Expertos de la red del Instituto Lincoln responden a la pregunta: Si en 2021 pudiera implementar una solución basada en el suelo que tenga un impacto considerable en el cambio climático, ¿cuál sería?

Robin Bronen
Directora ejecutiva del Instituto para la Justicia de Alaska; miembro del Comité Director de Climigration Network

Devolver las tierras robadas a los pueblos originarios y eliminar las fronteras y los límites que dividen y separan los ecosistemas de los cuales dependemos. Los pueblos originarios conservan la biodiversidad del planeta desde hace milenios. El 25 por ciento del suelo que ellos ocupan en el planeta coincide con el 40 por ciento de las zonas naturales protegidas y los territorios que aún no están dañados. Según los estudios realizados por el Banco Mundial, estos territorios albergan el 80 por ciento de la biodiversidad del planeta. En los Estados Unidos, el colonialismo de asentamientos creó estructuras legales e institucionales que echaron y reubicaron por la fuerza a poblaciones originarias de sus tierras tradicionales y reestructuraron sus tierras como propiedad y como recurso. La repatriación de estas tierras a los pueblos originarios, en su calidad de administradores de estas tierras que hoy se denominan Estados Unidos, ayudaría a rectificar esta injusticia. Al eliminar la construcción social de las fronteras y los límites que dividen el suelo de forma artificial y quitar esas líneas invisibles, los ecosistemas y la biodiversidad de los cuales depende la humanidad podrían prosperar al mismo tiempo que la crisis climática transforma la red de la vida.

Kongjian Yu
Fundador y presidente de Turenscape; colaborador de Nature and Cities

La solución más efectiva y holística para el cambio climático son los “suelos esponja”. Esta solución basada en el suelo expande el concepto de “ciudades esponja”, que usa infraestructura verde para absorber agua pluvial y combatir la contaminación en zonas urbanas. Con ella, se puede retener agua de lluvia en la fuente, detener su curso cuando fluye y usarse de forma flexible en su salida (ya sea un río, lago u océano). Esta alternativa es totalmente opuesta a las soluciones convencionales de ingeniería de uso extendido en todo el planeta, en particular en países en vías de desarrollo con monzones: hacer diques en los ríos para crear grandes embalses, canalizar agua con muros antiinundación de concreto, construir drenajes de concreto en la ciudad y bombear el agua hacia afuera. La infraestructura gris consume grandes cantidades de cemento y crea grandes cantidades de emisiones de carbono, sofoca los ecosistemas más productivos con la mayor biodiversidad y los hacen menos resilientes.

Los suelos esponja consisten en la generación de porosidad en paisajes vastos y montañosos que sufren erosión; la creación de “campos esponja” en forma de estanquecitos en tierras agrícolas donde la escorrentía contamina los ríos y lagos cercanos; y la creación de ciudades esponja. El concepto de suelo esponja significa usar con prudencia el cemento para ingeniería hidrológica y el pavimento en zonas urbanas. También significa quitar los muros antiinundación de concreto y los diques de vías fluviales para restaurar el hábitat, reabastecer agua subterránea, obtener vegetación frondosa y promover otros beneficios. Los suelos esponja son una solución eficiente y poco costosa que fortalecerá la capacidad de resistencia del suelo ante el cambio climático.

Linda Shi
Profesora adjunta de Planificación Regional y de Ciudades, Universidad Cornell; disertante de la beca a la investigación C. Lowell Harriss entre 2015 y 2016

