FIRST PEOPLES AND WATER: WATER RESOURCE ISSUES FOR …featherriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/1507impact.pdf · FIRST PEOPLES AND WATER: WATER RESOURCE ISSUES FOR NATIVE AMERICANS

American Water Resources Association

July 2015 | Volume 17 | Number 4 July 2015 | Volume 17 | Number 4

FIRST PEOPLES AND WATER: WATER

RESOURCE ISSUES FORNATIVE AMERICANS

FIRST PEOPLES AND WATER: WATER

RESOURCE ISSUES FORNATIVE AMERICANS

FIRST PEOPLES AND WATER:WATER RESOURCE ISSUESFOR NATIVE AMERICANS

LISA BEUTLERAssociate Editor ~ [email protected]

For thousands of years American Indians lived in equillibri-um on traditional lands, adapting to seasons and land-scapes. This issue of Water Resources IMPACT highlights thebenefits and importance of incorporating the knowledge andconcerns of First Peoples into water resources planning. Thefeature articles range from a discussion of the traditionalknowledge First Peoples can offer water managers today, tothe fact that many tribes still have not had their water rightscompletely quantified, leaving them without a legally securesource of water. All of the authors affirm that authenticallyengaging and collaborating with native peoples is good for thetribes and good for water managers.

3 First Peoples and Water: One Size Does Not Fit All... Lisa Beutler

4 Survey Shows Americans Have Increased Awarenessof Water Infrastructure Investment Needs ...Yung-Hsin Sun

FEATURE ARTICLES

5 Establishing and Preserving Tribal Water Rightsin a Water Stressed West ... Brett Bovee

There is a growing awareness of the need to establish andpreserve water rights for Native American Tribes. Using casestudies and specific examples, this article describes the processand methods for quantifying tribal water rights, the challenges,and the potential use of tribal economic development andwater markets to address some challenges.

11 Fire and Water ... Ron W. Goode and Lisa BeutlerThis article describes a collaboration with tribes and state andfederal government to incorporate Native American fire andforest management tools into California’s water managementportfolio. Also provided is some historical context for fire andwater management and case studies that demonstrate thepower of these tools.

15 Improving Climate Resiliency in Tribal Commun-ities: Partnering for Change in the Missouri RiverBasin ... Crystal J. Stiles, Natalie Umphlett, JamesRattling Leaf, Sr., Martha D. Shulski, Doug Kluck,Michael Hayes, and Chad McNutt

Using recent Missouri River Basin examples, this article describes decision support and drought and resiliency planningefforts conducted with tribal communities using the NationalIntegrated Drought Information System. The authors alsodescribe a collaborative process and provide information on how to build productive relationships.

18 The Evolution of Tribal Policy in California ...Anecita S. Agustinez and Emily Alejandrino

In this article California’s Water Resources Tribal Advisorprovides an overview of some specific institutional efforts toadvance tribal policy in California. Examples of barriers andsuccesses are offered and the importance of engagementemphasized.

20 The Indigenous Rights Risk Report: HarnessingMarket Forces to Defend Indigenous Water Rights... Katie Cheney

This report, designed to be used by investors and based on ananalysis of 52 projects, describes five indicators that determinethe risk of indigenous community opposition to projects orviolations of Indigenous Peoples’ rights. Throughout it empha-sizes that poor social and cultural practices are not just bad forIndigenous Peoples, they are bad for business.

Other features in this issue ...

� AWRA BUSINESS

10 Scheduled Topics for IMPACT for 2015

24 AWRA Multi-Conference App is LIVE!

26 Send Us Your Feedback for This Issue

26 Advertising Opportunities in IMPACT

29 Highlights of June 2015 JAWRA Papers

30 Student Presenter Competition Winner Announced ~ AWRA Spring SpecialtyConference ~ Los Angeles, CA ~ March 30-April 1, 2015

30 State Chapter News ... Northern California Chapter to Re-Launch

31 Scheduled 2015 & 2016 AWRA Meetings Mark Your Calendars!

32 Technical Sessions At-A-Glance ... AWRA’s 2015 Annual Water Resources ConferenceDenver, Colorado - November 16-19, 2015

34 AWRA 2015 Executive Committee

� CALL FOR HELP ... THE FUTURE OFIMPACT

23 Help Us Shape the Future of the WaterResources IMPACT Magazine ... Christine McCrehin and Lisa Beutler

� OPINION COLUMNS

25 What’s Up With Water ... The Dog and HisReflection and Climate Change Illusions?... Eric J. Fitch

27 The New Economy of Water ... Nestle’sChallenges Highlight the EconomicImportance of Water Supply Planning ...Tanner Ketellapper and Clay J. Landry

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

� PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

28 Discussing Public-Private Partnerships: Is This the Future of Water ResourcesManagement? ... John C. Tracy

� WATER RESOURCES PUZZLER . . . . .33Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

� ADVERTISERSGoldSim Technology Group, LLC . . . . . . . 14Dynamic Solutions International, LLC . . .27

CommunityConversationConnections®

VOLUME 17 • NUMBER 4 • JULY 2015

2 • Water Resources IMPACT July • 2015

AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

4 West Federal Street • P.O. Box 1626Middleburg, VA 20118-1626

(540) 687-8390 / Fax: (540) 687-8395E-Mail: [email protected] • Homepage: www.awra.org

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

ERIC J. FITCHAssociate Professor of Environmental Science and LeadershipChair, Department of Biology and Environmental Science

Director, Environmental Science ProgramMarietta College ~ 215 Fifth St. ~ Marietta, Ohio 45750

(740) 376-4997 ~ Fax: (740) 376-4753E-Mail: [email protected]

TO PLACE AN AD IN THIS PUBLICATION CONTACT

CHRISTINE MCCREHIN

(540) 687-8390 / Fax: (540) 687-8395E-Mail: [email protected]

Water Resources IMPACT is owned and published bi-monthly bythe American Water Resources Association, 4 West Federal St.,P.O. Box 1626, Middleburg, Virginia 20118-1626, USA. Theyearly subscription rate is $80.00 domestic and $95.00 for in-ternational subscribers. For the International Priority ShippingOption, add $50.00 to the international subscription rate. Sin-gle copies of IMPACT are available for $15.00/each (domestic)and $20.00/each (international). For bulk purchases, contactthe AWRA Headquarters (HQ) office.

CLAIMS FOR MISSING ISSUES should be sent to the AWRA office in Middleburg, Virginia. No claim allowed for (1) insuffi-cient notice of address change; (2) issues lost in the mail unlessclaimed within (a) 90 days for U.S.A., or (b) 180 days for othercountries, from last day of month of publication; or (3) such rea-sons as “missing from files.”

IMPACT is a magazine of ideas. Authors, Associate Editors, andthe Editor-in-Chief work together to create a publication thatwill inform and will provoke conversation. The views and con-clusions expressed by individual authors and published inWater Resources IMPACT should not be interpreted as necessar-ily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied,of the American Water Resources Association.

Mention of any trademark or proprietary product in works pub-lished in the Water Resources IMPACT does not constitute aguarantee or warranty of the product by the American Water Re-sources Association and does not imply its approval to the ex-clusion of other products that may also be suitable.

Contact the AWRA HQ office if you have any questions pertain-ing to your membership status. For information on advertisingrates and deadlines, contact Christine McCrehin at the e-mailaddress or phone number given above.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Water Resources IMPACT, American Water Resources Association, 4 West FederalSt., P.O. Box 1626, Middleburg, VA 20118-1626. Copyright ©2015 by the American Water Resources Association.

• VOL. 17 • NO. 4 • JULY 2015 •

ISSN 1522-3175

A Bi-Monthly Publication of theAMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

ASSOCIATE EDITORS

JOE BERG([email protected])

Biohabitats, Inc. ~ Baltimore, Maryland

LISA BEUTLER([email protected])MWH ~ Sacramento, California

MAE A. DAVENPORT([email protected])

University of Minnesota ~ St. Paul, Minnesota

JONATHAN E. JONES([email protected])

Wright Water Engineers ~ Denver, Colorado

CLAY J. LANDRY([email protected])

WestWater Research ~ Boise, Idaho

RICHARD H. MCCUEN([email protected])

University of Maryland ~ College Park, Maryland

E. TIM SMITH([email protected])

Sustainable Water Resources Roundtable

RICHARD A. ENGBERG([email protected])

American Water Resources AssociationMiddleburg, Virginia

AWRA . . . Community,Conversation,Connections

®

COPY EDITOR

Have Questions About IMPACT?Contact AWRA HQ

Phone • (540) 687-8390 / Fax 13 • (540) 687-8395By E-Mail • [email protected]

Check Out Our Home Page At www.awra.org

SUBSCRIPTION RATESWATER RESOURCES IMPACT

DOMESTIC ..............................................$80.00FOREIGN ................................................$95.00FOREIGN AIRMAIL OPTION..........................$50.00

SINGLE COPIES AVAILABLE

DOMESTIC ..............................................$15.00INTERNATIONAL........................................$20.00

CONTACT THE AWRA HQ OFFICE FOR

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR TO SUBSCRIBE

Cover Photos: Selected from istock.com by Eric J.Fitch, Editor-in-Chief ([email protected]).

The authors of the featured articles of this issue ofWater Resources IMPACT provide a small glimpse of theFirst Peoples’ issues, topics, and approaches they haveworked through in their roles as researchers, water man-agers, and leaders.

The subject is inherently complex, as western prob-lem solving approaches and even the fundamental un-derstanding people’s relationship to water may not applyto indigenous experiences. This is further complicated bythe fact that there is significant cultural distinctivenessacross the First People’s communities themselves, as wellas between them and the broader culture.

Even the recognition of what constitutes a recognizedtribe is complex. In the United States (U.S.), as providedby the Constitution of the U.S., treaties, court decisions,and Federal statutes, 566 tribes composed of AmericanIndian and Alaska Natives maintain this government-to-government status with the Department of the Interior,Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, providing trustoversight. In Hawaii the relationship with First Peoples ismaintained on behalf of the federal government by theState.

Tribal related offices have existed in the U.S. govern-ment since 1775 when the Second Continental Congresssought treaties with tribes to maintain their neutralityduring the American Revolutionary War. In 1789, Con-gress placed Native American relations within the newlyformed War Department. In those days the goal wasmaintenance of the fur trade. Over the years the rela-tionship of the federal government to tribes has been pri-marily patriarchal and multiple accusations of corrup-tion and exploitation have been leveled against those incharge. Even the recognition of agreements and treatiesis disputed, leaving a group of state government recog-nized tribes without federally recognized status.

To this add the historic practices of governments re-locating First Peoples from their traditional lands. Farfrom being an issue of the past, a Vermont SupremeCourt case as recently as 1992, held that the Abenaki, aNative American tribe from New England, were not enti-tled to land they had held for centuries. Lord andShutkin (Lord and Shutkin, 1994) recount that evenwhile a complex historical record contained proof theAbenaki had maintained legal residence and the rights toland ownership, the court chose not to heed historical ac-counts. They concluded that disregard for historicalanalysis has serious implications for how we view notonly Native American history, but also justice.

Brett Bovee explains,“Water conflicts between West-ern Tribes and their non-Indian neighbors emergedshortly after, and as a result of, the establishment ofAmerican Indian Reservations. While U.S. Government

treaties and laws clearly delineated land boundaries be-tween tribes and non-Indians, such actions were silentas to ownership (or use rights) of shared water resourcesthat crossed these political boundaries. A landmark U.S.Supreme Court decision was made in 1908 in Winters v.U.S. that established the doctrine of water rights for Fed-eral land reservations that remains in place today.” Thearticle explains the legal foundation of the water rightsand ways that these rights have been quantified. He alsonotes that creative and adaptive solutions will likely needto be employed to craft tribal water rights solutions in the21st Century that allow for increased economic opportu-nity on Indian Reservations and to maintain tribes assovereign nations.

Regardless of whether or not a tribe maintains a fed-erally recognized status, Goode and Beutler and Stileset al., point out that native communities have an under-standing of the water and climate system based on cen-turies of experience. They explain how this traditionalknowledge can be used to solve today’s challenges as wellas some of the methods used to incorporate these lessonsinto a water management portfolio.

Augustinez and Alejandrino describe the changingrelationship of California with its native peoples and howpolicy must evolve to capture the benefits of a more holis-tic perspective.

Cheney explains that it is simply good business forgovernments and corporations to act ethically and withthe rule of law when interacting with First Peoples. Usingresearch from an evaluation of companies involved in ex-tractive industries, she describes a series of metrics thatcan be translated for evaluation of projects in the watersector.

All the authors emphasize the time to act is now.Without concerted efforts the vast pool of traditional eco-logical knowledge of indigenous people will be lost. As anation we also maintain an obligation to properly honorsovereignty and our agreements. For these reasons andmore, incorporation of First Peoples into water manage-ment decision making is essential and may require dif-ferent approaches and policy prescriptions.

This issue of Water Resources IMPACT cannot hope toproperly represent the scope of Native American waterconcerns. Instead we hope it will spark an importantconversation and provide encouragement for those mov-ing forward to engage tribal communities.

This issue also contains some interesting informa-tion on public opinion. Sun shares some very recentpolling data showing changes in public perceptions to-wards water infrastructure.

Volume 17 • Number 4 Water Resources IMPACT • 3

FIRST PEOPLES AND WATER: ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL

Lisa Beutler, Associate Editor

REFERENCE

Lord, Charles P., and William A. Shutkin, 1994. Environmental Justice and the Use of History. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 22(1):1-26.

Lisa BeutlerExecutive FacilitatorWater Resources GroupMWH Americas3301 C St., Ste. 1900Sacramento, CA 95816(916) 971-9183

[email protected]

Lisa Beutler is an Executive Facilitator at MWH, a glob-al water firm. She has been the lead facilitator for theCalifornia Water Plan Update processes since 2001.Early in her career she was a State Park Ranger and thenspent six years at the State Lands Commission, whereshe was the Chief of Enforcement and managed 500,000acres of real property, including a forestry portfolio. Arecognized problem solver she has held posts in specialoffices of one Lt. Governor and two Governors and wasthe Undersecretary of the Youth and Adult CorrectionalAgency. Today she focuses on water management andserves on the AWRA Board of Directors.

� � �


First Peoples and Water: One Size Does Not Fit All . . . cont’d.

SURVEY SHOWS AMERICANS HAVE INCREASED AWARENESSOF WATER INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT NEEDS

Yung-Hsin Sun

their community should be spending more money to en-sure water infrastructure is well maintained and proper-ly functioning. And, as expected, the level of support forincreased spending for water infrastructure is over 80percent in the communities that are experiencing a watershortage.

The survey also suggests over 90 percent of Ameri-cans support the development of additional infrastruc-ture to increase and maintain clean water access. Thelevel of support is reduced to 61 percent for higher utili-ty rates to facilitate these desired improvements. Howev-er, those in the age group between 25 and 39 and thosecurrently experiencing water shortages show significant-ly more willingness to pay for needed improvements.

While there is still room for improvement in appreci-ating the value of clean water overall attitudes are chang-ing. You can read the full results of the survey athttp://www.mwhglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Wakefield-Research-QuickRead-Report-for-MWH-Global.pdf.

Yung-Hsin Sun, Vice PresidentWest Div. Water Resources Practice LeadMWH Americas, Inc.3301 C St., Ste. 1900Sacramento, CA 95816

[email protected]

Yung-Hsin Sun, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE, is the Vice Presi-dent and Chief Water Resources Engineer at MWH wherehe directs water resources planning and managementprojects. He specializes in decision making support, par-ticularly operation model and performance based, andlarge scale optimization for system operation and man-agement.

� � �

A long-time water managers’ lament is that water in-frastructure is out of sight and often out of mind but arecent survey, conducted by Wakefield Research forMWH Global, found the tide may be shifting. While in-vestment in transportation infrastructure still ranks asthe number one public concern, investment in water in-frastructure clearly ranks second.

