream in a mountain stream.
>
>
>Mato Ska, Aka Martin Zehr, m_zehr at hotmail.com
>
>(Brown, John R. “Whiskey’s fer Drinkin’;
>Water’s fer Fightin’! Is It? Resolving a
>Collective Action Dilemma in New
>Mexico”. NATURAL RESOURCES JOURNAL,; Winter
>2003,Vol 43, No. 1. p.221. UNM SCHOOL OF LAW, Albuquerque, NM.)
>
>Adaptive Governance
>Interesting ideas based on some comments by
>Vanessa Mazal at the NM Water Dialogue meeting in Albuquerque.
>Vanessa Mazal
>December 19, 2005
>"Water-related legislation proposed in many
>Western states seems to indicate that, at least
>in some cases, rural communities and the water
>they depend on should be protected. It is
>possible that the best way to do this is for
>regional authorities to be legislated a certain
>degree of ultimate decision-making power in
>order to determine how growth will take place
>and how water will be used on more localized scales.
>" With careful crafting, region of origin
>measures can offer important tools for the
>protection of rural communities. A variety of
>clever provisions have been introduced into
>these bills, such as economic compensation or
>tax benefits for communities in regions where
>water is being transferred from; conservation
>plan requirements for recipients of
>inter-regional transfers; and water rights
>leasing options during wet years instead of
>outright, permanent transfers. However, even
>where region of origin measures are in place,
>they are not guarantees of rural community
>protection. In Texas and California, for
>example, loopholes in region of origin measures
>have been exposed and protections eroded to
>facilitate growth in major cities. "
>*********
>http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/lubell/Research/CollaborativeGrassroots_Final.pdf
>
>Collaborative Watershed Management: A View from the Grassroots
>Mark Lubell
>Department of Environmental Science and Policy
>UC Davis
>One Shields Avenue
>Davis, CA 95616
>mnlubell at ucdavis.edu
>March 2004
>Abstract
>To date, research on collaborative watershed
>management has paid scant attention to the role
>of grassroots stakeholders, who are the people
>that actually use natural resources. This paper
>argues cooperation from grassroots stakeholders
>is necessary for the success of collaborative
>management, and outlines three theoretical
>perspectives to explain cooperation. The
>validity of these theoretical perspectives is
>tested using a survey of farmer participation in
>the Suwannee River Partnership in Florida. The
>findings suggest farmers’ perceptions of policy
>effectiveness are largely driven by economic
>considerations, while participation in
>collaborative management is linked to social capital.
>*********
>http://www.cbcrc.org/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=48&PHPSESSID=3653041e89e13ce788612f3424444429
>
>Community-Based Collaboratives Research Consortium
>The Diablo Trust: Community Stewardship from the Rivers to the High Deserts
>by Hadassah Holland
>Oct 27, 2005
>Diablo Trust
>http://www.cbcrc.org/2003speakerpapers/margerum_rosenberg_Paper_02.pdf
>Improving the Effectiveness of Community-Based Collaboratives:
>Tools for Broadening Community Outreach
>Watershed management
>*********
>http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=15828
>BULLETIN BOARD - October 3, 2005
>Adaptive Governance
>by Staff
>Adaptive Governance
>Ronald D. Brunner et al.
>368 pages, softcover: $29.50
>Columbia University Press, 2005.
>Five case studies of Western natural resources
>battles show communities how to move toward
>"adaptive governance" -- policy-making through
>open processes that involve multiple interests
>and many kinds of knowledge. The authors' aim is
>to help break the gridlock that so often
>paralyzes decisions about how best to manage
>fisheries, forests and rangeland. Although heavy
>on the wonk, this guide should prove worthwhile
>for both public officials and private citizens.
>************
>http://www.cbcrc.org/php-bin/news/index.php
>Common Waters, Diverging Streams: Linking
>Institutions and Water Management in Arizona,
>California, and Colorado | October 27, 2005
>In Common Waters, Diverging Streams, authors
>William Blomquist, Edella Schlager, and Tanya
>Heikkila describe the causes of water scarcity
>in the American West and the use of conjunctive
>water management in arid land regions. Case
>studies from California, Arizona, and Colorado
>seek to explain the differences in water
>management results as local actors try to solve
>similar problems with the same policy reform.
>The authors then proceed to discuss the role and
>rise of conjunctive management in the west while
>applying outcomes from the case studies through
>state-specific laws and regulations, legal
>doctrines, the organizations governing and
>managing water supplies, and the division of
>authority between state and local government.
>Publisher: Resources for the Future. Copyright
>2004. For ordering information visit http://www.rff.org . (read more>> )
>*********
>http://www.lajicarita.org/05oct.htm#bookreview
>October 2005
>Book Review: Adaptive Governance: Integrating
>Science, Policy, and Decision Making
>By Ronald D. Brunner, Toddi A. Steelman, Lindy
>Coe-Juell, Christina M. Cromley, Christine M. Edwards, and Donna W. Tucker
>Reviewed by Kay Matthews
>***************
>http://www.rff.org/rff/rff_press/bookdetail.cfm?outputID=8698
>Adaptive Governance and Water Conflict
>New Institutions for Collaborative Planning
>John T. Scholz and Bruce Stiftel, editors
>October 2005 /300 pages
>Cloth, ISBN 1-933115-18-1 / $75.00
>Paper, ISBN 1-933115-19-X / $29.95
>Book Description
>Water policy seems in perpetual crisis.
