On the Water Front: Going with the Flow on a State Water Plan
Recently, this blog carried a post about a provision in the Governor's proposed budget requiring development of a state water plan. In fact, groundwork for such a plan has been underway since last session. The 2007 legislature passed the Water Supply and Conservation Initiative, tasking WRD with an initial look at water needs and supply options during the interim. At the same time, the Water Resources Commission and House Energy and Environment Committee (chaired by Rep. Jackie Dingfelder) worked with OSU's Institute for Natural Resources to conduct citizen water roundtables to inform the Commission and the legislature going forward.
Meanwhile, the Oregon Business Plan (a non-governmental organization) convened its own work group to examine water challenges, while many other organizations, task forces, and work groups tackled specific water issues (water reuse, exempt wells, and aquifer storage and recovery).
Judging by recent updates, I expect the final reports from these various groups to echo the call for a comprehensive state water plan in addition to their specific recommendations. The need has become even more acute with the growing realization that climate change will wreak havoc with Oregon's water regime as we know it. Thus, the Oregon Global Warming Commission, recognizing that any successful strategies for dealing with climate change must include a substantial water component, has also endorsed integrated water resources planning.
With broad-based support from the Governor, the legislature, agencies, citizens, and water advocacy groups across the political spectrum, what could possibly go wrong? Perhaps the most obvious potential hazard is that any proposals involving new spending will have a hard time this session. Spending on planning often loses in head-to-head competition with other compelling needs. However, planning is an investment in the state's future that should not be dismissed out of hand. In fact, failing to plan proactively and strategically is still planning—but it's called "making it up as we go along" and it's reactive, crisis-driven, and costly. Beyond that, the proposal could be derailed by disagreements at the "30,000 foot level" as well as disputes about those always-devilish details. Will the plan lean toward expanding water supply (i.e. new storage) or reducing water demand (conservation)? Will it be built on a foundation of water wants or demonstrable water needs? How will the plan balance urban and rural interests, cities and farms, instream and out-of-stream uses? How will water planning ultimately affect water users on the ground? What about measurement and monitoring requirements? Who will pay the cost of conservation measures or new supply projects?
These are all important questions and legitimate subjects of debate, but the legislators need to keep their eye on the ball. If interest groups fight too early about what kind of a plan they want, the result may be no plan at all, and that would be a mistake. Sustaining our water resources is fundamental to the state's health and welfare. Oregon's economy, beauty, quality of life—water flows through it all. Oregon needs a water plan.
Post authored by Janet Neuman, attorney practicing in the water law and Government Relations and Public Policy practice areas.