Asking the public to make investments in things theycannot see, especially investments with a big price taghas historically been met with resistance. The AmericanWater Works Association’s 2011 landmark report, BuriedNo Longer, found the cost was significant. The reportidentified a need for $1 trillion in investment over thecoming 25 years just to maintain the current level ofdrinking water service. The report also reported thatpostponing water infrastructure investment only makesthe problem worse when the bill inevitably comes due

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) hasalso been an active voice in raising infrastructure aware-ness by issuing annual report cards. The latest ASCE re-port, widely covered by the media, none of the key waterinfrastructure categories (Dams, Drinking Water, InlandWaterways, Levees, and Wastewater) received a grade ofhigher than D.

SURVEY RESULTS

The survey, conducted among 1,000 nationally represen-tative United States adults ages 18+, between May 28and June 3, 2015, found most U.S. adults over 18 yearsold are concerned about reduced water supply reliabili-ty, inadequate water infrastructure, and insufficient in-vestment on water infrastructure.

Among the key findings, 70 percent of Americans be-lieve their communities would experience water short-ages more often in the next 10 years. Two-thirds say that

E-Mail

author link

author link

E-Mail

Water management in the Western United States (U.S.)has undergone some fundamental shifts over the last 50years that has resulted from an increased understandingof both our water supply limits and our natural and man-made water demands. As these water demands have fall-en out of balance with available supplies, the value ofwater has risen in step, both in our minds and in mar-kets. Just as Western water management has evolved inresponse to this new understanding of the value of water,the establishment and preservation of water for NativeAmerican Tribes will likely see parallel shifts in perspec-tive and practice.

The legal and technical underpinnings of tribal waterrights are rooted deep in history, but they do not exist inisolation. Tribes, as sovereign nations, are affected by thesame water stresses that afflict their neighbors. Creativeand adaptive solutions that have helped us deal withwater conflicts across the Western U.S. will likely need tobe employed to craft tribal water rights solutions in the21st Century that allow for increased economic opportu-nity on Indian Reservations and maintain tribes as sov-ereign nations.

HISTORY AND BACKGROUND ON TRIBALWATER RIGHTS QUANTIFICATION

Water conflicts between Western Tribes and theirnon-Indian neighbors emerged shortly after, and as a re-sult of, the establishment of American Indian Reserva-tions. While U.S. Government treaties and laws clearlydelineated land boundaries between Tribes and non-Indians, such actions were silent as to ownership (or userights) of shared water resources that crossed these po-litical boundaries. A landmark U.S. Supreme Court deci-sion was made in 1908 in Winters v. U.S. that establishedthe doctrine of water rights for Federal land reservationsthat remains in place today. The Winters Doctrine pro-vides that sufficient water rights were inherently reservedby the U.S. Government to fulfill the purpose of reservingthe land. This Doctrine applies to National Parks andForests just as it does to Indian Reservations. Under theprior-appropriation system of water administrationfound throughout the West, these Federal reserved waterrights carry a priority date equal to the date of Federalaction to reserve the land and are not subject to the pos-sibility of forfeiture due to non-use of the rights. The Win-ters Doctrine has been refined over the past century butremains as a largely unchallenged legal foundation oftribal water rights.

FUNDAMENTALS OF QUANTIFYINGA TRIBAL WATER RIGHT

While the overall ideal of the Winters Doctrine andFederal reserved water rights for tribes has held stead-fast, there have been plenty of arguments and differencesof opinion when it comes to the quantification of suchwater rights. The foundation for tribal water rights quan-tification was established as part of the 1963 U.S.Supreme Court ruling in Arizona v. California. The Courtadopted the Special Master recommendation to quantifythe tribal water rights based on the idea of “practicablyirrigable acreage” (PIA), or the quantity of water neces-sary to irrigate all arable and economically viable landswithin the boundaries of a reservation. In addition to thewater historically used, the tribes were granted waterrights for future use based on theoretically feasible irri-gation projects on reservations. This was done to providethe tribes with sufficient water supplies to grow a sus-tainable economy on the reservation lands. Since the es-tablishment of PIA quantification methods roughly 50years ago, courts at various levels have made judgmentson tribal water rights that interpret the ideals of themethod both broadly and narrowly. Suffice it to say thatthere exists a healthy amount of uncertainty as to how acourt would interpret the legal history of tribal waterrights, specifically with regard to quantification.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTSTO CRAFT SOLUTIONS

Due largely to the anticipated costs of litigating trib-al water rights claims and the inherent uncertainty in acourt judgment, all parties involved in quantifying tribalwater rights have embraced the idea of settling the mat-ter outside of court through intergovernmental agree-ments. This was written into Federal policy in 1990 asCriteria and Procedures for Participation of the FederalGovernment in Negotiations for the Settlement of IndianWater Rights Claims, and the Department of Interior hasmaintained annual funding and programs to assist tribesin working towards water rights settlements. Since 1978,there have been 28 Indian water rights settlements rati-fied by Congress and a handful of other settlements fi-nalized without Congressional funding and also throughcourt judgments. These settlements and court decisions


An emerging concern for tribes with settled andquantified water rights is the preservation of theirfuture (currently unused) water rights in the faceof growing water shortages within the surroundingriver basins.

ESTABLISHING AND PRESERVING TRIBAL WATERRIGHTS IN A WATER STRESSED WEST

Brett Bovee

have benefitted over 40 tribal reservations, providingroughly 8.3 million acre-feet per year in water rights (asdiversion) along with $2.5 billion in Federal funds for di-rect Tribal benefits. A large number of tribal water rightssettlements are also in development, with the Federalgovernment currently participating in at least 17 negoti-ating teams seeking to resolve tribal water rights issues.In most cases, tribal water rights settlements have beenvery successful in achieving multiple goals that benefitboth tribal and non-Indian parties, as they provide a flex-ible framework within which to craft creative solutions.Within the Department of Interior, the Secretary's IndianWater Rights Office (SIWRO) was established roughly 20years ago to coordinate Federal programs and policies ontribal water rights issues. Recently, the SIWRO has en-gaged tribes across the country through a consultationprocess to address some growing concerns about theFederal role in funding settlements and assisting tribesin resolving water rights issues. This consultationprocess might be considered as an acknowledgment thatthere are challenges in the present-day environment toestablishing large Federal reserved water rights fortribes, and that the Federal government may need to “re-evaluate its approach” in light of these challenges (Table1).

CHALLENGES IN ESTABLISHINGTRIBAL WATER RIGHTS

The PIA methodology of quantifying a Tribal waterright was born out of the specific geographic place of con-cern in Arizona v. California. The Tribes along the Col-orado River had large areas of arable land in a climatethat could produce high value crops and demanded sub-stantial irrigation water. The PIA methods are readilytransferable to other Reservation landscapes that could,or already do, support large-scale irrigated agriculture asa primary economic engine of the tribe. But many of thelarge (land area) reservations that fit this criteria havehad their water rights issues resolved in past settlementsand court cases, or are actively seeking settlement aspart of a Federal negotiating team. There are a largenumber of Indian Reservations that do not fit this crite-ria, and instead fall into one of the following threegroups:

1. Reservations that are located in places where ir-rigation is not widely practiced due to climate (sufficientnatural rainfall or limited growing season), local cultureand practices, or farm economics. Example areas includeportions of the Pacific Northwest and the Midwest (the2004 Snake River Agreement resolving the Nez Percewater claims in Idaho focused primarily on protectingnonconsumptive instream flows for fish habitat, both onthe reservation and within neighboring river systems).Similarly, despite being located in a river basin with sig-nificant irrigated agriculture, the Warm Springs Agree-ment in Oregon focused on nonconsumptive tribal wateruses for both hydropower generation and protection oftribal fisheries.

2. Reservations that have limited arable lands tosustain irrigation projects. The PIA methods do not sup-port irrigation water rights for lands with unproductivesoils or other natural limitations to irrigated farming.Some examples are found in the Pacific Northwest, theMidwest, and California. The Lummi Nation in Washing-ton is an example of a tribe whose efforts to preserve Fed-eral reserved water rights were impacted by the limitedarable land base of the reservation.

3. Tribal lands that were not established as reser-vations (as Federal land held in trust for tribes). In East-ern Oklahoma, the lands were provided outright, in feesimple status, to the tribes as Indian Territory. In NewMexico, the Pueblo lands were recognized by the Spanishgovernment and remained in Pueblo ownership throughthe Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. In both cases, the Win-ters Doctrine may not directly apply because the Federalgovernment never established a formal reservation. Ac-tive litigation in both states, by the Choctaw and Chick-asaw Nations in Oklahoma and by several Pueblos inNew Mexico, seeks to resolve the uncertain water rightsclaims that fall outside of the well vetted legal basis fortribal water rights.

The reservations in these three groups would notnecessarily benefit from application of the PIA standard,and in some cases they have water concerns that are notresolved by looking at potential tribal diversions for irri-gation as a beneficial use and basis of the reservationeconomy. In some instances, aspects of water manage-ment, water quality, and instream flow uses are para-mount in the minds of tribal leaders (Figure 1).

Another challenge facing tribal water rights quantifi-cation efforts is the thin profit margin within which com-mercial farming operates in the Western U.S. and the in-creasingly high value associated with water for otheruses. With some exceptions, there is a noticeable lack ofnew irrigation projects in much of the Western U.S., andwater is largely moving away from irrigated agricultureand towards municipal and industrial uses, as well asenvironmental flows. The PIA methodology requires thatplanned irrigation projects on the reservation be eco-nomically feasible by passing a cost-benefit analysis testin order to support a tribal water rights claim. There aregeographic areas where high value crops can be support-ed and there are economic benefits of employing a work-force with high unemployment (typical on reservations),but the high capital costs of building an irrigation projectfrom scratch can be hard to balance against crop pricesthat exist within a global marketplace. The opportunitycost of water might also factor into the cost-benefit analy-sis, and further challenge the economics of new crop ir-rigation at the expense of other water uses.

A final challenge is one that cuts across long estab-lished non-Indian water rights as well as tribal waterrights seeking to be established. Many river systems inthe Western U.S. exist in a delicate balance between theexercise of water rights and the maintenance of mini-mum or seasonal instream flows to avoid endangeredspecies issues. The prevalence of endangered fish species


Establishing and Preserving Tribal Rights in a Water Stressed West . . . cont’d.



Table 1. Summary of Tribal Water Right Settlements and Court Decrees.

FederalWater Rights Funding to

Type of Entitlement Tribe (2015$)State Year(s) Tribe Action1 (afy)2 (millions)3,4

Arizona 1978, 1984, Ak-Chin Indian Community CS 85,000 $62.51992, 20001964 Chemehuevi Indian Tribe CD 11,340 –1964 Colorado River Indian Tribe CD 662,402 –1990 Fort McDowell Indian Community CS 35,950 $45.01964 Fort Mojave Indian Tribe CD 120,255 –2004 Gila River Indian Community CS 653,500 $65.71988 Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian CS 122,400 $94.0

Community1992, 1994, 1997 San Carlos Apache Indian Tribe CS 77,435 $56.01982, 1992, 2004 Tohono O’Odham Nation CS 66,000 $49.3

2010 White Mountain Apache Tribe CS 99,000 $341.51994 Yavapai Prescott Indian Tribe CS 1,550 $0.32003 Zuni Heaven CS 7,000 $49.3

California 1964 Cocopah Indian Tribe CD 10,847 –1964, 2005 Quechan CD 77,966 –1988 (San Luis Rey) La Jolla, Ricon, San CS 16,000 $59.4

Pasquale, Pauma, Pala Bands ofMission Indians

2008 Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians CS 9,000 $12.0Colorado 2000 Southern Ute Tribe CS 137,090 $54.4

2000 Ute Mountain Ute Tribe CS 88,358 –Idaho 1990 Shoshone Bannock Tribes (Fort Hall) CS 581,031 $39.6

2004 Nez Perce Tribe CS 50,000 $103.0Montana 1999 Chippewa Cree Tribe CS 10,000 $55.0

2010 Crow Nation CS 697,000 $497.81992 Northern Cheyenne Nation CS 91,330 $97.72001 Fort Belknap Indian Community SC 242,649 –1985 Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes (Fort Peck) SC 1,050,472 –2007 Blackfeet Nation SC 136,000 –

New Mexico 1992 Jicarilla Apache Nation CS 40,000 $10.02010 Navajo Nation CS 606,660 $79.72010 Nambe Pueblo CS 2,267 $57.12010 Pojoaque Pueblo CS 1,217 –2010 San Ildefonso Pueblo CS 1,752 –2010 Tesuque Pueblo CS 1,225 –2010 Taos Pueblo CS 15,239 $95.0

Nevada 2009 Shoshone Paiute Tribes (Duck Valley) CS 111,476 $65.41996 Las Vegas Palute Tribe SA 2,000 –2006 Moapa Band of Paiute Indians SA 18,180 –1990 Pyramid Lake Tribe CS 520,000 $117.0

Oregon 1997 Confederated Tribes of the Warm SA 328,500 –Springs Reservation

Utah 1990 Paiute Shoshone Tribe (Fallon) CS 10,588 $77.42000 Shivwits Paiute Band CS 4,000 $27.21992 Ute Indian Tribe CS 481,000 $331.5

Washington 1993, 1996 Yakama Nation CD 500,000 –Wyoming 1989 Eastern Shoshone & Northern CD 490,000 –

Arapahoe Tribes (Wind River)

Total 8,273,679 $2,542.8

Notes: 1Types of Actions: CS = Congressional Settlement, CD = Court Decree, SC = State Compact; SA = Settlement Agree-ment (Non-Congressional). 2Water Right Entitlements were estimated in acre-feet per year (afy) for some Tribes without aclear volume quantification, or without a clear reference source. Italicized values under Water Right Entitlements indicatesknown uncertainty in the value. 3Federal funding amounts are intended to be inclusive of direct tribal benefits and on-Reservation projects, but exclusive of shared/regional water projects. 4Funding amounts were indexed to 2015 dollarsusing Consumer Price Index.

and their associated biological opinions means that thepossibility of establishing a new tribal water use is all butimpossible on many river systems, without creating a series of cascading water right curtailments along theriver system. Thus, while the tribes have senior prioritywater rights, the fact that they often represent the newestuse on a river system can be seen to put them against en-vironmental concerns and cause broad water conflicts asthe delicate balance is disrupted. The Navajo Nationwater right settlement on the San Juan River in NewMexico is an example where Endangered Species Act(ESA) concerns influenced the water rights negotiations,requiring extensive hydrologic and fish habitat modelingof the river system. The Klamath River Basin in Oregonprovides another example in which the tribal treatyrights to instream flows (for endangered fish habitat) re-sulted in significant conflict as non-Indian water users inthe headwater creeks were required to shut down theirdiversions.

CHALLENGES IN PRESERVINGTRIBAL WATER RIGHTS

The quantification of a tribal water right, even thruthe less confrontational path of negotiated settlement,can be a laborious and time intensive process; with anaverage timeline of 10 years between the establishmentof a Federal negotiating team and completion of the set-tlement. It can feel as if the hard work is largely overwhen the settlement gets signed into law, but imple-menting a settlement and preserving the water rights se-cured to tribes can be just as daunting a challenge.

One of the concerns coming out of the recent SIWROconsultation process is the upfront and recurring costs ofimplementing tribal water rights settlements. Historical-ly, settlements have relied upon the Federal governmentto bring most of the funding for new water projects to in-crease basin water supplies or to construct necessarywater infrastructure on reservation lands. The two mostrecent legislative actions to approve five Indian waterrights settlements, the 2009 Omnibus Public Lands Act



Figure 1. Map of Tribal Reservations and Water Right Status Over Normal Annual Precipitation.(Reservation layer from U.S. Census Bureau, colored based on water rights status.Precipitation background image from PRISM Climate Group, showing 1981-2010normalized average annual precipitation, with shading modified from original.)

and the 2010 Claims Resolution Act, carried a price tagof roughly $1.5 billion in Federal spending authoriza-tions. Annual mandatory and discretionary funding with-in the Department of Interior to implement past tribalwater settlements has been around $200-$250 million inthe last four years. For those settlements that are cur-rently in negotiation or are close to resolution, the needto secure Congressional funding approval can be a sig-nificant roadblock, even more so because of national con-cerns about Federal spending and deficits. For those set-tlements that are being implemented, there is the chal-lenge of maintaining sufficient funds to uphold the provisions of the settlement. A related challenge is deal-ing with unforeseen funding shortfalls. The TohonoO’Odham Nation in Arizona settled a portion of its waterrights under 1982 and 2004 settlement agreements. Aprovision of the 2004 Arizona Water Settlement Act wasthat the Department of Interior would utilize revenues ina Cooperative Fund to pay the (variable) pumping costsassociated with the Nation’s Central Arizona Project(CAP) water rights. The intent was to utilize the interestfrom a $37 million Federal appropriation to the Coopera-tive Fund to pay the annual pumping costs. The pump-ing rates for CAP water have been steadily rising, from$49 per acre-foot in 2010 to $75 per acre-foot in 2015,with a projected cost of $99 per acre-foot in 2020. TheCooperative Fund has not been able to maintain its bal-ance while paying these higher rates, and is expected tobe depleted in 2016. There was no expectation that theCAP variable rates would double in a decade, and up-holding the Federal commitment to the Nation will be anew challenge for a completed settlement.

