132
simple, so obvious, so inescapably true, yet requiring expression in a part of the
world where national legislation mandates saving endangered species but regional
practice emphasizes unsustainable water consumption.
The Great Plains have a semiarid climate and the native vegetation is shortgrass
steppe. This is not apparent when visiting communities such as the one I live in,
which feature landscaping dominated by non-native plants that require supplemental irrigation to survive. Similarly, farms in the region predominantly grow irrigated
crops that receive enormous amounts of water, while rivers that historically were
perennial now nearly cease to flow during droughts. Regional population is growing
at 6–9% per year and has been growing rapidly for decades, leading to increasing
demand for water supplies that will not naturally increase and will almost certainly
decrease as climate warms. As another of my favorite phrases in the scientific literature expresses the dilemma of steady increases in consumptive use through time,
juxtaposed against the need to increase water allocations to river ecosystems, “How
can this water be clawed back from other users?” (Arthington and Pusey 2003).
Water use in the Great Plains and throughout the western United States is governed by the doctrine of prior appropriation, which is sometimes paraphrased as
‘use it or lose it.’ Prior appropriation guarantees water rights for consumptive uses
to the earliest (in historical time) legal claimants, but water users face the possibility
of losing their full allocation if they do not consistently claim sufficient water each
year. This policy tacitly endorses wasteful water consumption. A good starting point
would be to effectively change the abbreviated description of prior appropriation to
‘use it wisely or lose it’ by mandating a consistent reduction, such as 10%, in water
available to all legal claimants regardless of priority rights. Such a change can only
occur if there is more widespread recognition that rivers are endangered
ecosystems.
If we want our rivers to provide ecosystem services and to function as river ecosystems, rather than as drainage canals, we have to move beyond narrowly focused
management that treats rivers as canals. This shift in approach is intellectually difficult because it requires more integrated and complex understanding than relying
on a set of equations that describe flow energy and stable channel geometry.
Managing rivers as ecosystems cannot rely on small-scale restoration projects
undertaken without coordination across the entire watershed. Small projects conducted in isolation are less likely to result in watershed-scale benefits than systematic, coordinated targeting of portions of the river that are likely to restore the
greatest ecosystem function. Managing rivers as ecosystems also cannot treat a river
or the whole river network as if it exists independently of the watershed, including
the subsurface. Critical controls on river process and form that exist outside of the
management framework are likely to limit management success if these controls are
not explicitly considered in planning. Managing rivers as ecosystems cannot operate under the usual project duration of a few months to a couple of years, with no
monitoring or adaptive management that allows success or failure to inform subsequent projects. Short-term projects with no effective evaluation provide no basis for
adapting management based on past successes or failures. Finally, managing rivers
as ecosystems cannot succeed if the people living within the river basin do not value
4 Toward Sustainable Rivers and Water Resources
simple, so obvious, so inescapably true, yet requiring expression in a part of the
world where national legislation mandates saving endangered species but regional
practice emphasizes unsustainable water consumption.
The Great Plains have a semiarid climate and the native vegetation is shortgrass
steppe. This is not apparent when visiting communities such as the one I live in,
which feature landscaping dominated by non-native plants that require supplemental irrigation to survive. Similarly, farms in the region predominantly grow irrigated
crops that receive enormous amounts of water, while rivers that historically were
perennial now nearly cease to flow during droughts. Regional population is growing
at 6–9% per year and has been growing rapidly for decades, leading to increasing
demand for water supplies that will not naturally increase and will almost certainly
decrease as climate warms. As another of my favorite phrases in the scientific literature expresses the dilemma of steady increases in consumptive use through time,
juxtaposed against the need to increase water allocations to river ecosystems, “How
can this water be clawed back from other users?” (Arthington and Pusey 2003).
Water use in the Great Plains and throughout the western United States is governed by the doctrine of prior appropriation, which is sometimes paraphrased as
‘use it or lose it.’ Prior appropriation guarantees water rights for consumptive uses
to the earliest (in historical time) legal claimants, but water users face the possibility
of losing their full allocation if they do not consistently claim sufficient water each
year. This policy tacitly endorses wasteful water consumption. A good starting point
would be to effectively change the abbreviated description of prior appropriation to
‘use it wisely or lose it’ by mandating a consistent reduction, such as 10%, in water
available to all legal claimants regardless of priority rights. Such a change can only
occur if there is more widespread recognition that rivers are endangered
ecosystems.
If we want our rivers to provide ecosystem services and to function as river ecosystems, rather than as drainage canals, we have to move beyond narrowly focused
management that treats rivers as canals. This shift in approach is intellectually difficult because it requires more integrated and complex understanding than relying
on a set of equations that describe flow energy and stable channel geometry.
Managing rivers as ecosystems cannot rely on small-scale restoration projects
undertaken without coordination across the entire watershed. Small projects conducted in isolation are less likely to result in watershed-scale benefits than systematic, coordinated targeting of portions of the river that are likely to restore the
greatest ecosystem function. Managing rivers as ecosystems also cannot treat a river
or the whole river network as if it exists independently of the watershed, including
the subsurface. Critical controls on river process and form that exist outside of the
management framework are likely to limit management success if these controls are
not explicitly considered in planning. Managing rivers as ecosystems cannot operate under the usual project duration of a few months to a couple of years, with no
monitoring or adaptive management that allows success or failure to inform subsequent projects. Short-term projects with no effective evaluation provide no basis for
adapting management based on past successes or failures. Finally, managing rivers
as ecosystems cannot succeed if the people living within the river basin do not value
4 Toward Sustainable Rivers and Water Resources