Los Estados Unidos necesitan un plan nacional de adaptación climática que incluya una estrategia de uso y desarrollo del suelo. Las labores relacionadas con la eliminación del dióxido de carbono y las energías renovables, como biocombustibles y paneles solares, tendrán un gran impacto en el uso del suelo rural. Si no se logra descarbonizar, se escalarán los impactos climáticos, la migración causada por el clima y los nuevos entornos de injusticias en forma de oasis climáticos y asentamientos informales. El creciente conflicto político urbano y rural ya refleja las desigualdades espaciales y socioeconómicas, cuyas raíces son la extracción de recursos y personas rurales para los procesos de urbanización, dinámicas que la crisis climática puede exacerbar. Las respuestas del mercado no serán suficientes a escala, no apuntarán a geografías que puedan admitir crecimiento de forma sostenible ni permitirán una transición climática justa. Por lo tanto, la magnitud de las acciones necesarias para afrontar la crisis climática exige una nueva arquitectura nacional de políticas de suelo. Esto incluye: (1) identificación de geografías, con base en la ciencia y en la igualdad, donde se deban aplicar el crecimiento y las inversiones del futuro; (2) políticas fiscales, de inversión y de subsidios que permitan a los gobiernos locales responder a los efectos del cambio climático, en vez de cargarlos con mandatos sin financiamiento o medidas punitivas; y (3) reformas legales a regulaciones bancarias y organizativas que expandan los modelos de posesión cooperativa y ayuden a aumentar el control     comunitario de las viviendas y el suelo para retener y crear riquezas locales.

Alan Mallach
Miembro sénior del Centro para el Progreso Comunitario; autor de Regenerating America’s Legacy Cities

La zonificación de los barrios periféricos de los Estados Unidos propició un entorno suburbano dominado por casas unifamiliares grandes en lotes extensos, y amplias zonas (que suelen estar vacantes) de uso industrial y de oficinas. Así, se promovió un patrón autodependiente de población y centros de empleo muy dispersos que, a su vez, ocasionó mayores emisiones por viajes en vehículo, además de uso de energía para iluminación, calefacción y refrigeración. También restringió la construcción de viviendas, exacerbó los problemas de capacidad de pago y causó que millones de trabajadores de ingresos más bajos hicieran viajes largos todos los días para ir de los centros urbanos a su empleo en los suburbios. Las soluciones son directas y no requieren que se deshaga la zonificación de viviendas unifamiliares. Los estatutos de zonificación de los estados deberían exigir a los municipios que admitan departamentos y estructuras complementarios en zonas de viviendas unifamiliares siempre que sea posible desde un punto de vista de salud y seguridad; permitan viviendas multifamiliares en corredores comerciales y en zonas industriales o de oficinas; y rezonifiquen predios vacantes que fueron salteados para viviendas multifamiliares (en casi todos los suburbios del país hay decenas de ellos). Una mayor densidad residencial en corredores y núcleos de uso mixto, a su vez, aumentará en gran medida las oportunidades para soluciones de transporte eficientes y rentables. Ampliar y diversificar las opciones de vivienda en suburbios que ya están muy desarrollados es responder a necesidades de vivienda insatisfechas y reducir la presión para que los subterráneos se expandan hacia afuera. De esta manera, los suburbios en sí serán más sostenibles ante cambios demográficos, ante la demanda de viviendas y ante futuros impactos climáticos.

Sivan Kartha
Científico sénior en el Instituto Ambiental de Estocolmo; asesor en el programa climático del Instituto Lincoln

En una encuesta a 64 países, se calculó que los bosques que pertenecen a pueblos originarios y comunidades forestales en conjunto contienen el equivalente a alrededor de un billón de toneladas de dióxido de carbono, lo cual equivale a más de tres décadas de emisiones por uso de combustibles fósiles en todo el mundo. Además, estas tierras son de las más ricas en biodiversidad y albergan recursos vitales de agua potable. Sin embargo, los derechos territoriales de quienes viven en esos bosques no suelen estar reconocidos formalmente. Los países con abundantes bosques suelen tener legados colonialistas: las tierras y los recursos se tomaron por la fuerza en detrimento de las comunidades locales. Aún se conservan derechos a la propiedad seculares y regímenes de tenencia de suelo que, originalmente, se establecieron para fines impositivos y de extracción, lo que acrecentó el deterioro constante de los recursos de los bosques. Cada vez más investigaciones demuestran que, cuando los derechos territoriales se reconocen formalmente y se salvaguardan por medios legales, los pueblos originarios y las comunidades locales pueden proteger recursos comunes mediante prácticas informales y acciones colectivas que evitan la deforestación, preservan la biodiversidad y protegen servicios de ecosistemas, como enriquecimiento del suelo y salud de las cuencas. Por el contrario, si se imponen regímenes convencionales de propiedad privada, pueden surgir nuevos problemas, se dispara la especulación territorial y se desafían las normas culturales locales. Al establecer derechos de tenencia territorial seguros para los pueblos originarios y las comunidades rurales, se podrían preservar mejor los recursos de los bosques del mundo, que se están reduciendo. A la vez, se podría salvaguardar el sustento del cual dependen cientos de millones de residentes.