An emerging concern for tribes with settled andquantified water rights is the preservation of their future(currently unused) water rights in the face of growingwater shortages within the surrounding river basins. Aunique aspect of tribal water rights is that rights are re-tained despite no beneficial use. This is done so thattribes have a firm water supply to sustain tribal commu-nities and economies on the lands reserved for them bythe U.S. government. Within the system of prior-appro-priation, when a water supply is not used by (or is in ex-cess of what is required by) a senior priority water right,that water is available for use by junior priority rights.Thus, when tribes, often being the most senior in priori-ty, have not yet developed a use for some portion of theirwater rights, that water physically goes down the systemto the next priority non-Indian water user. There is con-cern among tribes that the junior non-Indian water rightholders might become accustomed to receiving the watersupply that has been available (perhaps for decades) be-cause of tribal non-use. While legally the Tribes wouldhave a right to divert the water and exercise their seniorpriority rights, the political reality of doing so has raisedconcerns. A prominent example of this is within the Col-orado River Basin. The Bureau of Reclamation ColoradoRiver Basin Water Supply and Demand Study highlightsa projected water supply shortfall of 3.2 million acre-feetper year by 2060. Importantly, this widely cited estimatedoes not consider full use of quantified (through settle-ment or court decision) tribal water rights by the tribes

on their reservations within the basin. Addressing theanticipated basin shortage will be difficult, costly, andpotentially divisive, even without addressing tribal re-served water rights. The Ten Tribes Partnership has beenactive in raising concerns about the study assumptionsregarding the future use of tribal water rights by tribes,and the headwinds that tribes may face in exercisingtheir rights.

THE USE OF TRIBAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTAND WATER MARKETS TO ADDRESS

SOME CHALLENGES

Despite the challenges that tribes may face in quan-tifying and preserving their water rights, there are rea-sons to be very hopeful about the future. For one, tribesare resilient in the face of daunting challenges, and manyreservations have successfully faced conflicts and prob-lems that make water rights seem minor. Tribal leadershave shown great skill in engaging in cooperative dia-logue and developing beneficial solutions, as well as pur-suing opportunities to improve the lives of tribal mem-bers.

The Federal government is also working to addresssome of the identified challenges. As part of the SIWROconsultation process, the Department of Interior is look-ing at new ways of funding tribal water settlements in aneffort to avoid the political hurdles that such fundingneeds face. The SIWRO is also considering how to incor-porate and utilize tribal economic development plans asone reference for quantifying Federal reserved waterrights claims for tribes. This concept builds upon theidea of quantifying tribal water rights as sufficient tomaintain a reservation as a “permanent homeland” forthe tribe, which resulted from a 2001 court decision inthe Gila River Basin adjudication in Arizona. Many re-cent tribal water rights quantification efforts have reliedupon an economic development framework much broad-er than the standard PIA methodology, and future effortswill need to build upon this framework. These broad eco-nomic development plans will look at all of the natural re-sources available on the reservation, not just the arableland base, and also consider the regional economic envi-ronment of which the reservation is a part. These con-cepts are aimed at the quantification process for thosetribes seeking water rights, but they are firmly rooted inthe activities of tribes whose water rights have been set-tled. Many tribes with unique and diverse water assetportfolios have engaged in economic development activi-ties on their reservations, and have utilized their waterassets as a business development opportunity.

An area of great promise is the marketing of tribalwater rights to off-reservation uses. Across the WesternU.S., tribes have entered into mutually beneficial leaseagreements with public and private entities to generatesubstantial revenues for tribes while potentially helpingto alleviate water shortages and conflicts. The very na-ture of tribal water rights, with some portion intended forfuture use, are very amenable to leasing agreements thatcan provide annual revenues to tribes in the short term,while economic development to utilize the water on-



reservation is pursued. The Ten TribesPartnership within the Colorado RiverBasin has advocated the use of tribalwater markets and the creation of a trib-al water bank as a way to benefit tribesand satisfy the pressing water demandswithin the basin. In addition, the use oflease agreements and tribal water mar-keting can be a cornerstone in craftingworkable water rights settlement agree-ments between tribes and non-Indianparties. Tribal water marketing can beused to overcome both funding hurdlesand limited water supply conflicts thatpresent a challenge to many settlementnegotiations.

Currently, the total scale of tribalwater marketing is estimated at approxi-mately 260,000 acre-feet per year withan equivalent annual value of $19 mil-lion per year (Table 2). Much of this ac-tivity has been located in the Southwest,where water shortages have been preva-lent for decades and many tribal waterrights settlements have been completed;however tribal water marketing is pre-sent across all regions of the Western U.S. Tribes oftenmarket their water rights to municipal and industrialuses, structured as both short and long term arrange-ments for residential growth, power production, and tobolster utility water portfolios. It is likely that the scale oftribal water marketing will only grow in the future, astribal water rights continue to be resolved and tribes lookfor economic opportunities. There are many tribes thatbelieve their water rights, and the marketing and eco-nomic development potential that they represent, holdthe greatest promise for tribal prosperity in the future.

Brett BoveeWest Water Research418 S. Howes St., Ste, 220Fort Collins, CO 80521(970) 889-0469

[email protected]

Brett Bovee is the Regional Director for WestWater Re-search, which focuses on understanding water marketsand the value of water in the Western U.S. Brett has beenworking on the engineering and technical aspects of Trib-al water rights issues for over ten years. Brett is a regis-tered civil engineer in five western states and a recog-nized hydrologist.

� � �



Table 2. Summary of Annual Tribal Water Marketing Volumes.

Annual LeaseState Tribe Volume (afy)1

Arizona Ak-Chin Indian Community 11,000Fort McDowell Indian Community 18,233Gila River Indian Community 55,146Hopi Tribe 3,800Navajo Nation 1,200Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian 13,300Community

San Carlos Apache Tribe 46,500White Mountain Apache Tribe 24,999Yavapai Prescott Tribe 500

California Quechan Tribe (Fort Yuma) 13,000Idaho Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Fort Hall) 45,716Montana Northern Cheyenne Nation 6,000New Mexico Jicarilla Apache Nation 17,300Nevada Moapa Band of Paiute Indians 3,300

Total 259,994

1Water lease amounts were taken from the most recent year of known water 1lease activity for each tribe.

SEPTEMBER 2015URBAN WATERSHEDS AND WATERFRONTS

Joe Berg ~ Associate Editor ~ [email protected]

NOVEMBER 2015OPEN WATER DATA INITIATIVE (OWDI)

Sandra Fox ~ Guest Associate Editor ~ [email protected]

The topics listed above are subject to change. For information concerning submitting an article to be included inthese issues, contact the Editor(s) listed above or the Editor-in-Chief Eric J. Fitch at [email protected].

� SCHEDULED FUTURE TOPICS FOR 2015 ISSUES OF WATER RESOURCES IMPACT

E-Mail

author link

Held on a damp January day in 2008 at the Konocti Re-sort and Casino, it wasn’t your everyday water managersmeeting. Sounds of slot machines and occasional whiffsof cigarette smoke filtered into the room as meeting at-tendees cracked open doors to the generously sized meet-ing hall. Inside, state officials and 46 northern Californiatribal attendees had gathered at a plenary graciouslyhosted by the Big Valley Rancheria. The session goal wasto discuss how to integrate tribal water use and knowl-edge into the California Water Plan.

California is home to more people of Native Americanheritage than any other state. There are more than 100federally recognized Native American tribes in Californiaand nearly the same amount of entities petitioning forrecognition (non-federally recognized tribes). Each ofthese tribes and tribal communities have distinct cultur-al, spiritual, environmental, economic, and public healthinterests related to water.

That day a key activity involved constructing an out-line of tribal water issues. Discussions had worked wellinto the afternoon when from the center of the roomMelvin Carmen of the North Fork Mono Tribe raised hishand. The facilitator asked what topic he wished to ad-dress. “Trees,” he stated, then “the forest.” The statementcaused a little confusion among the water officials. It wasa water meeting not a tree meeting.

Melvin continued, explaining that the way forestswere managed affected the water. He had many storiesfrom his own memories and stories from his elders thathad been passed on. Others in the group confirmed thatthis was their experience as well.

Most of the topics shared at the gathering were fa-miliar to the water officials but for this one on trees, theywere not fully sure of how to proceed. Then, by fate, justdays later, the same water officials received a visit fromthe USDA Forest Service. Those representatives hadheard about the Water Plan and, the forest, they ex-plained, was an important part of California’s watercycle. They had come to see how they could make thisdiscussion more prominent.

From that point an important collaboration beganwith Native Americans, the Water Plan Team, foresters,hydrologists and other disciplines joining together to talkabout water forest management tools, like prescribedfires, cultural burning, and meadow restoration.

Prescribed fire includes managed fire, control burns,and cultural burning. Cultural burning refers to burningidentified species and a specific style of burning. It is Cul-tural because the essence of burning was pertinent andsubstantial to the cultural livelihood of the Native Amer-ican, indigenous inhabitant, and/or early settler. Cultur-al burning by Native Americans interconnected them notonly to the land but to their animal, reptile, bird, andplant spiritual relatives. Therefore, conducting a cultural

burn relates to what they burned, how they burned it,and why they burned it.

Chuck Jachens, Regional Hydrologist for the Bureauof Indian Affairs, notes that Native Americans have a longhistory of fire use. “Fire promoted the desired ecologicalstate of the environment. These traditions and time ofseason to burn for a desired effect have been passeddown generation to generation. Henry T. Lewis, a promi-nent author on the subject concluded there were at least70 different reasons for the Indians firing vegetation.These reasons included hunting, crop management, in-sect collection, pest management, improving growth andyields, fireproofing areas, clearing areas for travel, fellingtrees, and clearing riparian areas just to name a few.”

In the Mono tribal creation stories, Measuring Wormtells the Nium (tribal people) to take their fires with themand the water will rise. Mono babies were placed andraised in a hooded basket, a basket made of their cultur-al resources (a continuum of their harvest sustainabili-ty), a basket with designs and animage of being able tosee through to the outer world. This constitutes their life-long relationship to the land, water, and fire, upholdingtheir spirituality, philosophy, responsibility, and stew-ardship to all their relatives.

Historical accounts document Native Americans set-ting fires along their trails as they came out of the highmountains and/or from their homeland camps as theyleft their summer or early fall campsites in the forest fortheir lower elevation foothill homes to live during the win-ter and spring months. Euro-American settlers in letters,diaries, and articles also described Indians taking wetgunny sacks up their trail system on their way to put outfires.

Later, sheep herders became aware of the tribal prac-tices, initially just tracking activity to control their flocks.They understood the Indians knew the best trails to trav-el on and what practices to manage with. Later someherders were said to set fires, as was formerly done bynature and the Indians, to keep the forest floor clean ofaccumulating pine needles, dead limbs, windfalls, andsimilar debris (that provide tinder and fuel for the disas-trous forest fires of this day and age) to improve pasture.

The story is deeper than just saying, “they lit fires ontheir way out of the mountains” or “on their way backfrom over the hill.” Many of today’s tribal elders remem-ber the old Indians talking about how their fathers usedto burn the forests to improve their hunting grounds.They did not burn the whole forest each year, but would


FIRE AND WATER

Ron W. Goode and Lisa Beutler

Understanding the historic use of fire in the water-shed becomes even more critical in the context ofclimate change ... Tribes evolved their practicesover millennia, including periods of multi-yearextreme drought and varying temperature regimes.

select an area that was growing up with brush and get-ting an accumulation of needles and other trash. Afterburning, this area would be a favorite hunting ground forthe next few years as the deer would move into the areato get the new brush sprouts as well as the more abun-dant and favored range plants. Old cowboys (that oftenincluded Indians) recounted that after three to five yearsthey would then burn another area. In the early 1950spublications such as the Western Livestock Journal car-ried stories about these practices as they loudly objectedto Forest Service practices of fire suppression.

Then, after decades of fire suppression, land man-agers often linked fire and water in a negative way. Firewas a water quality issue. Post-fire rain and snow meltwould result in floods from sheet flows and sediment anddebris clogging waterways. Damaging erosion wreakedhavoc on the landscape. Today, managers understandthat fire, depending on severity and intensity, can createa positive influence on the hydrologic conditions of wa-tersheds in many forest ecosystems.

The key is understanding the influence of wildfire onhydrologic conditions. The forest can be broken downinto three major parts: surface cover, canopy, and soils.Canopy is the top story of forest vegetation. It is thecrown above the surface cover and includes the aboveground shrubs, bushes, and trees (deciduous andconifer). Canopy influences temperature and evapora-tion. The surface cover of a watershed consists of the or-ganic forest floor, vegetation, bare soil, and rock. Soils in-fluence hydrologic conditions by their water holding ca-pacity, water absorption rates, and the rate of erosion.For wildlife and the water cycle, the density, compositionand diversity of vegetation predicts overall system health.Periodic, smaller, low heat fires result in a vegetationregime that optimizes the water cycle (Figure 1).

The Indians with their wet gunny sacks learned thehigher the flame of the fire, the harder it was to control.Surface cover and weather were critical to evaluate inmanaging the height and heat of a fire. The Mono have alifelong learning system involving fire that is still prac-ticed. Men and women passed on the burning practices.Originally a burner had some 30 or so years of burning

to do between the years of 25 to 65 in which they wouldignite the landscape. It did not mean they lit fires everytime they came out of the mountains. They managed theparticular landscape they were traveling through, usinga three in ten year increment of burning. Once a fire areahad been secured, only two or three fires were necessaryover the next 20 years. Therefore, succeeding generationsdid not have to start new burn areas unless they traveledin or on trails that had not been burned.

To understand the magnitude of the practice,throughout the 1.2 million acres of Sierra National For-est, there are 5,000 recorded archaeological sites andmore than 6,000 meadows. A large percentage of indige-nous camp sites can be found near the meadows. Ar-chaeological studies have indicated that indigenous peo-ple have been living throughout the entire forest for5,000 plus years and venturing into the Sierras for some15,000 years. In the lower foothills, artifacts date back8,000-plus years. In 1800, there were more than 3,000Nium living on the land. Burning for the enhancement ofresources for cultural purposes and benefits was an in-tegral part of their livelihood. Many settlers and rancherstoday still using the techniques passed down from theirgrandfathers who learned from the Indians they livedwith or were associated with.

From the tribal view at least 50 percent of the forestneeds some form of restoration today, and is getting only15 percent of the fire needed to burn each year. Under-standing and applying the Cultural Burn concept is veryimportant to rejuvenating resources for a healthy forest.The reasons for the loss of this knowledge to modern,professional land and water managers is complex andthe results sometimes devastating but the situation ischanging. Thanks to the collaborative efforts of tribes,academics, and the professional water and land man-agers, California Water Plan Updates 2009 and 2013 in-clude forest management strategy as a key water man-agement tool.

The Water Plan explains this is particularly impor-tant for California as forest lands produce a diverse arrayof resources such as water, timber, native vegetation,fish, wildlife and livestock, and outdoor recreation. How-ever, the water produced by these forests has economicvalue that equals or exceeds that of any other forest re-source (Krieger, 2001; California Department of Forestryand Fire Protection, 2003). Further, most of California’smajor rivers and a substantial portion of its runoff origi-nate in these forests. Therefore, most of California’smajor water development projects are tied strongly toforested watersheds. Importantly forest management ac-tivities can affect water quantity and quality.

