NonBasicSpecificComments04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

II- ' 216 BRIAN D. RICHTER ET AL. Ecological AppUcath:ms Vol. 13, No, 1 Boy 24 San Pedro River~ Arizona In the upper San Pedro River .basill of southern Arizonai wate.r managers and conservationists argued for mqre than a decade about the causes of measured declines in river base flows and the degree to which continued groundwater -pumping for nllmicipal and agricultural use might affect the river ill the future (CoITlmission 011 Environmental Cooperation ) 999). In 1998., under the leadership of the Arizona De.. partment of Water- Resources, representatives frOln federal and state agencies, 111unicipal governments, and conservation organizations agreed to step back from this debate and work together on a plan to nleet both hU~l1an and ecosystem water delnands over the long run (Upper SaIl Pedro River Partnership 1998). They fornled the Upper San Pedro Partnership to seek consensus-based ideas for reducing human inlpacts, for organizing ecological research to -exalnine nlore rigorously the water needs of the riparian eco~ystem along tbe l.iver, and for reassessing the groundwater models that nave been developeq by. various parties. The paltnership ha:s .collaborated on an ambitious work plan including a variety of water conservation activ~ties, recharge of treated wastewater effi1.l,ent, and retirel1'1el1t of water-consumptive agriculture. The partnership committed more than $18 X 106 (U.S. dollars) to the effort during the first two years. In this casep Step 4 of the framework (Fig. 2) was predicated on reiteration of Steps 1......3t and U)e Upper San" pedi'O Partnership i's an inlportant ex.alllple of revisiting and possibly 1110difying e'cosyste111 flow r"equire- ments. The willingness of the lnajor stakenolders to reexamine both human water needs and ecosystem flow requirelnents ill a collaborative setting was an important ,breakthrough. + This exafuple illustrates the fact that the tinle frames required for developing an ecologically sustainable water manageznent plan can take .decades. The example from the Green River in Kentucky (see 'Box 1) sugge~ts that quick progress is s?metimes possible and always. desirabte~ but hardly assured. man.uses wiH likely have arisen, Evell when attempts to resolve ifK:ompatib-ilities are purs.ued collaboratively and earnestlyp water ulapagers nlay remain uncertain about the feasibility of specific proposed modi:fication~ to wate~. management. or river scientists will be un- certain about expected ecological responses, Unfortunately, thes~ uncertainties cOlllmonly cause a breakdown in collaborative dialogue, When water managers, scientists, water users, and conservati9nists are asked to "cut a deal t, in the presence of substantial 1:111certainty, one or more parties may balk~ thus delay... ins or telminating the search for cornpatibIe solutions, However. by instead franling critical Ullcertainties as hypothese~ that can be tested and resolved through wa- ter managel11ent ,experiments, paralysis may be avoid-:- ed. Water. managen1ellt experiments mu'st be carefuliy designed and executed if they are to yield the desi.red reduction of uncertainty, however. It is essential that scientifically credible experimental designs be em- ployed to the extent feasible. If the experiment is not intended to last for many. years, the selected response variables should be adequately sJensitive to ~nable de- tection of response d\lring the term of the experiment: Most important is the formulation of testable hypoth- . eses based upon conceptual lnodels - of the expected response of the hydrologic and ecological, systems to the ,vater management experiments (Richter and Rich- ter 2000). These experiments must be carefully ll1ea- sured or Iuonitored4 And of course, adequate financial support must b~ provided4.-Without appropriate design, evaluation, and fLulding, such water management ex'- periments can backfire by introducing additional con- fusio.n a oout ca.use and effect, and result in increa~d frustration that can badly damage collaborative efforts. The action plan developed by. the Upper San Pedl'o Partnership (s:ee Box 2 for San- Pedro River, Arizona) includes a number of water managenlent experiments .designed to reduce- human itnpacts on groundwater flows. For instance; wastewater fr0111 the City or Sien.a V ista will now be inj ected back into the groundwater aquifer rather than continuing to release it into evap- orative ponds. Also, water conservation measures are being implemented by various tllunicipalities and a 111il- ita:ry base4 .The hydrologic impr0veme~t.s associated with these water management experiments have been modeled using groundwater shnulation models, but verifying their actual bellefits will require careful mon.. itoring. If these experiments suggest that less actual benefit is attained than expected, the partnership will . need to i denti fy additi onal me asures or broader app Ii- cation of their measures to realize succeSS4 STEP 6: DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING AN ADAPTIVE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The last step of our framework should never be com- pleted; to be ecologically sustainable, water mallage- ment should be perpetually informed by Inonitoring, carefully targeted researchj and further experimenta- tion to address new ullcertainties or,surprises, and man.. agelnent approaches must be continually modified in light of increased understanding or changes in human and ecosystem conditions. While much has been writ- ten about adaptive ecosystem management, we wa.nt to J