Tamika Butler
Asesora de entornos construidos e igualdad en TLB Consulting; oradora invitada en el Instituto de Planificadores de Grandes Ciudades

Para 2021, lo que anhelo es que el aumento de atención, debates y asignación de recursos con relación a la lucha contra el racismo, la supremacía blanca y los movimientos antinegros no desaparezcan con el cambio de año y con el esfuerzo de la gente por “volver a la normalidad”. No debería alcanzar con solo estar mejor de cómo estamos ahora. Como persona negra, con solo ver las estadísticas sabría que la antigua normalidad implicaba que mi vida era prescindible. Como persona negra, también sé que en esta nueva normalidad, con solo ver cualquier estadística sobre COVID-19, crímenes de odio o racismo medioambiental, sabría que mi vida sigue siendo prescindible. Además de que no alcanza, “volver a la normalidad” no tendrá un impacto significativo sobre el cambio climático. Por el contrario, anhelo que quienes están en el poder examinen a quiénes están oyendo y financiando cuando se trata de soluciones basadas en el suelo.

Las ideas, soluciones e indagaciones para combatir el cambio climático con soluciones basadas en el suelo deberían centrarse en procurar que escuchemos a las personas negras, representantes de pueblos originarios y otras personas racializadas y miembros de grupos históricamente oprimidos que desde hace mucho lideran el cambio climático, la sustentabilidad y la lucha por proteger a la humanidad. Todas las soluciones para el cambio climático deberían centrarse en la idea de que en 2021 debemos dejar de matar a la gente negra, de pueblos originarios, y a otras personas de color.

Melinda Lis Maldonado
Abogada en la Autoridad de Cuenca Matanza Riachuelo; instructora en el Instituto Lincoln/América Latina y el Caribe

Implementar cargos por desarrollo con componentes medioambientales podría tener un impacto considerable en el cambio climático. Se trata de permisos urbanos o de construcción que tienen en cuenta aspectos hídricos y de vegetación para ejercer derechos básicos o adicionales de construcción. Para ilustrar el último caso, añadir suelo para espacios urbanos verdes a cambio de un aumento de densidad podría ser un cargo adicional. Estas herramientas de planeamiento urbano podrían financiar la adaptación y la mitigación ante el cambio climático porque podrían generar recursos a nivel local para financiar la conservación o implementación de infraestructura verde y azul en espacios públicos y privados. Se priorizarían las soluciones basadas en la naturaleza. La naturaleza puede ofrecer soluciones más asequibles a largo plazo y más beneficiosas para humanos y ciudades que las que solo usan infraestructura gris. Al mismo tiempo, dichas soluciones pueden funcionar como medidas de mitigación y adaptación.

En general, estos requisitos se deberían aplicar en el mismo lugar donde se construye, en forma de drenaje sostenible, reforestación o espacios verdes. En casos excepcionales, implicarían financiar infraestructura verde en otro lugar. Se pueden adjuntar condiciones medioambientales a derechos de construcción de distintas formas, según los efectos locales del cambio climático y la magnitud del proyecto de desarrollo urbano. El planeamiento urbano, la ley y la regulación de la propiedad privada tienen una función importante frente al cambio climático.

Frederick Steiner
Decano en la Facultad de Diseño Stuart Weitzman de la Universidad de Pensilvania; coeditor de Design with Nature Now

Mientras trabajamos para promulgar políticas efectivas, debemos cambiar el modo de sentir y pensar el cambio climático y adaptar nuestro estilo de vida en consecuencia. Cualquier persona que lea esto debería hacer una lista con 365 actividades personales que afectan el cambio climático y comprometerse a reemplazar una por día con una acción que mitigue el cambio climático o se adapte a él. Si comparten la promesa en redes sociales, podrían alentar a familiares, amigos y seguidores a hacer lo mismo. Todas estas acciones se vinculan con el suelo, el agua y la energía. Por ejemplo: 

usar una fotocopiadora plantar un árbol
construir un patio hacer un jardín
conducir un automóvil salir a caminar
quejarse de los políticos llamar y escribir a representantes
encargar un libro en línea visitar una librería local
comprar productos agrícolas importados cultivar un tomate
llevar ropa a la lavandería aprender a planchar
asar carne comer un grillo
ir en avión a una conferencia organizar un evento por Zoom
encender el aire acondicionado abrir una ventana
cortar el césped plantar flores nativas
actualizar el plan del cable observar aves

y así durante 353 días más.