The Water Plan strategy focuses on forest manage-ment activities, on both public and privately-owned for-est lands, whose goals specifically include improvementof the availability and quality of water for downstreamusers. The Forest Service has also entered into active col-laborations with tribes to adopt traditional ecologicalpractices such as cultural burns to address today’s man-agement concerns. As Dirk Charley, the Forest Servicetribal relations manager in the Sierra region and memberof the Dunlap Band of Mono Indians enjoys saying, re-


Fire and Water ... cont’d.

Figure 1. Restoration Site Control Burn,Sierra National Forest.

stored meadows “retain water like a sponge,” Charleyalso notes that as more and more people learn of thesecollaborations they incorporate the principles into theirown land management practices.

CRANE VALLEY MEADOW RESTORATION(Restoring the Deergrass, Rejuvenating

the Spring and Water Table,Recreating the Meadow Ambiance)

At the Crane Valley meadow restoration site locatedin the Sierra National Forest, Forest Service personnelconduct control burns with the tribe on a consultingbasis. The initial targeted species was, and still is, thedeergrass. This site is less than five acres but adjoinslarger acreage that was burned 15 years ago. This sitehas a natural spring that was barely flowing whenrestoration started in 2003. Before 2003, there were noyoung oaks except for shrub oak. The site was inundat-ed by a pine plantation and from a fire perspective thistype of plantation creates the very hot fires discussedearlier.

Approximately five resources used culturally were ev-ident when restoration started. The site was also coveredby invasive plants such as Scotch broom. The invasivespecies as well as the undergrowth were hand removedby volunteers from statewide organizations, communitysupporters, tribal members, and forestry employees. TheBass Lake Ranger District burner has put three fires onthe upper half of the site and one burn on the lower half.A combination of broadcast burning, coupled with indi-vidual plant species ignition and or torching has been ap-plied.

The result is that the spring has returned to runningthrough the meadow for most of the summer, even in themidst of the multi-year drought. Every year resourcescontinue to return to the restoration site; the last countshowed 40 plus plants, flowers, medicines, teas, and cul-tural resources now as a harvestable crop (Figure 2). Na-tive grasses have returned in abundance and with waterand forage, wildlife has returned from year one. Deer andan occasional black bear are observed. Cat tracks areconstant with each visit, and Pacific Fisher is also knownto be in the area. Hawks of several species have beenspotted and birds of several varieties are now present,singing and building nests.

In 2013 two pairs of volunteers, following what wasdone in the ancestral era when the Native American dietincluded plentiful grass seed, used cedar boughs to walkthe entire five acres beating all the native grasses so theseed would be spread out. Acorn and the deer grass wereharvested for the first time as well in 2013. Mint wastaken by the shopping bag-full on several occasions.Yarrow is plentiful, and even a few strawberries havebeen harvested. Over the course of the decade, andthrough today, tribal members and forest employeeswork the site two to three times a year. Volunteers arebrought in on an annual basis.

GREY’S MOUNTAIN BLACKOAK GROVE RESTORATION

(Regenerating Healthiness of the Black OakOrchard and Enhancing the Watershed)

This burn area is above Bass Lake (near Yosemite,California) at approximately 5,000-foot elevation. TheBass Lake Ranger District fuels management specialistwith tribal consultation incorporates traditional ecologi-cal knowledge provided by the North Fork Mono Tribepractitioners. The burner is mostly interested in maxi-mizing the acreage burned, and this is a 200 acre pre-scribed burn. However, the burner, who himself is NativeAmerican, has implemented cultural burn practicesalong with the prescribed burn. There are some 50 blackoaks total within the 200 acres, and about 30 in onegrove. These trees benefited from the opening up of thecanopy and the removing of conifers detrimental to theoaks. Small pile burns were applied to the black oaksand the thick duff was burned under the oaks. The trees,because of the conifer canopy, have all grown very tall,reaching for the sunlight. Therefore, a low intensity burnhas been good for eliminating parasites and weevils butdid not supply enough heat and smoke to the tree topswhere the acorns are. As with the Crane Valley site theoverall watershed is improving. The root system of thesourberry is now retaining water longer, evidenced by thesoil dampness for a longer period of time in the summer.The water table is visible in shallow wallows for longerperiods of time well into the summer at the 5,000-foot el-evation of Grey’s Mountain Black Oak Orchard.

FIRE AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Understanding the historic use of fire in the water-shed becomes even more critical in the context of climatechange. Tribes evolved their practices over millennia, in-cluding periods of multi-year extreme drought and vary-ing temperature regimes. These smaller, controlled fireevents reduced the occurrence of the catastrophic fireevents like those seen in recent years and supported ahealthy water system.

Climate model predictions suggest future shifts inprecipitation resulting in more rainfall and less snowfall


Fire and Water ... cont’d.

Figure 2. Spring Flowers Return to a RestoredMeadow, Sierra National Forest.

at mid-elevations in the Sierra Nevada (see http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange for more detail). More rapidspring snowmelt in the Sierra Nevada is already occur-ring (Peterson et al., 2008). This predicted shift towardless snow is critically important for California water man-agers because the existing water infrastructure is de-signed to use snowpack as natural winter storage withsnowmelt capture into the summer. If snow is replacedby rain at mid-elevations, winter flood peaks are likely tobecome larger and more frequent, and reservoir storageis likely to be exceeded in wet months when demand islow. Correspondingly, summer stream base flows will belower in times of greater need. Improving the capacity forforest soils to absorb moisture from rainfall will increasewater quality, reduce flood events and in many casesrecharge aquifers, thus extending the natural water stor-age capacity.

RETURN ON INVESTMENT

Beyond changing the human relationship with theforest, cultural fire and water management practices de-liver a good return on investment. Forest Service con-trolled burning projects cost, on average, less than $600per acre. According to hydrologist Craig Oehrli of theUSDA Forest Service and soil scientist Randy Westmore-land of the Tahoe National Forest, costs of recent con-structed meadow restoration projects, including plan-ning and environmental compliance, range from approx-imately $1,000 to $2,500 per acre, with the higher costsbeing associated with projects that require constructionof new channels using heavy equipment and end-hauledmaterials. Translated to a water quality and water sup-ply acre foot return, these are among the cheapest andeasiest to implement of all the water management op-tions. Yet, at these smaller scales, projects of this naturehave difficulty competing with dams and high visibilityconstructed infrastructure for funds.

NEXT STEPS

In less than a decade, with leadership from tribalvoices, traditional ecological knowledge and the marriageof fire and water is better understood. The tools of the an-cient past hold promise for helping to solve the waterdilemmas of the future.

REFERENCES

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2003. The Changing California: Forest and Range 2003. Assessment Technical Report, Forest Land Base, Sacramento (CA): Cali-fornia Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection, Fire and Resource Assessment Program, Chap. 2: Productive Capacity. Available at http://www.frap.cdf.ca.gov/assessment2003/Chapter2. Area/forestlandbase.html. Accessed November 10, 2009.

Krieger, D.J., 2001. The Economic Value of Forest Ecosystem Services: A Review. The Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C., 40 pp. Available at http://www.cfr.washington.edu/classes. esrm.465/2007/readings/WS_valuation,pdf.

Peterson, D.H., I. Stewart, and F. Murphy, 2008. Principle Hy-drologic Responses to Climate and Geologic Variability in the Sierra Nevada, California. (Journal) San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, California Bay-Delta Authority Science Program and John Muir Institute of the Environment 6(1):Article 3.

Ron W. GoodeTribal Chair, North Fork Mono Tribe13396 Tollhouse Rd.Clovis, CA 93619(559) 299-3729

[email protected]@mwhglobal.com

Ron W. Goode has been the Tribal Leader of the NorthFork Mono Tribe for over 32 years. He has representedthe Tribe in many capacities and has an extensive re-sume working with watershed and fire management is-sues at the federal, tribal, state, regional, and local lev-els. Ron has also been involved in the creation of an on-line K-12 curriculum that focuses on the North ForkMono Tribe and the South Central California Region.Published by the Indian Land Tenure Foundation, this isa comprehensive instructional tool for teachers, completewith lesson plans, teachers’ manual, and supplementarymaterials, all which can be accessed on the website(http://landlessons.org).

(Note: Photos courtesy of Jared Dahl Aldern, Ph.D.,Prescott College, [email protected].)

� � �


Fire and Water . . . cont’d.

E-Mail

author link

INTRODUCTION

Extreme climate events are a common feature in theMissouri River Basin. Located in the Great Plains, thebasin experiences a climate that is highly variable, in-cluding droughts, floods, and extreme temperatures. Insome cases, conditions have flipped from one extreme tothe other in a matter of months, such as the extremeflooding in the basin in 2011 that was followed by anequally extreme drought in 2012. Many issues or eco-nomic sectors including energy production, agriculturalproduction, ecosystem viability, transportation, recre-ation, and the municipalities in the region have foundthemselves directly in the path of these disasters. The tollon communities, private interests, and tribal, local, state,and federal government agencies has been immense. Inspite of these harsh realities, Native American communi-ties and cultures have long withstood these events andfound ways to survive. These adaptations and general re-silience capacities are valuable lessons not only for theNative communities, but for other parts of society as well.

In response to drought planning and resiliencyneeds, the National Integrated Drought Information Sys-tem (NIDIS) Missouri River Basin Regional Drought EarlyWarning System kicked off in the winter of 2014. Initialefforts have largely focused on assessing climate moni-toring and drought management on tribal lands. Twenty-eight tribes are based within the Missouri River Basin,with tribal lands spanning over 20 million acres. NIDIShas sponsored several meetings specifically for tribes,which bring together tribal representatives, climatolo-gists, and social scientists who are working on climateand drought monitoring, assessment, and preparedness.Initial meetings have focused on the climate and droughtissues that are specific to individual tribes and deter-mining what capacity is available, or needed, to addressthose issues. Although some resources already exist, itbecame apparent at these meetings that a combination oflocal knowledge of the landscapes, water resources,ecosystems, and climate should be used to create new re-sources specifically for the tribes to use for their decisionmaking needs. This article provides perspectives on theprocess of working with tribes on climate and drought is-sues by several agencies and institutions through recentexamples from the Missouri River Basin.

EXAMPLES OF CURRENT WORK WITH TRIBES INTHE MISSOURI RIVER BASIN

Wind River (Wyoming) Region

One region where drought early warning and en-hanced climate monitoring efforts are gaining momen-tum is the Wind River Indian Reservation. The reserva-

tion is comprised of over two million acres in west-centralWyoming and is home to the Eastern Shoshone andNorthern Arapaho tribes. Part of the reservation is amountainous region, and the terrain contributes to largeclimate variability and extreme climate conditions. Theclimate is arid, as the region averages only about 10inches of precipitation per year, so farmers largely de-pend on irrigation for their crops. The primary watersource on the reservation comes from the Wind River andits tributaries, which are fed by snowmelt from the Rock-ies. Abnormally warm winter/spring temperatures anddrought conditions can result in a low snowpack year,which is detrimental to water resources upon which thetribes depend. The tribes are particularly concernedabout managing drought conditions given their limitedwater resources. Several federal and state agencies, aswell as academic institutions, have come together to helpthe tribes of Wind River enhance climate monitoring anddrought management for the region. The primary inter-action has been through a series of workshops, two ofwhich were held on the reservation, in order for theseagencies and institutions to understand local capacityand conditions and to build relationships with tribalmembers.

Northeast Kansas Region

In a similar capacity, several agencies and academicinstitutions have been working with the following fournortheast Kansas-based tribes on climate and droughtissues: (1) the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska, (2)Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska,(3) the Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas, and (4) Prairie BandPotawatomi Nation. Unlike the Wind River Indian Reser-vation, the northeast Kansas tribal lands are located inthe eastern Great Plains where precipitation averages ap-proximately 36 inches per year. The Kansas-based tribesare more reliant upon direct precipitation for their waterneeds. The tribes’ surface water sources are highly vul-nerable to drought, and groundwater problems have im-pacted these surface water sources, so there is interest inlearning more about groundwater in the region. Work-shops have also been held with these tribes to share in-formation and assess their capacity to manage droughtand climate extremes.


IMPROVING CLIMATE RESILIENCY IN TRIBAL COMMUNITIES:PARTNERING FOR CHANGE IN THE MISSOURI RIVER BASIN

Crystal J. Stiles, Natalie Umphlett, James Rattling Leaf, Sr.,Martha D. Shulski, Doug Kluck, Michael Hayes, and Chad McNutt

Historically, tribes have not always been appro-priately involved in decisions or setting prioritiesthat affect their communities ... the result hasbeen a lack of trust between government andtribes, which in turn has led to the failure of manypast policies and programs.

While the tribes of Wind River and northeast Kansashave different priorities and management strategieswhere climate issues are concerned, many of the chal-lenges of and opportunities for managing drought andwater resources on these tribal lands are very similar. Asfor challenges, the tribes are dealing with data issues,such as sparse or low-quality data. They also desire to beproactive about managing drought by developing droughtplans and conducting drought vulnerability assess-ments. Regarding opportunities, these tribes are inter-ested in developing periodic climate summaries, whichcondense a vast amount of climate information into asimple, nontechnical summary format that is intended asa decision support tool for water managers and produc-ers who make decisions based on climate conditions.Also, the tribes are seeking additional resources for im-proving management of drought and climate extremes byapplying for grants from federal agencies such as the Bu-reau of Indian Affairs, as well as working with tribal col-leges in their respective regions to leverage resources andinvolve youth in these projects. For example, the north-east Kansas-based tribes are planning to work withHaskell Indian Nations University to help with some ofthe technical aspects of the projects. Several agenciesand institutions have had an important role in facilitat-ing these actions with the tribes of both Wind River andnortheast Kansas, and perspectives from some of theseagencies are provided below.

INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVES

Doug Kluck and Chad McNutt, National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

NIDIS and the National Centers for EnvironmentalInformation (NCEI), both part of NOAA, have led an en-gagement process to introduce, learn, and share climaterelated information with numerous Missouri River Basintribes. Aided by regional institutions including the Na-tional Drought Mitigation Center and High Plains Re-gional Climate Center, and key trusted partners within“Indian Country,” this NOAA initiative has begun to findsuccess. The goals of these interactions are to buildawareness and resilience within the indigenous sovereignnations using existing tools, data, monitoring, andprocesses that could further the tribes’ abilities to adaptto and mitigate extreme climate events. Since 2011,NIDIS and regional NCEI have focused on engaging tribesin the Missouri Basin mainly due to need, as well as theextremes experienced in the region. Initial interactionsincluded NOAA and its partners conducting a series ofworkshops for tribal resource managers at tribal collegesand universities in the upper Missouri Basin. From thesemeetings, and a 2014 basin-wide meeting, several pro-jects have been initiated. Some of these activities include:updating existing or creating new drought plans, devel-oping drought/climate summaries and testing the depic-tion of drought on reservation lands using the U.S.Drought Monitor (USDM), development of research pro-grams targeted at tribal colleges and universities for im-proving resilience in tribal communities, and sharingdrought planning successes from across Indian Country.

These activities are being conducted with the Wind Rivertribes, the four northeast Kansas-based tribes, and sev-eral tribes located in South Dakota.

Martha Shulski, High Plains RegionalClimate Center (HPRCC)

The HPRCC represents one of NOAA/NCEI’s six Re-gional Climate Centers in the United States (U.S.) andcovers the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Ne-braska, Kansas, Wyoming, and Colorado. Our mission isto increase the use and availability of climate data andinformation and in doing so engage with a wide variety ofusers and stakeholders, including Native Americantribes. The HPRCC began engaging with tribes in the re-gion in 2010 through participation in tribal-focusedworkshops such as the Indigenous Peoples ClimateChange Working Group and Native Peoples Native Home-lands. Through interactions at these venues, the HPRCCis slowly becoming aware of tribal needs with regard toclimate information, and tribes are becoming aware ofthe HPRCC and our services. The overarching themes ofour interactions have been to strengthen capacity of trib-al resources and increasing resiliency to climate variabil-ity and change. Engagement in tribal led workshops hasled to a multitude of interactions between HPRCC andtribes in the Missouri Basin. For example, the HPRCChas offered training sessions to tribal college faculty onregional climate change and where to find climate infor-mation. We have traveled to elementary and middleschools on reservations to educate youth and communi-ties on instrumentation to observe weather and help in-stall weather stations at tribal colleges for use in class-room activities. Furthermore, we have worked togetherwith tribes to develop ways in which to bring climate in-formation in a usable and relevant form. A paramountlesson learned from our work in Indian Country is tobuild the relationship with individuals with whom youare working and listen to the wealth of local knowledge.We view our collaboration as a two-way street and learnjust as much, if not more, than we offer to tribal com-munities. Also of importance is having flexibility, goingthrough proper protocol such as approval from tribalcouncils, and learning the background, history, and is-sues of the specific tribe. Each of these aspects for us hasled to successful engagements and productive relation-ships.