>Increasingly, conflicts extend beyond the
>statutory authority, competence, geographical
>jurisdictions, and political constituencies of
>highly specialized governing authorities. While
>other books address specific policy approaches
>or the application of adaptive management
>strategies to specific problems, this is the
>first book to focus more broadly on adaptive
>governance, or the evolution of new institutions
>that attempt to resolve conflicts among competing authorities.
>Adaptive Governance and Water Conflict
>investigates new types of water conflicts among
>users in the seemingly water-rich Eastern United
>States. Eight case studies of water quality,
>water quantity, and habitat preservation or
>restoration in Florida were chosen to span the
>range of conflicts crossing fragmented
>regulatory boundaries. Each begins with a
>history of the conflict and then focuses on the
>innovative institutional arrangements—some
>successful, some not—that evolved to grapple
>with the resulting challenges. In the chapters
>that follow, scholars and practitioners in urban
>planning, political science, engineering, law,
>policy, administration, and geology offer
>different theoretical and experience-based
>perspectives on the cases. Together, they
>discuss five challenges that new institutions
>must overcome to develop sustainable solutions
>for water users: Who is to be involved in the
>policy process? How are they to interact? How is
>science to be used? How are users and the public
>to be made aware? How can solutions be made efficient and equitable?
>In its diverse perspectives and unique
>combination of theory, application, and
>analysis, Adaptive Governance and Water Conflict
>will be a valuable book for water professionals,
>policy scientists, students, and scholars in
>natural resource planning and management.
>
>http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~bstiftel/ADAPTIVE%20GOVERNANCE%20AND%20WATER%20CONFLICT.html#Table_of_Contents
>
>Adaptive Governance and Water Conflict:
>New Institutions for Collaborative Planning
>
>edited by
>John T. Scholz and Bruce Stiftel, Florida State University
>
>published by Resources for the Future Press
>Adaptive Governance and Water Conflict
>investigates new types of water conflicts among
>users in the seemingly water-rich Eastern United
>States. Eight case studies of water quality,
>water quantity, and habitat preservation or
>restoration in Florida were chosen to span the
>range of conflicts crossing fragmented
>regulatory boundaries. Each begins with a
>history of the conflict and then focuses on the
>innovative institutional arrangements—some
>successful, some not—that evolved to grapple
>with the resulting challenges. In the chapters
>that follow, scholars and practitioners in urban
>planning, political science, engineering, law,
>policy, administration, and geology offer
>different theoretical and experience-based
>perspectives on the cases. Together, they
>discuss five challenges that new institutions
>must overcome to develop sustainable solutions
>for water users: Who is to be involved in the
>policy process? How are they to interact? How is
>science to be used? How are users and the public
>to be made aware? How can solutions be made
>efficient and equitable? In its diverse
>perspectives and unique combination of theory,
>application, and analysis, Adaptive Governance
>and Water Conflict will be a valuable book for
>water professionals, policy scientists,
>students, and scholars in natural resource planning and management.
>[ Table of Contents ] [ Preface pdf ]
>[ Introductory Chapter pdf ] [ Sales Flyer: 20% discount ]
>[ Publishers Online Catalog listing ]
>John T. Scholz is Frances Epps Professor of
>Political Science at Florida State University.
>Bruce Stiftel, FAICP, is Professor of Urban and
>Regional Planning at Florida State University,
>and Visiting Fellow in City and Regional Planning at Cardiff University (UK).
>Adaptive Governance and Water Conflict
>Publication Date: September 2005
>6 x 9 300 pages
>John T. Scholz and Bruce Stiftel, editors
>ISBN 1-933115-18-1 $75.00 unjacketed hardback
>ISBN 1-933115-19-X $29.95 paperback
>
>Water policy seems in perpetual crisis.
>Increasingly, conflicts extend beyond the
>statutory authority, competence, geographical
>jurisdictions, and political constituencies of
>highly specialized governing authorities. While
>other books address specific policy approaches
>or the application of adaptive management
>strategies to specific problems, this is the
>first book to focus more broadly on adaptive
>governance, or the evolution of new institutions
>that attempt to resolve conflicts among competing authorities.
>“An important and substantive contribution on
>environmental governance and water policy by a
>first-rate group of authors. The case studies
>address a broad range of issues including water
>supply, water quality, and ecosystem management.
>That the cases are set in a region known among
>water resource professionals for the growing
>intensity of its water conflicts adds to the
>book’s appeal. It is certain to be of interest
>to water scholars and to water and ecosystem
>management practitioners everywhere.”—William
>Blomquist, Indiana UniversityPurdue University Indianapolis
Don Eichelberger
DJ Fix Independent Productions
Green Uprising Blog
www.greenuprising.blogspot.com
My You Tube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctRp5rGJoUc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iySwwyZfDgE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r9rK8nPREA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5UbnJ0kUqo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SktIYTyC1U
Donny Fix del.icio.us book marks
http://del.icio.us/donnyfix
The Hegelian/Marxist goal is emancipation. Marx said it best in 1843:
"Human emancipation wll only be complete when the
real, individual man (sic) is absorbed into
himself the abstract citizen; when as an
individual man, in his every day life, in his
work and in his relationships, he has become a
species-being (politically accountabe to the
whole); and when he recognizes and realizes his
own power as social powers, so that he no longer
separates this social power from himself as political power."
More information about the Sustainability
mailing list