Astrid R. N. Haas
Directora de políticas en el Centro Internacional de Crecimiento

Desde una perspectiva gubernamental, implementar soluciones basadas en el suelo en mi país, Uganda, es un desafío en sí mismo. Esto se debe, en parte, a que la Constitución y todos los instrumentos legislativos subsiguientes relativos al suelo indefectiblemente otorgan el suelo a la gente. Además, Uganda tiene varios sistemas de tenencia coexistentes, y a la vez escasa capacidad administrativa para delinear cada uno de ellos o documentar la posesión. Esta situación limita la capacidad del gobierno de implementar soluciones basadas en el suelo que destraben el valor público. Por lo tanto, es en este contexto que en 2021 yo pensaría en el reajuste de suelo como en un enfoque totalmente práctico y la solución basada en el suelo más viable. En particular en zonas urbanas, esta herramienta tiene un potencial enorme [se trata de un modelo en que los propietarios reúnen sus propiedades para concretar un proyecto de redesarrollo]. Por ejemplo, al trabajar a nivel local, se podría determinar la tenencia y la propiedad del suelo y lograr que la comunidad adquiera predios agrupados para ejecutar desarrollos de mayor densidad. Hay cada vez más evidencia de que las ciudades con mayor densidad son más ecológicas y más eficientes con respecto al cambio climático. Por lo tanto, esta solución tendría un impacto importante no solo en la eficacia del modo en que se pueden gestionar las ciudades de Uganda (en particular en lo que respecta a proveer servicios públicos), sino también en el cambio climático.

Larry Clark
Director de iniciativas estratégicas en la Asociación Internacional de Funcionarios Tasadores

Soy un valuador con 40 años de experiencia en tres jurisdicciones locales; escribo artículos, doy conferencias y enseño valuación masiva en muchas partes de los Estados Unidos y el mundo. Gracias a mi vínculo con personas de todas partes del mundo, logré entender los problemas que conlleva el cambio climático. Una de las realidades es que los recursos hídricos están mal distribuidos en los 50 estados. El cambio climático exacerba esa situación porque provoca sequías en una parte del país, y en otra el aumento de temperatura provoca lluvias intensas e inundaciones. Por lo tanto, mi deseo sería desarrollar una red nacional de embalses y sistemas de distribución para recolectar y redistribuir las precipitaciones en todo el país. Se requeriría un esfuerzo de alcance similar al sistema federal de autopistas que comenzó con el presidente Eisenhower, que debería regir un organismo regulador que priorice las necesidades humanitarias por sobre las agrícolas y comerciales. Los sistemas de recolección deberían ubicarse en las zonas inundables actuales y previstas para el futuro, así como en las de escorrentía natural, para que el agua rellene embalses y luego se distribuya a sistemas hídricos municipales que la necesiten.

Forster Ndubisi
Profesor de arquitectura paisajística y planeamiento urbano en la Universidad Texas A&M; autor de Ecology in Urban Design and Planning