Michael Hayes, National DroughtMitigation Center (NDMC)

Since 1995, the NDMC has emphasized the impor-tance of reducing the societal vulnerability to drought bypromoting planning and the adoption of appropriate riskmanagement techniques. Appropriate risk managementstrategies can be classified into three main components:monitoring and early warning, planning, and mitigation.For example, in collaboration with NOAA and the U.S.Department of Agriculture, the NDMC helped develop theweekly USDM product in 1999 as a comprehensive earlywarning approach to characterize drought severity andspatial extent on the basis of multiple indicators. The


Improving Climate Resiliency in Tribal Communities: Partnering for Change... . . . cont’d.

USDM has resulted in an enhanced awareness ofdrought and its management and is now the legal basisfor many management decisions made by federal andstate governments. Over the years, the NDMC has as-sisted countless individuals and organizations in droughtrisk management at all scales, including individual farmsand ranches, communities, tribal lands, states, riverbasins, and countries around the world. The NDMC hasa long legacy of working with tribes on drought risk man-agement. Partnering with the Bureau of Reclamation, theNDMC assisted multiple tribes in developing droughtplans during the late 1990s and 2000s. The NDMC hasassisted with multiple tribal oriented workshops over theyears, most recently partnering with NIDIS on several ofthese. Using the USDM tool, the NDMC and its partnershave developed products specifically designed for tribaldecision makers in the Wind River Indian Reservation,for the Kansas-based tribes, and for the Four-CornersRegion of the U.S. Southwest.

James Rattling Leaf, Sr., NIDIS andRattling Leaf Consulting

The purpose of the workshops that NIDIS has con-vened recently was to engage and initiate a long-termcommitment to providing tribes with the drought infor-mation and resources needed to better monitor and re-spond to inter-annual drought conditions and long termclimate changes. These efforts by NIDIS are grounded inthe commitment to help facilitate and establish long termpartnerships between tribal constituents and federalagencies, universities, and other entities in order to meetthe federal trust responsibility. A major focus of theNIDIS-tribal engagements centered on ensuring that in achanging climate, the drought information needed tohelp meet trust responsibilities will include credible,timely, and relevant tools to enable Native communitiesto adapt to and mitigate impacts from drought.

However, a common problem slowing efforts on trib-al lands centers around the lack of well defined collabo-rative partnerships between tribes and non-Native enti-ties that lack trust, consistency, and follow through onboth ends. Establishing trust partnerships takes time,however armed with a clearer definition and understand-ing of trust obligations and a list of projects can help re-fine expectations on both sides, encourage open commu-nication, and more efficiently implement lasting actions.NIDIS is involved with tribal governments, tribal colleges,and universities to define and implement what best prac-tice looks like from their unique and different culturalperspectives. Tribal stakeholders at local and regionalpilot levels are key to informing and guiding all NIDIS im-plementation activities and teams.

Historically, tribes have not always been appropri-ately involved in decisions or setting priorities that affecttheir communities. The result has been a lack of trust be-tween government and tribes, which in turn has led tothe failure of many past policies and programs. It is cru-cial for researchers entering into sustainable partner-ships with tribal communities to develop an understand-ing and respect for: (1) indigenous cultures and knowl-edge, (2) tribal sovereignty and how it is exercised in the

context of research regulation, and (3) the historic andpresent-day context of research with tribal communitiesbroadly and in the specific community/communitieswith whom the researcher plans to work. In this way, re-searchers commit to a process of learning how the cul-tures, sovereignty, and experiences of tribal peoplesshape the context of research.

CONCLUSION

We hope this article has demonstrated that workingwith tribes is truly a unique experience. It is important tokeep in mind that the way in which communication andsubsequent collaborations develop with tribes is oftenvery different from the manner in which they developwith other groups. The process requires commitment,flexibility, and a willingness to learn about Native cul-tures because it takes time to build relationships and es-tablish trust, as well as understand the unique circum-stances relating to the context of each tribe. Respectingcultural sensitivities, such as the importance of data pri-vacy, is a critical component of successful collaborationswith tribes. We look forward to continuing our work withtribes in the Missouri River Basin to learn about howthey have managed adverse climate conditions in thepast, as well as help them increase their resiliency to cli-mate extremes and climate change in the future.

Crystal J. Stiles, Ph.D.High Plains Regional Climate CenterUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln716 Hardin Hall3310 Holdrege St.Lincoln, NE 68583-0997(402) 472-8208

[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]

Crystal J. Stiles, Ph.D., is an Applied Climatologist,Postdoctoral Research Associate, with the High PlainsRegional Climate Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. She received her Ph.D. in Natural Resource Sci-ences from UNL in 2014 and worked as a graduate re-search assistant for the National Drought MitigationCenter where she studied drought planning and man-agement.

� � �


Improving Climate Resiliency in Tribal Communities: Partnering for Change... . . . cont’d.

E-Mail

author link

Native American peoples have a relationship with waterthat is beyond the scope of an economic resource, orcommodity often conceptualized by the state. TraditionalNative values hold water as sacred, the essence of cre-ation of all life, and the foundation of their individualTribal creation stories, traditions, and prayers. CaliforniaNative American tribes have been an integral part ofstewarding the landscape decades before California’s de-velopment of environmental policies and conservationinitiatives. Indigenous knowledge and practices of land,water use, and management have been passed downfrom generation to generation. Utilizing indigenous val-ues on water and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK)through meaningful tribal engagement, outreach, and in-clusive policies is a positive way to influence andstrengthen California’s natural water resource manage-ment.

In order to be more inclusive of tribal voices and per-spectives the state must engage in meaningful tribal con-sultation and outreach. Meaningful tribal engagement isan important part of overcoming barriers when workingwith tribes, and remedying past and present water deci-sions that were, or are made in the absence of tribal voiceor consent. Throughout history the lack of inclusive trib-al engagement has lead to a distrust in state and federalgovernments. When water decisions are made withoutthe consideration of tribal input, the decision can resultin devastating impacts for the tribe. These impacts canbe things such as lack of access to sacred sites, reducedflows for protecting and harvesting fish, or restrictions onaccessible and portable water. In order to prevent or mit-igate these impacts to tribal peoples, it is important tobuild meaningful relationships with tribes through inclu-sive policies.

Before policies like the Winters Doctrine of 1908,there were very little policy efforts to protect the healthand welfare of tribes and their aboriginal water rights.The Winters Doctrine provides tribes with senior waterrights, granting them authority to sustain the presentand future needs of their reservations. Since Winters sev-eral other policies resulting from cases like United Statesv. Adair (1983) have provided tribal communities withanother layer of protection to their aboriginal waterrights. The resulting Adair precedent provides tribal com-munities with sufficient flows and water levels to protecttheir treaty rights to fish, wildlife, and vegetation. Theseprotective measures give tribes jurisdiction to createtheir own tradition based environmental programs underthe Clean Water Act using mechanisms such as, the Sec-tion 106 Pollution Control Program, and the Water Qual-ity Standards Program.

In California, Executive Order B-10-11, issued byGovernor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., on September 19,2011, called the State to build meaningful relationshipswith federally and non-federally recognized tribes, whilerecognizing and respecting tribal sovereignty. The Exec-

utive Order also established the position of the CaliforniaGovernor's Tribal Policy Advisor. The Tribal Advisor pro-vides the Governor and his Cabinet with advice on issuesthat affect tribes, and acts as a bridge between tribes,state governments, and local agencies by promoting com-munication and effective consultation. The Governor'sTribal Policy Advisor also has the obligation to developrelationships and provide consultation training to allstate agency liaisons called Tribal Policy Advisors, or insome departments, Tribal Liaisons. As state intergovern-mental relationships with tribes develop, liaisons aremaking more of an effort to take Native values into ac-count in order to communicate appropriately and effec-tively with all California Native American tribes aboutwater related issues that affect them in their territoriesand homelands.

It the nearly four years since the Executive Order wasissued state agencies have slowly begun to invite tribes tothe table. But, even as progress is moving forward thereare still examples where extensive tribal outreach andengagement is vital. In the Central Valley region one fed-erally recognized tribe has been working for decades tosecure aboriginal water rights that date back to treatiesfrom the 1850s. The tribe cannot re-affirm their waterrights because they have not been agreeably quantified.(See Brett Bovee’s article on Establishing and PreservingTribal Water Rights in a Water Stressed West for more onthe quantification topic.) Due to the quantification con-flict they have been unable to secure enough federalfunding, or state and local support to exercise their basicaboriginal water rights resulting in the water storagesupply in dry months running well below the basic needsof the tribe to complete everyday tasks such as cooking,bathing, or farming. According to the 2000 census thereservation poverty rate is 50 percent higher than thecounty it is located in as a whole, with higher mortalityrates, and substantially higher unemployment rates. Thetribe associates a portion of the relatively low standard ofliving with the absence of an adequate and reliablepotable water system. Some members of the tribe haveadmitted to being too embarrassed to go to work orschool during summer months because they don’t haveaccess to enough water to bathe or wash their clothes.

In addition to policies specific to tribes, on Septem-ber 25, 2012, Governor Brown, signed into law AB 685,(now Water Code Section 106.3) which statutorily recog-nizes that every human being has the right to safe, clean,affordable, and accessible water adequate for human


THE EVOLUTION OF TRIBAL POLICY IN CALIFORNIA

Anecita S. Agustinez and Emily Alejandrino

As California enters a fourth year of drought, andrecorded water year 2015 as the driest winter inCalifornia’s written record, utilizing the knowledgeof peoples who have proven cultural practices toensure sustainable use of water is vital to the future of our water.

consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes. Called theHuman Right to Water Bill, this legislation made Califor-nia the first state (and only) in the nation to legally rec-ognize such a right to water. This Bill extends to all Cal-ifornians, including vulnerable and marginalized individ-uals, groups, and communities in rural, tribal, andurban areas and establishes a state agency duty to thefactors of safety, affordability, and accessibility – in allrelevant policy, programming, and budgetary activities.

Yet today the Central Valley tribe situation still existsand is only worse with the punishing drought. This ex-ample of injustice and poor access to a vital life sourceshows the major flaws in our current system. In this sit-uation, state and federal governments have the uniqueability to step in and consult with the tribes, and helpbring meaningful and effective services to tribes by help-ing them quantify their water rights and secure fundingfor water improvements and emergency services.

Conversely, an example of meaningful collaborationand tribal engagement on multiple levels exists with theHoopa Valley Indian Reservation located in HumboldtCounty. In 1988, after decades of efforts and complex po-litical battles the Hoopa and Yurok Tribes of the Klamathfinally gained victory in the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Actfor strong senior water rights. A unique collaboration oflegislative, executive branches, tribal departments, andstate agencies collaborated to secure the Tribes distinctability to exercise inherent power to regulate activitiesthat threaten the political integrity or health and welfareof the Tribes. Here engaging tribal perspectives and in-terest as part of the decision process has resulted in asuccess for the Tribes and the environment.

These stories of California Native American Tribesstruggles and victories outlines the importance of out-reach, engagement, and collaboration with tribal govern-ments and communities. To ensure decisions are madewith the best interest of the state and the environment.tribes need to be part of the conversation. State agenciesneed to continue inviting and assisting tribal govern-ments to participate in water planning efforts and takeadvantage of funding when possible. The future of coop-eration and coordination must continue to remain ongoing. Due to recent initiatives, tribes in California aremore actively involved in collaborating with governmen-tal agencies, local entities, and academia. By sharingtheir knowledge on the management of natural resourcesin influential outlets such as the 2013 California WaterPlan update, policy makers and influential actors alikecan become more aware of their policy implications ontribes and the importance of tribal knowledge in buildingwater policy.

As an example of improved state efforts, in April2013, over 200 representatives from California NativeAmerican Tribes, Federal and state agencies, and NativeAmerican organizations participated in the second Cali-fornia Tribal Water Summit held in Sacramento, Califor-nia. The Summit showcased three key concepts: tradi-tional ecological knowledge (called TEK), indigenousrights to water, and watershed management and landuse. The Summit was a dialog of mutual respect on waterissues among the highest tribal, state and Federal gov-ernment leaders, and officials to maximize resources andbuild effective partnerships. The two-day Summit con-

cluded with the Guiding Principles and Statement ofGoals for Implementation (http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/docs/tws/2013/Guiding%20Principles_FINALfor%20proceedingsv%202.pdf). Participants declaredtheir commitment to advance relationships and mean-ingful dialog, cooperation and coordination betweentribes, state agencies, and Federal agencies. The Califor-nia Department of Water Resources (DWR) is committedto take it to the next level by creating its own culturallysensitive and inclusive tribal consultation policy, andhosting events, workshops, and trainings to providetribes and DWR employees with opportunities to out-reach, learn, and engage in a meaningful way.

In September 2014, a Traditional Ecological Knowl-edge Training Workshop was held in Sacramento, Cali-fornia (http://climate.calcommons.org/sites/default/files/TEKprogram.9.11.pdf). The purpose of the eventserved to inform and engage the California LandscapeConservation Cooperative committee members, partneragencies, and non-governmental organizations the valueof TEK and the sensitive nature of the information.Speakers shared examples of partnerships betweentribes in the Eastern Sierras and federal agencies whereTEK has influenced the management of forests throughprescribed burns. There was also an example of a co-management agreement between a tribal consortium anda state agency over a valley that was the ancestral landof the Mountain Maidu Tribe seeking the partnership.These state and tribal collaborations highlight the emerg-ing potential of strong relationships and better culturalunderstanding.

As California enters a fourth year of drought, andrecorded water year 2015 as the driest winter in Califor-nia’s written record, utilizing the knowledge of peopleswho have proven cultural practices to ensure sustainableuse of water is vital to the future of our water. Continu-ing to develop more effective and meaningful state leveltribal engagement is key to deepen and expand the rela-tionships between the decision makers and the tribalcommunity, in order to develop effective water manage-ment, expanded perspectives, and the leveraging of re-sources and beneficial partnerships.

Anecita S. AgustinezTribal Policy AdvisorDepartment of Water ResourcesPO Box 942836Sacramento, CA 94236-0001(916) 653-8726

[email protected]@water.ca.gov

Anecita S. Agustinez is the Tribal Policy Advisor for theCalifornia Department of Water Resources (DWR). Withover 30 years of advocacy on behalf of California’s NativeAmerican Tribes, and as a member of the executive man-agement team, she provides policy support and issuesrecommendations regarding tribal issues. Her experienceincludes developing and conducting training in the areasof tribal consultation and cultural competency.

� � �


The Evolution of Tribal Policy in California . . . cont’d.

E-Mail

author link

Resources worth billions of dollars are extracted fromIndigenous territories every year and First Peoples areamong the world’s most vulnerable, marginalized, anddisadvantaged groups. Arguably one of the resourcesmost at risk is water. Across the globe, Indigenous Peo-ples are increasingly required to compete with the agri-culture, energy, and drinking water industries for theircommunities’ scarce water reserves. In response somecommunities are actively objecting to the exploitation ofresources and native peoples. Recent community back-lash against the Keystone XL pipeline, protests againstoil and gas concession auctions in Ecuador and Peru,and violent resource conflicts in Indonesia demonstratethe trend. Poor community engagement practices are notjust bad for Indigenous Peoples they are a poor businesspractice.

