America's waters: a new era of sustainability; report of the Long's Peak Working Group on National Water Policy.

• Position: Long's Peak Report: Reforming National Water Policy

PREFACE 125 I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 127 II. NATIONAL POLICY OBJECTIVES 128 A. Water Use Efficiency 128 B. Ecological Integrity 129 C. Clean Water 130 D. Equity and Participation in Decisionmaking 131 III. INSTITUTIONAL REFORM 132 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS 133 A. First 100 Days 133 B. Mid-term Recommendations 137 PREFACE

The Natural Resources Law Center of the University of Colorado convened a working group of 30 national experts in water policy at Allenspark, Colorado, near Long's Peak on December 6-8, 1992. The Keystone Center facilitated the meeting. During the meeting, we attempted to focus our collective expertise on the critical water policy issues and opportunities for action by the Clinton-Gore Administration.

This statement is not intended to be exhaustive. Rather, we hope that it will be useful to the new Administration, at an historic moment, in charting national objectives and suggesting specific decisions for developing a new approach toward managing America's waters.

The participants in the Longs Peak meeting attended as individuals, not as formal representatives of their agencies or organizations. The report as a whole is strongly and unanimously endorsed by the participants named below, but may not necessarily reflect the views of their employers.

Sarah F. Bates, Natural Resources Law Center

Michael Blumm, Northwestern School of Law, Lewis & Clark Coll.

Jo Clark, Western Governors' Association

Dana Sebren Cooper, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,

U.S. Senate

Dennis Donald, The Nature Conservancy

Bruce Driver, Attorney and Consultant

John E. Echohawk, Native American Rights Fund

Jeffrey P. Featherstone, Delaware River Basin Commission

Karen Garrison, Natural Resources Defense Council

David H. Getches, University of Colorado School of Law

Don Gray, Environmental and Energy Study Institute

Frank Gregg, University of Arizona, School of Renewable Natural

Resources

Tom Jensen, Grand Canyon Trust

Steve Lanich, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. House

of Representatives

David Lester, Council on Energy and Resources Tribes

Lawrence J. MacDonnell, Natural Resources Law Center

Guy Martin, Perkins Coie

Jerome C. Muys, Will and Muys

Ed Osann, National Wildlife Federation

Ed Pembleton, National Audubon Society

Dale Pontius, American Rivers

Jim Posewitz, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks

Teresa A. Rice, Natural Resources Law Center

Peter Rogers, Harvard University

Donald Snow, Northern lights Research and Education Institute

John E. Thorson

Jim Tripp, Environmental Defense Fund

John Volkman, Northwest Power Planning Council

Charles F. Wilkinson, University of Colorado School of Law

David Yardas, Environmental Defense Fund

1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

   Sound water policy must address the contemporary and long-term needs of humans as part of the ecological community. Nationally, we have not been using water in a manner that meets these needs on a sustainable basis. Examples include the endangered Columbia River salmon, the overtaxed San Francisco Bay Delta, the poisoned Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge, the salt-choked Colorado River, the vanishing Ogalalla Aquifer, Louisiana's eroding Delta, New York's precarious Delaware River water supply, and the dying Florida Everglades. The environmental costs of current water policy are extraordinary, both to this and future generations.

   In America's past, water seemed abundant and nature forgiving. Federal funding was plentiful, and extensive subsidies for development encouraged inefficient use of water. Single interest water policies did not balance the diversity of human and natural needs in water. Intensive economic uses -- agriculture, hydropower, flood control, navigation, and urban development -- became the dominant forces in managing water. All too often, other concerns -- including sound fiscal policy and the needs of Indian tribes, other ethnic communities, and ecosystems -- were ignored. Federally financed water projects were built to control most of the nation's surface water. These initiatives have accomplished considerable societal benefits but have resulted in enormous expenditures and elaborate programs with inherent contradictions, inefficiencies, and a lack of coordination.

   The era of building major projects has passed. Neither the economy nor the environment can tolerate more such projects. It is time to reorient the federal role to satisfy new needs consistent with a policy of sustainability.

   A major movement toward water policy reform already is afoot at the local, state, tribal, regional, and federal levels. Some examples of these innovations include state and federal programs for instream flow protection, pollution prevention, recognition of the public interest, development of watershed and regional water management approaches, and comprehensive settlements of tribal reserved water rights. The Clinton Administration should build upon this momentum, fulfilling Aldo Leopold's "Land Ethic" by taking firm and responsible action to help create a visionary approach toward America's waters.

   A national water policy based on sustainability must include a thorough re-examination of federal policies affecting water quality and aquatic systems consistent with social equity, economic efficiency, ecological integrity, and continued commitment to federal trust responsibilities to tribes. Implementation of a truly national, not "federal," water policy requires the federal government to facilitate, support, and help coordinate efforts to optimize the effectiveness of all levels of government -- federal, state, tribal, and local.

2. NATIONAL POLICY OBJECTIVES

   A national water policy should reform water governance to achieve four objectives for sustainable water use: water use efficiency and conservation, ecological integrity and restoration, clean water, and equity and participation in decisionmaking. Institutional reform to advance these objectives must be sensitive to human economic needs and the government's financial constraints.

   1. Water Use Efficiency and Conservation

      Water is used inefficiently all across the United States, whether in agriculture (the largest single user of America's waters), in industry, or in urban areas. Government has played an active role in building water projects but has taken a passive approach toward encouraging water conservation. Despite water's importance as a public resource, state and federal governments have treated it as a free good, allowing the appropriation of water from rivers, aquifers, and lakes without charge. Water is made available to customers at prices far below its actual value, even when it was developed, stored, and transported at great cost.

      Changing economic, social, and environmental values and emerging new technology have made water conservation one of the most promising strategies for protecting existing water supplies, maintaining water quality and ecosystems, sustaining instream flows, resolving long-standing water conflicts (including Indian water rights), and establishing a sustainable water program. There is broad public support for achieving efficiency in urban and agricultural water use. Methods include water conservation, water saving technology, pricing reforms, and reallocation from lower to higher priority uses. Although efficient water use produces economic, social, and environmental benefits, improved efficiency often is viewed as beyond the traditional responsibilities of water and wastewater agencies. To promote greater water use efficiency, the federal government should encourage more widespread use of integrated resource planning and management by water and wastewater agencies and require it as a condition of financial assistance.

      General Principles

      (1) Increased demand on water resources, rising costs for water treatment, and contemporary environmental values combine to make the efficient use of water resources a central aspect of all water policy.

      (2) The federal government should provide leadership, making water conservation an explicit part of every water program and policy.

      (3) Transfers of water from one use to another can contribute substantially to water use efficiency, and should be facilitated by the federal government, taking into account environmental and equity considerations.

      (4) The efficient use and conservation of water will be optimized through cooperation among federal, state, local, and tribal governments, and by an open participatory process.

   2. Ecological Integrity and Restoration

      Our nation's rivers, lakes and wetlands have been the source of many human benefits. However, it is increasingly apparent that these benefits come at the expense of the country's natural capital. We have experienced declines in water quality, biological diversity, and the viability of aquatic ecosystems as a result of intensive...