Las soluciones ante el cambio climático exigen que volvamos a pensar los fundamentos de nuestras relaciones éticas con el suelo. Propongo que iniciemos el proceso de reflexión crítica sobre nuestras obligaciones éticas para con el suelo y en 2021 adoptemos la ética ecocéntrica con base en el lugar (PBEE, por su sigla en inglés) como una solución para el cambio climático. La adopción de la PBEE mediante educación de inmerión a largo plazo estipula la conducta ética y las obligaciones morales que deberían adoptar diseñadores y planificadores al abordar los desafíos del cambio climático. La PBEE se basa en la interdependencia entre la gente y los procesos biofísicos [de la naturaleza], que plantea una dependencia mutua entre ambos componentes para que puedan seguir existiendo. El resultado indefectible de la interacción humana con los procesos naturales es cierto deterioro de los recursos y procesos naturales [capital natural], como paisajes que ofrecen servicios vitales de ecosistemas. Por lógica, la PBEE establece el mandato moral de preservar el capital natural cuando sea posible; conservarlo cuando se demuestre un grado justificable de uso; reabastecerlo mediante restauración natural de ecosistemas deteriorados; minimizar el alcance de la huella humana; reducir el uso de carbono y adoptar de forma activa la administración medioambiental. Para combatir el cambio climático con eficacia, la PBEE utiliza los conocimientos ecológicos como un proceso para comprender la interdependencia entre el ecosistema humano y el natural. A su vez, los conocimientos ecológicos funcionan mejor si se usa un proceso de ideas que considere los sistemas y el diseño, y si se colabora de forma participativa para crear soluciones que mitiguen el cambio climático y se adapten a él.

Cintia Fernandes
Abogada de la Municipalidad de Curitiba, Brasil; instructora en el Instituto Lincoln/América Latina y el Caribe

Teniendo en cuenta los impactos socioeconómicos de la pandemia de COVID-19, se necesitan soluciones tanto locales como metropolitanas para prevenir impactos no deseados en el medioambiente, como la contaminación, la acumulación de basura y la reducción de áreas verdes. Las ciudades deben tener conectividad, pensamiento sistémico y sostenibilidad metropolitana. Las ciudades deben implementar tanto una economía circular como una tributación circular, para fortalecer los impuestos inmobiliarios y ambientales, y permitir respuestas locales más rápidas, efectivas y eficientes. Estos sistemas también pueden propiciar una reducción de la corrupción, una mejor calidad de vida y la mitigación de los cambios climáticos. Con el objetivo de lograrlo, proponemos un impuesto circular, una herramienta fiscal inteligente para la construcción y el desarrollo de ciudades y regiones metropolitanas. Esto implica el fortalecimiento de la tributación inmobiliaria (impuesto predial, tributación diferenciada por uso y ubicación, impuesto a las mejoras) y de los impuestos ambientales (tasas de recolección y reciclaje de basura, impuesto sobre amenazas ambientales metropolitanas, aplicación del principio de quien contamina paga). Un impuesto circular fortalecería la planificación y la gestión urbana sostenible y es una política territorial que puede ayudar a preservar el medioambiente.

Fotografía: Vista aérea de una central solar en Alemania. Crédito: Bim/Getty Images.

Contenido relacionado

Land Matters Podcast: In First of 75th Anniversary Shows, An Interview with Bill McKibben

E

n el otoño de 2018, los gestores hídricos de Arizona debatían acaloradamente sobre cómo limitar los daños de una megasequía en el río Colorado que duró décadas. La sequía forzó cálculos y reajustes penosos en el uso del agua en toda la cuenca del río. Debido al modo en que se fue asignando el agua a través del tiempo, se hizo evidente que Arizona pagaría los platos rotos de la inminente escasez, y que los agricultores del estado, de los cuales muchos tienen derechos hídricos de baja prioridad, se enfrentarían a recortes graves.

En una reunión de octubre de ese año, Stefanie Smallhouse, presidenta de la Oficina Agrícola de Arizona, denunció los cortes propuestos. Sugirió que las propuestas eran una falta de respeto a los agricultores, en particular para un colono blanco llamado Jack Swilling que, según dijo, de forma heroica había hecho florecer el desierto. “Me resulta irónico que estemos exactamente a 150 años del primer agricultor que comenzó el asentamiento en la zona de Phoenix”, dijo Smallhouse. “Allí no había nadie más. Había reliquias de actividad agrícola de las tribus en el pasado, pero [Swilling] fue prácticamente quien empezó todo”.