Investors and other decision makers have not takennote. As risk increases for both industries and Indige-nous communities, the Indigenous Rights Risk Report(Report), prepared by First Peoples Worldwide (FPW)(Adamson and Pelosi, 2014), offers an innovative tool forgovernments and industries to mitigate social risks andfor Indigenous peoples to defend their resources, lands,and rights. The 2014 report, is the first mechanism avail-able to evaluate the social and economic risks of poor In-digenous engagement practices from an investment per-spective. FPW utilized five indicators: Country Risk, Rep-utation Risk, Community Risk, Legal Risk, and RiskManagement, to determine their risk of Indigenous com-munity opposition or violations of Indigenous Peoples’rights. Unveiled at the 2014 Socially Responsible In-vestors Conference, the final product reflects two years ofconsultations with investment analysts, industry profes-sionals, and Indigenous Peoples.

Developed with a focus on practices in the extractiveindustries the indicators have great promise for evaluat-ing an even broader range of projects and programs, in-cluding those in the water sector. Further the water andextractive industries are already linked. Mining opera-tions use water for mineral processing and metal recov-ery, controlling dust, and meeting the needs of workerson site. The amount of water required by a mine variesdepending on its size, the mineral being extracted, andthe extraction process used. Water withdrawals for Unit-ed States (U.S.) mining in 2010 were 5.32 billion gallonsper day or about 1 percent of total withdrawals from alluses and mining withdrawals accounted for the largestpercentage increase (39 percent) in water use between2005 and 2010 (Maupin et al., 2010). Canadian miningwater use is estimated at about 4 percent of total use andat 2-3 percent in Australia (http://www.miningfacts.org).There is also growing public interest in water use by theoil and gas industry and in the numerous water qualityissues related to many extractive industry operations.

The Report analyzes 52 U.S. oil, gas, and miningcompanies with projects operating on or near Indigenousterritories around the globe, impacting some 150 Indige-nous communities. Researchers found that for all 330extractive industry project sites analyzed, an astounding89 percent had medium to high risk exposure to Indige-nous community opposition or violations of IndigenousPeoples’ rights. Yet, only 6 percent of publicly-held U.S.oil, gas, and mining companies utilize adequate riskmanagement tools when working with communities.These poor practices make Indigenous Peoples increas-ingly vulnerable to extractive projects’ negative social andenvironmental impacts. The Report also demonstratedhow bad governance is bad for business - nearly 60% ofall projects operating in high risk countries were rated ashigh risks themselves.

Additionally, the extractive industry’s risky socialpractices have proven to continuously expose sharehold-ers to financial loss, as exhibited by TransCanada intheir push for the Keystone XL Pipeline. Since 2008,TransCanada Corporation has increased estimated capi-tal investments for the Pipeline by $2.5 billion due to“lengthy delays,” many of which were caused by commu-nity protests and opposition from environmental groups.TransCanada severely underestimated social costs onthe front end of the project, taking a reactive rather thanproactive approach to community opposition. At thisrate, TransCanada, along with many other companies,faces a future of continued protests, site closures, anddiminished shareholder ratings – ultimately amountingto profit loss.

HARNESSING MARKET FORCES IN THEINDIGENOUS MOVEMENT

Using market mechanisms to incentivize market-dri-ven companies has been a largely absent strategy in theIndigenous movement, and for good reason. The historyof corporate engagement with Indigenous Peoples is rid-dled with more horror stories than successes, from com-panies operating on Indigenous lands without consentto inflicting lasting damage to ancestral lands. Yet, In-digenous Peoples are utilizing more and more tools of re-sistance every day. One-hundred forty-eight countrieshave signed on to the United Nations’ Declaration on theRights of Indigenous Peoples, including the U.S. Thanksto Indigenous advocacy; social media has garnered inter-national attention for Indigenous issues like never before;communities are increasingly using the practice of Free,


THE INDIGENOUS RIGHTS RISK REPORT:HARNESSING MARKET FORCES TO DEFEND INDIGENOUS WATER RIGHTS

Katie Cheney

... the legal risk indicator is reported by FirstPeoples Worldwide to be the fastest growing, asevidenced by strengthening legal protections for Indigenous Peoples’ rights around the world ...

Prior, Informed Consent (FPIC) to defend their landsand natural assets. The next step: Indigenous Peoplesdetermining the relationship they want to have with cor-porations, through leveraging assets and harnessingmarket forces.

How? By quantifying the cost of violating Indigenousrights, corporations can see that failing to properly en-gage with Indigenous communities causes them profitloss. The bottom line can now create an incentive to startrespecting Indigenous voices. Simultaneously, Indige-nous Peoples are more aware of their leverage in corpo-rate relationships, as a market value is placed on theirconsent to work with business entities. The Report is thefirst tool that shows that corporations failing to accountfor social risks when engaging with Indigenous Peoplesare going to pay for it.

RISK FACTORS

Projects on or near Indigenous territories were as-sessed against five risk indicators (Country Risk, Repu-tation Risk, Community Risk, Legal Risk, and Risk Man-agement), and rated on a scale of 1 (indicating low risk)to 5 (indicating high risk) for each. The weighted averageof these ratings determined a project's risk score, gaug-ing its susceptibility to Indigenous community opposi-tion, or violations of Indigenous Peoples’ rights.

Country Risk

FPW analyzed risks associated with Indigenousrecognition by host governments, land rights, and com-munity consultation, demonstrating how resource-richcountries’ negligible or nonexistent policies towards In-digenous Peoples affect the companies that work withintheir borders. Strikingly, the Report found that poor gov-ernance and negligible policies for Indigenous Peoples inhost countries is bad for business - nearly 60 percent ofall projects operating in high risk countries were rated ashigh risks themselves. This connection between badbusiness and bad government is becoming increasinglyevident in Canada, Indonesia, Ecuador, Peru, and otheremerging resource economies. In 2013, a consortium ofCanadian leaders (including industry representatives)warned that Canada is “heading for a gridlock in energydevelopment that will rob the country of future wealthunless it can solve vexing environmental and Aboriginalconflicts.” Indonesia has become saturated with violentresource conflicts, with more than 2,230 Indigenouscommunities requesting investigations into violations oftheir land rights. Also in 2013, auctions for oil and gasconcessions in Ecuador and Peru encountered both ve-hement opposition from Indigenous Peoples and “under-whelming” interest from companies – raising specula-tions that the Indigenous protests influenced companies’decisions. Poor governance is bad for business – govern-ments that disregard Indigenous rights are propagatingvolatile business environments that threaten the viabili-ty of investments in their countries.

Reputation Risk

Reputation Risk assessed current and former nega-tive attention to the project, and other projects in close

geographic proximity, from the media, NGOs, and othergroups that influence public opinion and can affect thecompany’s reputation. The report found that not only areIndigenous voices becoming louder, the media spotlighton Indigenous Peoples and resource extraction is shiningbrighter: 126 projects were exposed to negative attentionfrom the media in 2014. Furthermore, 50 percent of allprojects that the Report analyzed were at high risk ofpoor media exposure. These numbers indicate that themedia spotlight on Indigenous Peoples and resource ex-traction is shining brighter by the year, and that negativeattention that appears in one year is highly likely to reap-pear in subsequent years. This is largely attributable toIndigenous Peoples' use of social media to disperse infor-mation faster and further than ever before, one of themost prominent examples of this being the Idle No Moremovement among Canada’s First Nations.

Community Risk

In North Dakota, the Fort Berthold Reservation issurrounded by the prolific Williston Basin, and producesapproximately 333,000 barrels of oil per day. FortBerthold’s tribal council supports the oil industry, buttribal residents are enduring severe socioeconomic andenvironmental degradation, and some are accusing theirleaders of entering corrupt business deals with compa-nies. Because internal factiousness severely limits acompany’s ability to successfully engage communities,projects on or near Fort Berthold received high Commu-nity Risk scores in the Report, despite the tribal council’ssupport. Community risk accounted for a project’s sus-ceptibility to community opposition, and whether theconditions are in place for successful community en-gagement – 79 percent of project sites face medium tohigh community risk. A key indicator of low communityrisk for extractive projects was the presence of a formalagreement between the company and community, whichonly 18 percent of the projects had.

Legal Risk

Legal Risk assessed current and former legal actionstaken against projects, and other projects in close geo-graphic proximity, in the past five years. Surprisingly, 80percent of the projects assessed had low risk exposure tolegal actions, including a lawsuit in court, arbitration, orany other form of adjudication that is utilized to addressviolations of Indigenous Peoples’ rights, in both domesticand legally binding international jurisdictions. However,the legal risk indicator is reported by FPW to be thefastest growing, as evidenced by strengthening legal pro-tections for Indigenous Peoples' rights around the world,including the U.N. Declaration on Indigenous Peoplesand ILO Convention 169.

Risk Management

According to the Report, 98 percent of the projectsassessed exhibited suboptimal efforts to establish posi-tive relations with Indigenous communities, and arepoorly positioned to mitigate their risk exposure to In-digenous Peoples' rights. In fact, 92 percent of the com-


The Indigenous Rights Risk Report: Harnessing Market Forces... . . . cont’d.

panies assessed do not address community relations orhuman rights at the Board level in any formal capacity.Only four companies (ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil,Freeport-McMoRan, and Newmont) have Board Commit-tees with community relations or human rights in theirMandate. Two companies (Freeport-McMoRan and New-mont) have Board expertise in community relations orhuman rights, and one company (ExxonMobil) has an ac-tive and independent external body to advise and evalu-ate its community relations or human rights perfor-mance (Figure 1).

Translation to the Water Sector

The First Peoples’ report provides an investor tool kitto assess major risks and evaluate investment decisions.The five measured risk indicators (Country, Reputation,Risk, Community, Legal, and Risk Management Prac-tices) easily translate to any major water project or pro-gram. Further, as states are often responsible for ensur-ing that Indigenous water rights are protected, recentprivatization of water in many countries has limited In-digenous Peoples’ access to water on their ancestrallands. The need to quantify risks in this case is criticalfor the community as well as the public and private sec-tors.

A TOOL FOR INDIGENOUS SELF-DETERMINATION

The connection between a company’s financial andsocial performance is gaining broader recognition fromthe business community, but analytical processes foridentifying and evaluating social risks are far from re-fined. These informational loopholes limit the financialsector’s ability to comprehensively manage social risks,and more broadly, prevents capital flows from rewardingcompanies that pursue strong community relations andrespect human rights. Simultaneously, in the absence ofmarket incentives for proactively addressing social risks,companies are not prompted to do so until things gowrong, and social risks become social costs.

The extractive industries' risk exposure to Indige-nous Peoples’ rights will continue rising, as the globalscramble for the world's last remaining resources push-es companies further into Indigenous territories. The In-digenous Rights Risk Report is a crucial tool for Indige-nous Peoples to exercise greater self-determination overtheir lands and resources. Using market forces to finan-cially incentivize business practices that respect Indige-nous Peoples’ rights – including FPIC – presents oppor-tunities for communities to exert powerful leverage overcompanies operating on or near their lands. IndigenousPeoples can begin to set the development agenda on theirown terms – whether their answer to development is a yesor a no.

You can read the full report at http://firstpeoples.org/indigenous-rights-risk-report. A searchable data-base of the 330 oil, gas, and mining projects assessedunder the new methodology is available on First Peoples’website at http://firstpeoples.org/wp/.

REFERENCES

Adamson, Rebecca and Nick Pelosi, 2014. Indigenous RightsRisk Report. First Peoples Worldwide, Fredericksburg, Vir-ginia.

Maupin, Molly A., Joan F. Kenny, Susan S. Hutson, John K. Lovelace, Nancy L. Barber, and Kristin S. Linsey, 2010. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2010. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Katie CheneyCommunications ManagerFirst Peoples Worldwide877 Leeland Rd.Fredericksburg, VA 22405(540) 899-6545 / Fax: (540) 899-6501

[email protected]

Katie Cheney started working with FPW as a Communi-cations Assistant in 2011 after completing her Bachelor’sdegree at Penn State University in Anthropology. In 2012she transitioned into a Field Associate role and traveledto Botswana to conduct a needs assessment with the In-digenous San of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve. Shereturned to Tulane University in pursuit of her master’sdegree in International Development in 2013, where shehas specialized in GIS, rural water systems, and LatinAmerica and the Caribbean. Katie recently rejoined theFPW team in October 2014.

About First Peoples Worldwide: FPW is an Indigenous-led organization that builds upon a foundation of Indige-nous values and rights to achieve a sustainable future forall. Our Keepers of the Earth Fund provides grants di-rectly to Indigenous-led development projects. The cor-porate engagement program makes the business case forrespecting and upholding Indigenous Peoples' rightsthrough vigilant monitoring of corporate practices, af-fecting policy change, and advocating best practices inIndigenous community engagement. To learn more aboutthe Indigenous Rights Risk Report contact [email protected].

� � �


An Industrial Water Resources Inventory and Projections for Economic Development . . . cont’d.

E-Mail

author link

INDIGENOUS TERRITORIES ConStitutE

20% oF thE Earth’S lanD MaSS.

But that lanD harBorS 80% oF thE

WorlD’S rEMaininG BioDiVErSitY

Figure 1. Indigenous Lands Are Crititcal to theWorld’s Biodiversity (see http://www.firstpeoples.org/images/uploads/indigenous-land-graphic1.jpg).

What should be the future for AWRA’s IMPACT maga-zine? Many IMPACT readers may be aware of strikingchanges in the publishing industry and AWRA’s leader-ship has wondered how these trends might affect us.Fortunately, while some traditional forms of media likenewspapers and television have not fared well in the dig-ital age, magazines are doing just fine. In fact, accordingto the Association of Magazine Media (MPA), magazinemedia audiences grew 9.3 percent during November2014, versus November 2013 (see more at http://www.fipp.com/news/insightnews/us-magazine-media-audiences-grew-at-end-of-20#sthash.glqH3Y3d.dpuf).

Still, even if magazines are not dead, they are chang-ing. MPA Magazine Media 360° Brand Audience Report,using data from third-party providers and evaluating 146magazine media brands from 32 companies, (and repre-senting 95 percent of the reader universe), found im-proved readership was powered by video and mobile webconsumption, up 68 percent and 76 percent, respective-ly, over the same time period in 2013. According to a sur-vey by the Professional Publishers Association, digitalmagazines now make up roughly 32 percent of the mar-ket share and sales are increasing every year. Readershipcontinues to grow as tablets and other technology bettermimic and sometimes improve the print reading experi-ence. Reports from Adobe (the same company responsi-ble for your PDF reader) indicate the total number of dig-ital magazines downloaded every week increased from300,000 per week in 2011 to a staggering two million perweek by the end of 2013.

The way people read is also changing. Millennials(ages 18-35) now make up about a quarter of the world’spopulation, and new electronic platforms allow these dig-ital natives to quickly jump around between content.On-demand formats and interactivity fundamentallychange the way people relate to magazines. While largenumbers of Millennials have yet to join the ranks of IMPACT readers, industry watchers find more and moreaudiences of all ages self-curate what they will spendtime with. An emerging trend is a willingness to pay forindividual articles instead of utilizing traditional sub-scriptions.

Duncan Edwards, CEO and President of the Hearstpublishing empire (think Cosmopolitan, Elle, Esquire, andHarper’s Bazaar), in a July 20, 2014, interview with theGuardian, admits an ingrained old-school mindset hascost that publisher in the digital age. He believes con-sumer expectations have changed and cites competitorssuch as BuzzFeed and (fashion and beauty site) Refin-ery29 as leveraging this trend. He noted, “We had to re-educate and restructure our teams. We are moving frommonths to moments in our editorial thinking.” He thencontinued, “If you don’t have something new for your

audience at 6 am or 7 am in the morning, you are out ofthe game. We are seeing extraordinary growth in our dig-ital audiences as a result of that.”

IMPACT is unlikely to be in toe-to-toe competitionwith Hearst or BuzzFeed anytime soon, still, much canbe learned from looking at the magazine industry andpreparing for the next generation of readers. The physi-cal cost of producing a digital edition is less and whilemany of you may keep past issues with your cherishedcopies of National Geographic, it is likely many othercopies eventually transition to the recycling bin.

READER SURVEY

With all these trends in mind AWRA’s Past President,Mark Dunning and now current President John Tracychartered a small working group to begin a strategic lookat IMPACT’s future. As part of the assessment process, areadership survey for Water Resources IMPACT magazinewas emailed to all AWRA members in November 2014and again in April 2015. Following are a few highlightsfrom the survey results.

