State Water Planning Report Completed

By:  Timothy Feather

This past January, Illinois Governor Rod R. Blagojevich issued an Executive Order to develop a comprehensive statewide water supply planning and management strategy. His state has been victimized by recent droughts that were quite costly to agriculture and business. Putting an effective state water plan in place could minimize the negative impacts of water resources challenges. Some questions come to mind: What will make up the Illinois state water plan? What level of detail will be needed? How will technical data and political drivers affect the plan’s construct and use?

All other states are faced with challenges similar to Illinois. What can be done from a state planning perspective to help ensure adequate, reliable water supply that balances the need for humans and the environment? The planning strategies, tools,and experience to establish and maintain an effective state water plan are wide-ranging.

A recently published report by the Task Committee on State Water Resources Planning Assessment in conjunction with EWRI’s Planning and Management Council describes the status of state water resources planning. The report provides a water planning profile of all 50 states based upon information available on state websites. A number of attributes are examined and compared among states to gain an understanding of the status and trends observed in state water resources planning. The adjacent table, taken from the report, indicates the percent of states exhibiting the state water planning attributes named.

This 18-month effort was developed by a team of five EWRI members: Kathlie Jeng-Bulloch, Timothy Feather, Elizabeth Perez, Warren Viessman, and Kirk Westphal. The 159-page technical report provides the details behind the table shown here as well as extensive analysis of trends and lessons learned. Suggested components of a state water plan are described in the report. Selected excerpts that provide the setting and potential benefits of the study are provided below.

All states have agencies with responsibility for one or more aspects of water resources planning and management. Many of these are counterparts of federal water planning and management agencies. Western states commonly have agencies charged with administering their water rights systems. Where permits are required, as is common in the east, a similar situation exists. State agencies may have broad authority which includes functions such as planning, constructing, regulating and managing, to narrow functions such as issuing of permits. Agencies with wide-ranging powers offer the attraction of minimizing the number of entities that must be dealt with, but have the drawback of minimizing checks and balances.

Most states have a Department of Natural Resources (or something similar) having responsibility for water resources planning and development and a Department of Environmental Protection (or something similar) having responsibility for water quality planning and protection. State water resources planning processes range from project-oriented to holistic, but few tend to be holistic. Planning is often compartmentalized into categories such as surface water, groundwater, water quality, or water quantity. Consolidation of water quality and quantity planning has not generally been evident. State water planning may or may not include regional plans, but consideration of sub-basins, or regions, is becoming more prevalent.

State Water Planning Processes

Water resources planning processes employed by federal agencies have generally been adopted by the states. Many state processes focus on critical issues, and provide flexibility to respond to changing conditions. Most state planning processes include goal setting. All states have some type of public participation process, and most include water resources assessments. But the assessments are not always continuous. The states recognize the importance of plan implementation, but many do not have a mechanism to ensure that implementation will occur. All states are engaged in water quality planning related to the requirements of the Clean Water Act. But only a few states have a single agency with responsibility for both water quantity and quality planning, although the value in doing this is widely recognized. The regional, or watershed, focus within states varies.

Status of State Water Planning – 2004-2005

The features of state water plans, as they exist in 2005, reflect four major occurrences since the 1970s:

• Devolution of federal programs from the federal government to the states
• Sustained environmental movement which was the outgrowth of Earth Day in 1970
• Discontinuance of funding for the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 which supported, among other things, the development of comprehensive state water resources plans
• Combination of social dynamics and the federal cost sharing policy (Federal Water Resources Development Act of 1986) which brought about meaningful, widespread stakeholder involvement in water resources planning processes

These events have fostered the development of plans that encompass a wide variety of both cohesive and independent water quantity and quality based processes such as source water assessment planning and total maximum daily loads. There has also been a rekindling of the notion of a “watershed focus” and the incorporation of new techniques such as adaptive management and outcomes assessment in planning processes.

Benefits of the Study

As far as the authors know, this is the only study of its type that has been published since 1986. It is considered to be a valuable reference for those engaged in water resources planning at state, federal and local government levels. The report is not prescriptive. It is a snapshot of state water resources planning practices in 2005. Trends, commonalities and differences are identified. The authors hope that the information contained in the report will serve to extend the knowledge base among water resources planners and some changes in planning processes.

In particular, the study:

• Indicates the spectrum of planning issues being addressed by the states.
• Identifies the range of planning protocols employed by the states.
• Illustrates the emergence of new planning tools such as adaptive management, shared vision modeling, and geographic information systems.
• Indicates the nationwide focus on water resources planning and indicates the priorities the states assign to this task.
• Identifies the gathering strength of direct public and NGO involvement in state water resources planning processes.
• Serves as a database for further study and more in-depth analyses of a range of planning attributes by others.

The authors believe that a review of state water resources planning strategies should be conducted on five-year intervals. The authors will be hosting a panel discussion at the upcoming EWRI World Water and Environmental Resources 2006 Congress in Omaha, Nebraska. There are several related research questions that have been spawned by this activity that will be further developed by the Council and related task committees.