Más tarde habló Stephen Roe Lewis en la reunión. Lewis es el gobernador de la comunidad indígena del río Gila, una reserva al sur de Phoenix que alberga a miembros de las tribus akimel o’otham y pee posh. El patrimonio de los akimel o’otham se remonta a la civilización hohokam, que a partir de unos 1.400 años atrás construyó un sistema masivo de canales de irrigación para atender los cultivos de algodón, maíz y otros vegetales en la zona. Pero en las décadas de 1870 y 1880 se construyeron nuevos sistemas, y el río Gila quedó drenado. Estos sistemas nuevos estuvieron a cargo, principalmente, de agricultores blancos, y además de asolar las granjas de los akimel o’otham y pee posh, provocaron hambrunas. “La historia es importante”, afirmó el gobernador Lewis, y corrigió el relato de Smallhouse sobre que Swilling solo halló “reliquias” de agricultura de las tribus. “Hace más de 1.000 años que cultivamos, y el único momento en que eso se interrumpió fue cuando nos quitaron el agua”.

De hecho, la comunidad indígena del río Gila ha dedicado gran parte de los últimos 150 años a intentar recuperar el agua de la cual sus miembros dependieron durante tanto tiempo. En 2004, un acuerdo aprobado por el Congreso otorgó a la comunidad una cantidad importante de agua del Colorado. Desde entonces, esta ha trabajado activamente para proteger esos derechos. “Estaremos aquí todo el tiempo que sea necesario para hallar soluciones”, dijo Lewis a las partes reunidas en 2018. “Pero lucharemos hasta el final para procurar que no se vuelvan a llevar nuestra agua”.

Tal como demuestra ese intercambio, la larga historia de los nativos estadounidenses en la cuenca del río Colorado se suele ignorar en los debates sobre la gestión del recurso, al igual que sus vínculos sociales, culturales y medioambientales con el río. Los comentarios de Lewis indican el compromiso que tienen hoy los dirigentes tribales para cambiar eso. Desde fines de la década de 1970, las tribus de la región han ganado una serie de acuerdos que confirman sus derechos sobre el agua del río Colorado. Hoy, controlan alrededor del 20 por ciento del agua del río. Ante la realidad de la severa escasez en toda la cuenca, se hizo evidente que en toda conversación que ocurra sobre el futuro, las tribus deben ser piezas claves, porque poseen soberanía bajo la Constitución nacional, lo cual les da derecho a gobernarse a sí mismas.

Lo que está en juego no es poco, no solo para las tribus, sino también para todas las personas que dependen del Colorado. Unas 41 millones de personas de siete estados de los Estados Unidos y dos de México usan el agua del río, que irriga más de un millón y medio de hectáreas de tierras agrícolas. Si la cuenca del Colorado fuera un país aparte, sería una de las 10 mayores economías del mundo. Pero las sequías y otros efectos del cambio climático están excediendo la capacidad del río de suplir las enormes demandas que tiene; así, las tribus llegan de forma más directa a la política del río.

Para mejorar la capacidad de las tribus de gestionar el agua y fortalecer su voz en los debates y decisiones sobre gestión de la cuenca, en 2017 varias organizaciones formaron la iniciativa Water & Tribes (WTI, por su sigla en inglés), con financiación del Centro Babbitt para Políticas de Suelo y Agua, un programa del Instituto Lincoln. Ahora, el proyecto también recibe financiación de las fundaciones Walton Family y Catena y otros asociados; lo dirige un grupo diverso de representantes tribales, funcionarios y exfuncionarios estatales y federales, investigadores y grupos conservacionistas, entre otros.

“Si trabajamos juntos, podremos hallar soluciones a estos problemas”, dice Daryl Vigil, miembro del pueblo jicarilla apache y cofacilitador de la WTI. Él dice que es un momento delicado para las tribus: “Si no nos adelantamos al juego, en términos de apenas un reconocimiento básico de soberanía tribal en el proceso, los riesgos serán inmensos”.

“Nos entusiasma ser parte de esta asociación que evoluciona y crece”, dice Jim Holway, director del Centro Babbitt. “El trabajo que hace la WTI es esencial para la sostenibilidad de la cuenca a largo plazo, y es fundamental para nuestro objetivo de mejorar los vínculos entre la gestión del agua y el suelo”.