The majority of respondents placed a high value onthe magazine – well over half (62 percent) indicated thatthey were very/extremely satisfied with IMPACT – howev-er, nearly a third indicated they were only somewhat sat-isfied with the magazine. For both groups, layout and de-sign were the lowest rated features of the magazine, whilecover and writing scored the highest.

An impressive 72 percent of respondents always/usually read every issue of IMPACT. Time reading theissue varies with close to half scanning it for 15-30 min-utes. Another third spend 30-60 minutes and about atenth spend more than an hour. Interestingly, about athird also said they share their copy of IMPACT with oneor two colleagues and we know from experience that par-ticular articles of interest are forwarded as well.

In response to questions asking what readers wouldlike to see more of in the magazine, a vast majority of sur-vey respondents (89 percent) expressed that they wouldlike to see more information on AWRA activities and busi-ness, with 71 percent specifically seeking AWRA StateSection and Student Chapter news. Other areas of inter-est included features on successful water resourcesmanagement programs and people in water resourcesmanagement, respectively.

Regarding delivery of the magazine, and in line withindustry trends, 69 percent of respondents indicatedthey would like to receive either print only, or a combi-nation of print and online, while 17 percent preferred toreceive the magazine online only, with the rest having nopreference. Correspondingly, when asked how often theyaccess IMPACT online 42 percent of respondents saidnever, 40 percent said occasionally and 18 percent said


HELP US SHAPE THE FUTURE OF THEWATER RESOURCES IMPACT MAGAZINE

Christine McCrehin and Lisa Beutler

CALL FOR HELP ... THE FUTURE OF IMPACT

every issue. When asked how often they accessed the IMPACT online archives, 46 percent of respondentsreplied never, 51 percent occasionally. and only 4 percentindicated that they access the IMPACT online archives ona monthly basis.

MEMBERS WANTED

AWRA is now in the process of talking with multiplevendors to learn more about publishing options and howchanges to IMPACT could better serve our members.Over the next few months we are also embarking on somestrategic planning for IMPACT. The goal is to have someinitial ideas on the Future of IMPACT to share with theAWRA Board of Directors during their November meeting.

We are seeking volunteers to help with the planningprocess. We expect the effort to include some phone and


Help Us Shape the Future of Water Resources IMPACT Magazine . . . cont’d.

web meetings and involve about four hours between now and November. If you are interested please drop Lisa Beutler, the Working Group Chair, a note [email protected].

We look forward to hearing from you and crafting aplan for the next generation of IMPACT.

Christine McCrehin ([email protected]) is Director ofMembership and Marketing for AWRA and formerly theEditor of the PA Times, a publication of the American So-ciety for Public Administration.

Lisa Beutler ([email protected]) is an AWRABoard member and chair of the working group convenedto consider the future of IMPACT.

� � �

Greed and folly double the suffering in the lot of manHomer

Aesop, if he was a real person, is reputed to have livedfrom c. 620-564 B.C. (BCE). He was the archetypal fabu-list and storyteller. Aesop’s Fables have survived (andperhaps been added to) because of the skill of the authorin grasping complex moral/ethical issues and highlight-ing them through seemingly simple stories of creaturesand their foibles. He illustrated the pitfalls that lie beforeus as humans when we stray from the path of ethics andmorals. Simple fictions leading to profound truths rang-ing a wide gamut were the essence of his work. Severalfables caution against greed and seeking benefits thatcan lead to harm.

In the fable of the Dog and his Reflection a key les-son on greed is taught. A very hungry dog steals a meatybone away from a butcher. He runs away to make surehe is safe from the butcher’s wrath. Just as he thinks heis almost far enough away, he crosses a stream on aboard. Looking down, he sees his reflection in the water,but he mistakes it for another dog with a juicy bone. Hedecides he must have that bone as well and opens hismouth and jumps at the “other dog” to snatch it awayfrom “him.” The bone he has drops in the water and islost, and he has to swim for his life to shore. The moralis: (a) it doesn’t pay to be greedy, and (b) don’t be fooledin terms of grasping at illusions and losing what youhave in mouth or hand.

I thought of this fable when reading comments byand about initiatives taken and taken on by the CEO andChairman of the Board of a major national/internationalfossil fuel corporation. I do not believe that the majorityof business leaders who participate in climate changescience denial actually believe their rhetoric. Making de-cisions against the common good because of greed on thepart of economic elites is nothing new. The promise ofpersonal or select group benefit can overcome considera-tion of harm caused to the general society in the presentand down into the future. It is more likely that leadersunderstand the science, but in their calculus weighingthe economic consequences for their businesses from therestriction of producing and selling fossil fuels is toogreat a cost.

Among other things the aforementioned CEO cham-pioned the defeat of several shareholder initiatives relat-ed to Climate Change response. The first was a call to di-versify corporate investment to include Renewable Ener-gy Research and Development. His central argumentagainst the measure was summed up in the statement“we choose not to lose money on purpose.” Another pro-posal by activist shareholders was also targeted for de-feat. The proposal was to place one person (scientist/re-searcher) on the Corporation’s Board who would have

expertise in Climate Change: a place at the table to speakto the need to reduce greenhouse emissions. The Boardis currently made up primarily of what used to be called‘Captains of Industry’ (i.e., past and present CEOs ofother Corporations, academic economists, a retired Uni-versity President, and one of those hybrid CEOs/Busi-ness Deans). The CEO argued successfully against themotion because “to set aside one seat for an environ-mental specialist or any single attribute or area of exper-tise would …. not be in the best interest of the company… nor shareholders … it would dilute the breadth need-ed … to make informed decisions ….” The proposal wentdown in flames. None of this should be a surprise foranyone paying attention to some of the leading fossil fueland fossil fuel related industries and their positions onClimate Change. Like their colleagues in the tobacco in-dustry before them, this corporation and others in thefossil fuel business have long funded climate change de-nial overtly then more recently covertly.

The most interesting thing for me that came from outstatements from this CEO was in explaining future plansfor the company. It was his intention to produce all of thefossil fuel assets that they have under their control andnot to “fake it” anymore with regard to their position. Heopined that the climate models are wrong, but even ifthey were right that’s still no reason to stop developingand using fossil fuels. He opined that mankind has enor-mous capacity to deal with adversity; technology can bedeveloped to combat “inclement weather” that may ormay not be induced by climate change. He said that it isthe business of the petroleum and natural gas industryto drill, develop, and sell every drop and every cubicmeter of oil and gas they can. He spoke with confidenceand with the understanding/opinion that governmentswon’t/can’t stop them. At least under current circum-stances in the United States (U.S.), Canada, and Aus-tralia where our election campaigns are being “fueled” byfossil fuel money, he may well be right. And if these na-tions don’t act to forcefully curb greenhouse emissions, itis unlikely that the rest of the world will put themselvesout. (Though, a consortium of European owned petrole-um companies have come out collectively for strongergovernmental response to Climate Change.)

This CEO gives himself and the fossil fuel industryan “out” so to speak with at least lip service to climatechange adaptation. The problem is that he seems to bepositing a situation where CO2 emissions would contin-ue unabated, as fossil fuels would remain the key andgrowing source of energy for development and not inci-dentally profits for their industry. One key point that hasbeen brought out time and time again is that the soonerand more aggressive we are at reducing greenhouse gasemissions, the easier and cheaper it will be to adapt toClimate Change. When most of the scientific community


THE DOG AND HIS REFLECTION ANDCLIMATE CHANGE ILLUSIONS?

Eric J. Fitch

What’s Up With Water ... OPInIOn

speaks of climate adaptation, it is looking at a scenariowhere slowing emissions still push global mean temper-atures another 2oC (4.6oF) but below a 3oC rise wherecertain critical tipping points are predicted to occur. If weshoot past that level, to some of the hellish scenarios en-visioned by runaway emissions leading to runawaywarming, we have an entirely different ballgame. One keypaper predicts as much as a 20oC mean temperature el-evation globally and as much as a 30oC mean elevationat the poles if all the known reserves of all fossil fuels areburned. Even far short of this worst case scenario, itwould be an almost impossible task for “technologicaladaptations” to keep the planet status quo ante the An-thropocene.

Scientists are predicting substantial desertificationon most continents, including centuries long drought inNorth America from California through the continentalU.S., Southwest, and throughout northern Mexico. Cur-rent dependable mountain snowcap and glacier suppliesglobally of fresh water will be gone in 30 to 50 years.Many areas currently producing staple crops will beabandoned as is already being seen in parts of the GreatPlains and elsewhere in the world. Some tout advances indesalination as the salvation, but desal in vast quantitieswill almost certainly be energy intensive. With the loss ofmuch of the hydro-generating capacity and ever increas-ing demands by urban and manufacturing centers, bio-logically based renewables production will in all likeli-hood be compromised. Where are you going to build theplants, how are you going to provide them with energy tooperate and to distribute freshwater over vast distances?But of course, we are going to develop safe, reliable, nu-clear fusion power (even though we have been trying to do this for almost a half century without commercial

success) and build space elevators so that we can mineH3 from the Moon.

Sea level rise will inundate many of our currentcoastal urban centers, despite the sea level rise denialismthat seems to have taken root in some U.S. statehouses.Some of these areas will also have increased monsoonaland hurricane events growing the incidence of cata-strophic floods. As ocean heating and acidification in-crease as more and more CO2 is dumped in the atmos-phere, we’ll have to bioengineer heat and acid resistantmicroalgae and algae to make sure we keep getting freeoxygen from the oceans. Oh, and while we’re at it, bio-engineer our staple crops, our domesticated animals andplants, and all the organisms that climate change im-pacts will drive to extinction. Arcologies and domed citieswill come into vogue as we dig down to survive in thedeserts and rise up above the flooded coasts. Heck whilewe’re at it why don’t we terraform Venus, Mars, Ceres,and maybe some of Jupiter’s moons and invent warpdrive. I love science fiction, but as a scientist I know thebest solution to climate change is not to count on humaninnovation to counteract the damage we are inflicting onthe biosphere, our only proven home, but instead usethose great powers of innovation to move us away fromthe use of fossil fuels. It’s been a good run; let’s not getgreedy and lose what we have developed as a species toput more money in the pockets of the few and misery tocurrent and future generations. Don’t drop the proverbialbone in the water based on an illusion and greed.

Eric J. Fitch ~ [email protected]� � �


What’s Up With Water: The Dog and His Reflection and Climate Change Illusions . . . cont’d.

E-MAIl cONNEcTION

HAVE SOME COMMEnTS AbOUT THISISSUE OF IMPACT?

SEnd US yOUR FEEdbACk

Water Resources IMPACT is in its 17th year of pub-lication and we have explored a lot of ideas. We hopewe have raised some questions for you to contem-plate. “Feedback” is your opportunity to reflect andrespond. We want to give you an opportunity to letyour colleagues know your opinions ... we want tomoderate a debate ... we want to know how we aredoing.

For this issue send your comments by e-mail to Lisa Beutler at [email protected] orIMPACT Editor-in-Chief Eric J. Fitch at [email protected].

Please share your opinions and ideas. Limit yourcomments to approximately 350 to 400 words.

If published, your comments may be edited forlength or space requirements.

ADvERTISE YOUR PRODUcTS AND SERvIcES IN

A BI-MONThlY NEwS MAGAzINE Of ThE

AMERIcAN wATER RESOURcES ASSOcIATION

REAch A wORlD-wIDE wATERRESOURcES AUDIENcE

CONTACT AWRA FOR SPECS ANDPRICING INFORMATION

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

E-MAIL: [email protected] [email protected]

AwRA’S unique multidisciplinary structure providesyour company the opportunity to advertise to readers

reprepresenting over 60 professions and livingin over 65 countries around the world!

Bottled water is big business for Nestle. In 2014, thecompany’s water division, Nestle Waters, reported salesof $8 billion with more than half of all revenue fromNorth America. Nestle Waters is the largest producer ofbottled water globally and operates under 67 brands in-cluding well known brands Arrowhead, Perrier, and Nes-tle Pure Life. Although Nestle’s bottle water sales contin-ue to rise, the company has faced increasing scrutinyand challenges with sourcing reliable water supplies forits operations in the western United States (U.S.).

Nestle operates 29 bottled water facilities in the U.S.,and sources water from a variety of sources includinggroundwater, springs, and municipal tap water. Five ofNestle’s water bottling facilities are located in California,which together consume approximately 2,150 acre-feetper year, roughly equivalent to the water use of a 600-acre irrigated alfalfa farm or approximately 0.008 percentof California’s total annual water use. Despite that, thestate’s ongoing drought has prompted a number of ef-forts to shutdown Nestle Waters’ California operations.Most recently, the company has become the target of anonline petition calling for Nestle Waters to cease bottlingwater in California. The petition has only gathered94,000 signatures. Nonetheless, the company has re-sponded to such public criticism by looking to reduce itswater use. For example, Nestle installed water reusetechnology in its Carnation condensed milk plant inModesto, California. The plant upgrade saves about 200acre-feet a year for a one-time investment of $7 million.

Nestle has also encountered stiff political oppositionfor a proposed bottled water facility in the ColumbiaRiver Gorge of Oregon. Nestle proposes to run a pipelinefrom a spring currently utilized by a state-owned salmonand steelhead hatchery to a new bottling facility. Citywells would provide water to the hatchery to replace thereduced spring water supply. Although the City of Cas-cade Locks supports the transfer and views the proposedbottled water facility as a source of economic develop-ment, public concerns over corporate control of local

water resources have delayed the project. Nestle contin-ues to work towards gaining approval for the transfer,and has not abandoned its plan for the site.

Outside of the bottled water industry, other waterusers including agriculture, golf courses, power plants,mining operations, and industrial facilities use large vol-umes of water, and require a reliable water supply. Nes-tle’s struggles highlight the importance of water resourceplanning to address and mitigate water supply risks. Asdrought conditions persist across the western U.S. andpopulation growth places increasing demands on scarcewater resources, it is important for companies operatingin high water use industries to be proactive in managingwater supply risk to remain competitive.

Tanner Ketellapper ~ [email protected] J. Landry ~ [email protected]

� � �


NESTLE’S CHALLENGES HIGHLIGHT THE ECONOMICIMPORTANCE OF WATER SUPPLY PLANNING

Tanner Ketellapper and Clay J. Landry

The new Economy of Water ... OPInIOn

E-MAIl cONNEcTION

� � � � �Have Questions About IMPACT?

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

Check Out Our Home Page Atwww.awra.org

� � � � �

One of the advantages ofserving as President of theAmerican Water Re-sources Association isthat you receive invita-tions to a number of activ-ities and events, many ofwhich I may not have evenheard of, let along partici-pated in, as part of my jobthat pays the bills. Thishas exposed me to amuch broader range of water resource topics and issues,and allowed me to engage in an ever expanding conver-sation regarding the current conditions and future issuesthat face water resource professionals across this coun-try. One such meeting that I was able to attend in Marchof this year was the Resource Revolution Tour in NewYork City, which was sponsored by Suez Environmental.While the main focus of the event was announcing the re-organization of all Suez Environmental and its sub-sidiaries, and putting forth its vision for its role in waterresource management in the future, the more interestingpart of the meeting for me was talking to the wide varietyof attendees at the meeting that were discussing the pri-vatization of water resource infrastructure and manage-ment services. This is a topic I have little knowledgeabout, and I had naively thought that privatization ofwater resource systems meant that a for-profit corpora-tion would take ownership of a water system, and worktowards maximizing share-holder profits under some de-gree of regulation. However, the majority of the discus-sions I had at the meeting focused on how public-privatepartnerships could be used to more effectively managenot just water supply and waste water management sys-tems, but also undertake watershed and waterwayrestoration efforts that include performance based fund-ing mechanisms.

The use of private-public partnerships has become socommon in developing and managing public services in-frastructure across the United States (U.S.), it has evendeveloped its own three letter acronym, PPP, the true signof a new practice becoming mainstream. In addition, theuse of PPPs have a relatively long history in the U.S., withsome of the more common examples that have been inplace for quite a while being private maintenance and op-eration agreements for federal, state, and local parks.For example, almost all of the U.S. Forest Service camp-grounds I have stayed at over the last decade have beenoperated by either for-profit or not-for-profit corpora-tions. Another area where PPPs are being utilized morefrequently is in the transportation sector, including thedevelopment of highway systems, as well as light rail sys-

tems, in a number of larger metropolitan areas across theU.S. The practice of using PPPs for large public infra-structure services has grown so much in recent yearsthat a professional society has evolved that specificallyfocuses on PPPs, which is the National Council for Public-Private Partnerships. In addition, there is now ayearly Expo to bring together professionals discussingthe latest ideas and successes in developing effectivePPPs that provide a wide range of public services, in-cluding recreational facilities, educational systems,transportation services, information technology infra-structure, and even state lottery operations.