Aguas divididas

Las 29 tribus con reconocimiento federal en la cuenca del río Colorado viven en una paradoja desde hace mucho tiempo. En 1908, la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos determinó que las tribus tienen derecho a agua para sus reservas. En la jerarquía por orden de llegada de la ley hídrica occidental, la Corte les jugó un poderoso as bajo la manga: determinó que los derechos hídricos de una tribu se basaban en la fecha de creación de la reserva. Dado que casi todas ellas fueron creadas por el gobierno de los Estados Unidos en la segunda mitad del s. XIX, en teoría están en una situación más favorecedora que cualquier otro usuario del río. Al igual que los akimel o’otham y los pee posh, todas las tribus estaban allí desde mucho antes que los colonos no nativos.

Pero cuando los representantes de los siete estados de la cuenca se reunieron en 1922 para redactar el convenio del río Colorado, empujaron a las tribus hacia el fondo. El convenio especifica la división del agua entre California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah y Nuevo México, y sentó las bases para una red compleja de acuerdos, leyes y resoluciones judiciales que se conocen de forma colectiva como “la ley del río”, que, básicamente, ignoró a los indígenas (si desea estudiar con mayor profundidad sobre el río y su historia, consulte la edición especial de Land Lines de enero de 2019). Si bien el convenio reconoce escuetamente “las obligaciones de los Estados Unidos para con las tribus indígenas del país”, no entra en detalle sobre los derechos hídricos de estas. Como indicó el académico Daniel McCool: “al haber omitido la consideración de los derechos de los indígenas, se dejó sin resolver uno de los problemas más importantes de la cuenca” (McCool 2003).

El escritor e historiador Philip Fradkin llevó esta idea un poco más allá al declarar que “en esencia, el Colorado es un río de blancos”. Pero indicó que los colonos angloamericanos ignoraron a los indígenas bajo su propio riesgo: el problema no resuelto de los verdaderos derechos indígenas sobre el agua del Colorado fue una “espada de Damocles” que pendía sobre el futuro del río (Fradkin 1996).

Aún no se ha cuantificado todo el alcance de los derechos hídricos de los indígenas. A principios de la década de 1970, las políticas federales tomaron un rumbo radicalmente nuevo y adoptaron el principio de la autodeterminación de las tribus. Así, las tribus negociaron directamente con el gobierno federal para establecer sus derechos hídricos. La comunidad indígena ak-chin de Arizona fue la primera en hacerlo, en 1978; desde entonces, se han negociado 36 acuerdos de derechos hídricos entre tribus, otros titulares de derechos sobre la cuenca y organismos estatales y federales (ver nota de recuadro en página 82). “La aparición de los acuerdos negociados fue una parte importante de la evolución” de los derechos hídricos de las tribus, dice Jason Robison, profesor de leyes en la Universidad de Wyoming. “Pero las características incorporadas también abrieron nuevos caminos”.

Si bien al principio los derechos hídricos de las tribus se consideraban como una necesidad para cultivar en las reservas, los acuerdos del s. XX permitieron a algunas de ellas alquilar sus derechos a usuarios ajenos a la reserva. Esto resultó ser una herramienta para el desarrollo económico y una forma de financiar servicios básicos para los miembros de las tribus. Para el pueblo navajo de Arizona, Nuevo México y Utah, vincular el agua con el desarrollo económico “se trata de crear una patria permanente, a donde la gente va, se educa y vuelve a casa”, dice Bidtah Becker, miembro de la tribu y abogada que desde hace mucho se involucra en asuntos hídricos como funcionaria del gobierno del pueblo navajo. “Estamos intentando desarrollar una patria próspera a la cual la gente pueda volver, que funcione”.

En muchos casos, las tribus no tienen la infraestructura física para hacer uso del agua asignada. En todo el país, es 19 veces más probable que un hogar nativo estadounidense no tenga cañerías internas, en comparación con un hogar blanco. En el pueblo navajo, es probable que la falta generalizada de servicios hídricos haya sido una de las causas de las terribles pérdidas que tuvo la tribu por COVID-19. En un momento de 2020, el pueblo tuvo la tasa de infección per cápita más elevada de todos los estados del país (Dyer 2020). “Entre 70.000 y 80.000 navajos siguen acarreando el agua [a su hogar] todos los días”, dice Vigil. “En nuestro país, en 2020, aún hay entre 70.000 y 80.000 personas sin conexión a infraestructura hídrica en una pandemia. Es una locura”.