However, one area that has only used PPPs in a lim-ited fashion, and is not well represented in the nationalPPP discussion, is water resource projects and programs,both in regard to large scale multi-use water supply pro-jects, and restoration of watersheds and waterways.There are a number of municipalities whose water sup-ply or waste water services are either completely priva-tized, or are operated by for-profit private companies.This is the case in my home town of Boise, Idaho, wherethe municipal water provider is United Water, which is asubsidiary of Suez Environmental. However, many ofthese relationships are either a completely privatized util-ity, or a fee for services arrangement, which is really notbest described as a partnership. Lately however, thereare several examples of performance based PPPs beingexplored for larger scale water resource infrastructuredevelopment and operation, with one example being theTampa Bay Seawater Desalination Plant operation. TheDesalination Plant operation is a PPP, where Tampa BayWater (created as a not-for-profit by its municipal mem-ber governments) owns the facility, American Water-ACCIONA (a private firm from Spain) operates the plant,the Southwest Florida Water Management District (re-gional government) provided funding for the eligible cap-ital costs of the facility, and the Tampa Electric Compa-ny (regulated utility) leases the plant site to Tampa BayWater and provides electricity and source water to the de-salination plant. Since this effort is relatively new (fulloperation of the facility was achieved in 2010), and thereare few other examples of large scale performance basedPPPs focused on providing water services, there is someuncertainty as to whether these types of relationshipscan be sustained in the long run. In addition, there issome uncertainty as to the extent that federal and stategovernments can participate in PPPs. This uncertaintyhas the potential to create quite a bit of misinformationregarding water service PPPs, which makes it very diffi-cult to have a productive discussion regarding the ad-vantages and disadvantages of PPPs for addressing awide range of issues related to water resource infrastruc-ture and management facing our country in the future.


DISCUSSING PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS:IS THIS THE FUTURE OF WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT?

John C. Tracy, President , AWRA

President’s Message

The information needs associated with the emergingtopic of water service PPPs appears to fit well with themission of AWRA, which is to help develop a forum to for-ward the conversation, make connections betweengroups exploring PPPs to address water resource prob-lems, and help develop a water service PPP community.If this is something that you are involved with directly ortangentially, or would like to become involved with, thereare ample opportunities within AWRA for you to help for-ward this conversation. This may be a subject that wouldfit well in the AWRA webinar series, a special session at an AWRA conference, the development of a special issueof JAWRA or IMPACT, or possibly even a full specialty

conference. Seeing how the use of PPPs is increasing inproviding many other public services, it would seem that their use will increase for water resource services as well.This may be an opportunity for AWRA to expand our community, and provide a forum for open and honest di-alogue to help ensure that PPPs evolve into an effectivemechanism for sustainably managing our water re-sources.

John C. Tracy ~ [email protected]� � �

E-MAIl cONNEcTION


Discussing Public-Private Partnerships: Is This the Future of Water Resources Mgmt.? . . . cont’d.

� HIGHLIGHTS OF JAWRA TECHNICAL PAPERS • JUNE 2015 • VOL. 51 • NO. 3

FEATURED COLLECTIONWATER FOR MEGACITIES – CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS

Today, cities are growing bigger and faster throughout the world. Currently there are 28 megacites, those with a popula-tion of 10 million people or more, and the number of megacities is expected to grow to 41 by 2030. This featured collec-tion examines the increasing water resources demands and challenges of megacities.

• Sun et al., provide an introduction to megacity issues and an overview of the papers in the featured collection.

• Li et al., provide a global overview of the diverse characteristics and water challenges for 28 megacities.

• J. Wang et al., provide an overview of the challenges and solutions to provide adequate water supply to support Beijing’s continued population growth.

Several papers provide diverse case studies for megacities across China and Jakarta, Indonesia, using computer simula-tion models and decision support systems.

OTHER TECHNICAL PAPERS:

• Cox et al., use Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS) methods to collect spatial data identifying places stakeholders think are important providers of watershed services.

• Bouska and Stoebner characterize fluvial geomorphic changes to the Cache River of southern Illinois over the past 110 years to inform restoration and management.

• White et al., develop a national database of localized sediment and nutrient export coefficients for ecoregions of the United States.

• Riboust and Brissette model climate change impacts and uncertainties on spring flooding of Lake Champlain and the Richelieu River.

• Alamgir et al., analyze meteorological drought patterns during different climatic and cropping seasons in Bangladesh.

• Slagle et al., examine the perceptions and behaviors of suburban residents regarding stream quality.

A full Table of Contents may be viewed athttp://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jawr.2015.51.issue-3/issuetoc

JAWRA ~ Journal of the American Water Resources Association

Congratulations to the Student Presenter Competitionwinner of AWRA’s 2015 Spring Specialty Conference onWater for Urban Areas: Managing Risks and Building Re-siliency that was held during the conference in Los Ange-les, California, March 30-April 1. Eighteen students par-ticipated and were scheduled throughout the 22 sessionsand the poster session. Conference attendees were giventhe opportunity to judge the students during their sched-uled session. The following criteria was used for all com-petitors:

• Efficient use of allotted presentation time or poster space;

• Quality of responses to audience questions in oral or poster sessions;

• Effective integration of audio-visual materials;• Perceived preparedness;• Logic and understandability of material (problem,

methods, results, conclusions);• Adequate description of context for material – con-

veyed purpose of paper, identified relevant literature, etc.;

• Overall style and presence; effective communicator – enthusiasm or persuasiveness;

• Suitability for AWRA/professional audience; and• Significance and originality of the material presented.

Everyone did a terrific job and made the decision dif-ficult. However, the following individual was selected asthe outstanding winner.

Student PresenterEMILY GRUBERT

Stanford University ~ Stanford, California

Evaluating Produced Water as aNew Source in the United States

Emily Grubert is a Ph.D. student inthe Emmett Interdisciplinary Pro-gram in Environment and Resourcesat Stanford University who studiesdecisionmaking about large energyinfrastructure in the United Statesusing life cycle analysis, multicriteriadecision analysis, and text miningmethods to investigate societal priori-ties for social and environmental out-

comes. She is particularly interested in the interconnec-tions between energy and water systems. Her recent workhas focused on the interplay between energy and water inthe Texas natural gas and coal power systems, desalina-tion projects, and on Maui Island, Hawaii. Emily is an en-vironmental engineer-in-training and holds an M.S. inEnvironmental and Water Resources Engineering and anM.A. in Energy and Earth Resources, both from The Uni-versity of Texas at Austin, and a B.S. in Atmosphere/En-ergy Engineering and Mathematics from Stanford.

Again, our congratulations on a job well done to allthose students who were in the competition and we wishthem all the best in their future endeavors. We look for-ward to hearing more from everyone at future AWRA con-ferences!


� AWRA SPRING SPECIALTY CONFERENCE STUDENT PRESENTER COMPETITIONWINNER ANNOUNCED

Solution to Puzzle (pg. 33)� State Chapter News ~ Northern� California Chapter to Re-Launch

A small band of volunteers are moving forwardwith a re-launch of the Northern California Section ofAWRA. The effort started with several different waterprofessionals independently expressing an interest inbecoming involved with AWRA at the local level. Work-ing together, they issued a survey the last week of Mayto people in target zip codes that had participated inAWRA events before or were suggested to them as a po-tential future member of the Northern California Sec-tion of AWRA. In addition to gauging interest inrestarting the chapter, additional questions exploredwhat role the organization might serve in the region.In mid-June the team convened a meeting with the re-gional leaders of water related sister organizations toshare lessons learned and explore opportunities forcollaboration.

The group is tentatively looking at having regular-ly scheduled evening meetings with a featured speakerand time for socializing/networking.

We are actively recruiting members. If you orsomeone you know is interested in joining the chapter,feel free to drop a note to Rina Binder-Macleod [email protected].

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

�

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� � � � � � � � � � � � ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� � ��

�

� ��

��

�

��

�

��

�

� � ��

�

� � ��

��

��

��

��

��

� �

� ��

� � �

� �

��

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

� � ��

��

�

��

� � � � �

� ��

��

� ��

�

� ��

� �

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

� �

� � � � �

�

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

� � � � ��

� �

��

�

��

��

��

� �

�

� �

��

��

��

� � � ��

� � ��

�

� ��

�

��

��

�

� �

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

� �

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

� � � ��

�

��

�

� ��

��

��

��

� �

� �

��

�

� �

�

�

�

��

� �

��

��

��

�

��

� ��

�

��

� ��

��

��

��

�

� �

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

� �

��

��

��

��

�

� ��

�

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

� ��

�

� � ��

�

� � ��

�

��

��

� ��

��

� ��





TeChNICaL sessIoNs aT-a-GLaNCe2015 aWra aNNuaL WaTer resourCes CoNFereNCe

November 16-19, 2015 ~ GraNd hyaTT deNver ~ deNver, CoLorado

8:30 AM-10:00 AM 10:30 AM-12:00 NOON 1:30 PM-3:00 PM 3:30 PM-5:00 PM

OPENING PlENARY SESSION cONcURRENT SESSIONS 1-6 cONcURRENT SESSIONS 7-12 cONcURRENT SESSIONS 13-18

1 climate change Adaptation 7 climate change & forests 13 Panel: American Urban2 Panel: how Journalists can 8 Endangered Species water Use Trends 1995-2015

help Recovery-1 14 Endangered Species3 california water 9 Sustainable water Supply Recovery-24 Panel: communication, 10 Bridging the Gap Between 15 challenges on the

cooperation & collaboration Research & Practice Northern Plains5 value of Ecosystem 11 Decision Support Systems-1 16 Panel: Regional Partner-

Services 12 Panel: State water Planning ships: Easy to Say But6 land Use changes Difficult to Do

17 Decision Support Systems-218 National water Supply

• moNday ~ November 16 •

KEYNOTE SPEAKER

TBD

8:30 AM-6:30 PM TEchNIcAl POSTER SESSION


cONcURRENT SESSIONS 19-24 cONcURRENT SESSIONS 25-30 cONcURRENT SESSIONS 31-36 cONcURRENT SESSIONS 37-42

19 Panel: Assessment of 25 Strengthening collabora- 31 Open water Data - lightning 37 Panel: Open water DataNational Priorities OwDI & tion & Data - lightning Talks Talks Initiative - futuresNfIE 26 Innovative water 32 forecasting climate Impacts 38 climate change Evaluation

20 Innovative water Education-1 Education-2 33 lake & Reservoir Science-1 39 lake & Reservoir Science-221 Stream Ecology & Restoration 27 Drought 34 Integrated water Resources 40 Groundwater22 Groundwater flow & Transport 28 coupled hydrologic Management-1 41 Panel: Integrated water23 Panel: what’s on the IwRM Processes 35 Panel: Urban Drainage & Resource Management

horizon? 29 Panel: conversion of flood control clashes24 Panel: Performance-Based wastewater to Potable water 36 Partnership for Ecosystem 42 The September 2013 flood

water conservation 30 Balancing water Supply ServicesNeeds & EnvironmentalProtection

• Tuesday ~ November 17 •

8:30 AM-3:30 PM

TEchNIcAl POSTER SESSION



43 Open water Data-1 49 Open water Data-2 55 water Tradeoffs in Oil & Gas 61 water in the Gas & Oil44 New vision for TMDls 50 water Energy Nexus Development Industry45 Innovations in higher 51 Emerging contaminants & 56 Source water Quality 62 water Quality concerns

Education Monitoring Protection 63 Reinventing Stormwater46 flood hazards & Mapping 52 water Education-1 57 watershed Education Infrastructure47 Integrated water Resources 53 flooding & floodplain 58 Strengthening collaboration & 64 water Management history

Planning Management Data 65 Modeling-248 Sustainability of water & 54 Innovative Technologies 59 Modeling-1 66 International Issues

Petroleum Production 60 Regional Planning

• WedNesday ~ November 18 •



67 contaminants of concern in 73 Agricultural water Quality 79 water Management in 85 water Supply & QualityNational Parks Management Traditional communities 86 Urban Storm water Impacts

68 Panel: Innovations in 74 who Pays? 80 water Management in 87 watershed Planning &Stormwater Education 75 Geographic Info. Systems-2 colorado & the west Management

69 Geographic Info. Systems-1 76 Panel: Stormwater Reuse 81 colorado River Basin 88 Panel: Alluvial Aquifer70 Innovative Techiques 77 Panel: wrangling Over Shortage Recharge71 coastal challenges colorado’s first water Plan 82 Stormwater Quality BMPs 89 Panel: Urban land Use &72 One water Stewardship 78 Panel: hydrology & water 83 Managing competing Uses & water Demand Planning

Quality Effects from the Needs Integration in coloradoMountain Pine Beetle Infesta- 84 Panel: water Governance &tion in the Rocky Mtn. west coastal challenges in an

Era of climate change

• Thursday ~ November 19 •


� WATER RESOURCES PUZZLER (answers on pg. 30)

DOWN

1 an inhibition

2 dunked

3 on the bottom

4 atom. no. 52

5 between high and low water

6 a thin beam

7 a specific talent

8 distance sailed

9 a water instrument

10 a security clearance (abbr.)

11 take home

12 deli bread

13 gain fame

14 type of exercise

17 a flammable gas

20 Passover meal

31 industrious

33 discrepancy

35 Russian river

36 to pass by

37 e.g., the Titanic

38 nonflowering plants

39 Yankee no-hitter

41 onager

42 first to settle

44 a domesticated fowl

45 a hand-to-hand fight

46 followed by union or wind

48 Fidel’s friend

52 a steep gulch

53 corners

55 66 and 1

57 e.g., rose oil

59 a ring of rubber

62 to become dim

65 former G.I.

67 followed by area or throw

68 quiet! (interj.)

70 get with ______!

71 Denver to Dallas dir.

72 hosp. rm.

� � �

ACROSS

1 haphazardly (2 wds.)

13 three toed sloth

15 a protozoan

16 negative types

18 original

19 type of surgery

21 start of active or rocket

22 followed by Plains or circle

23 a movement

24 royalty acronym

25 warship abbreviation

26 type of milk

27 urbane

28 kitty or puppy

29 M.D. (inf.)

30 Oxford dict.

32 seine

33 May 8, 1945

34 to impede movement

38 the fourth tone

39 loc. for a scientist

40 jazzy Fitzgerald

42 3.14

43 type of underwear

46 a geologic time

47 more weird

48 atom no. 24

49 a navigational system (abbr.)

50 historical records

51 dislikes

52 a social insect

54 expressed disdain

56 closer to

58 cousin of ave.

60 a coin

61 newt

63 follows apple or pear

64 apiary dwelling

66 hosp. rm.

68 follows drug or candy

69 wrath

70 distributed

73 Isaac or Gabby

74 smallist

75 increased in size

76 a fishing pole

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

�

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

AWRA 2015 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

PRESIDENT PRESIDENT-ELECT

JOHN C. TRACY MARTHA CORROZI NARVAEZUniversity of Idaho ~ Boise, Idaho University of Delaware ~ Newark, Delaware

[email protected]

SECRETARY-TREASURER ~ DAVID R. WATT PAST PRESIDENT ~ C. MARK DUNNINGSt. Johns River Water Mgmt. District ~ Palatka, Florida CDM Smith ~ Fairfax, Virginia

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT ~ KENNETH D. REID, FASAE, CAEAmerican Water Resources Association ~ Middleburg, Virginia

Non-Profit Org.U.S. Postage

P A I DTwin cities MN

Permit No. 93245

®

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

ISSN 1522-3175

AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

DATED MATERIAL ENCLOSED

Documents

FIRST PEOPLES AND WATER: WATER RESOURCE ISSUES FOR …featherriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/1507impact.pdf · FIRST PEOPLES AND WATER: WATER RESOURCE ISSUES FOR NATIVE AMERICANS