Vigil es el administrador hídrico del pueblo jicarilla apache de Nuevo México. En un acuerdo de 1992 con el Departamento del Interior de los Estados Unidos (DOI, por su sigla en inglés), se asignaron a la tribu casi 50 millones de metros cúbicos de agua al año (unos 50 mil millones de litros), que alquilaron al operador de una central eléctrica a base de carbón. El alquiler ayudó a financiar pagos anuales a miembros de la tribu durante muchos años. Pero a medida que la economía empezó a virar hacia energías ecológicas, los alquileres no se renovaron. “Así, de pronto nos quedamos con el agua del acuerdo almacenada [en un embalse] a unos 65 a 70 kilómetros, sin poder usarla”, dice Vigil.

Añade que, debido a la sequía actual, la tribu podría alquilar su agua a otras partes sin problemas, pero los términos del acuerdo federal le prohíben alquilar agua por fuera de Nuevo México. En cambio, el agua se escapa de entre las manos de la tribu y cae en las manos de otros usuarios. “No hay mecanismos disponibles para sacar el agua de las fronteras del estado”, dice Vigil. “En los últimos dos años, tuvimos unos 37 millones de metros cúbicos de agua sin alquilar que corrieron por el río”.

La capacidad que tienen las tribus de alquilar agua les puede dar ventaja y un estímulo económico. En un acuerdo de 2004 muy peleado, la comunidad indígena del río Gila (GRIC, por su sigla en inglés) adquirió derechos sobre un volumen de agua dos veces superior al de la ciudad de Las Vegas. Usó esos derechos para convertirse en una gran fuerza, muchas veces subestimada, en políticas hídricas y la política general de Arizona. La tribu participó en negociaciones sobre el Plan de Contingencia ante Sequías (DCP, por su sigla en inglés), un acuerdo de varios años para toda la cuenca firmado en 2019, en respuesta a los impactos de las décadas de sequía (Jenkins 2019).

Durante el proceso del DCP, los estados negociaron sus propios acuerdos; en Arizona, la GRIC aceptó dejar parte de su agua en el lago Mead, el embalse que provee de agua a la cuenca baja, y alquilar otra parte al Distrito de Reabastecimiento de Agua Subterránea del Centro de Arizona para responder a inquietudes sobre suministros de agua a largo plazo para nuevos desarrollos. Ambos acuerdos podrían otorgar hasta US$ 200 millones a la tribu.

También tuvieron una participación importante en el DCP las tribus indígenas del río Colorado (CRIT, por su sigla en inglés), una comunidad que incluye tribus mohave, chemehuevi, hopi y navajo en una reserva junto al río en Arizona y California. La comunidad participó, pero no faltó la controversia interna: algunos miembros se oponían al DCP e intentaron retirar a los miembros de su consejo tribal. Al final, la CRIT acordó dejar hasta el 8 por ciento de su asignación anual en el lago Mead durante tres años a cambio de una compensación de US$ 30 millones del estado de Arizona y una garantía adicional de US$ 8 millones de un grupo de fundaciones y corporaciones organizadas por la fundación Walton Family y la iniciativa Water Funder.

Las negociaciones del DCP fueron complejas y conflictivas. Al final, para llegar a una resolución se necesitó acercar a tribus, ciudades, agricultores y otras partes interesadas importantes.

La relación entre las asignaciones estatales y tribales

Cuando una tribu adquiere el derecho de usar o alquilar cierta cantidad de agua del río Colorado, esa agua se considera como parte de la asignación del estado donde se basa la tribu. Dado que los estados tienen asignaciones individuales de agua bajo las leyes y los acuerdos que rigen al río, los nuevos acuerdos hídricos de las tribus reducen la cantidad de agua disponible para los usuarios de ese estado. Antes, cuando no se usaban las asignaciones tribales de agua, esta quedaba en el sistema para que la usaran otras partes. Este problema es particularmente grave en Arizona, donde tienen reservas 22 de las 29 tribus de la cuenca. Los derechos hídricos de muchas tribus aún no se reconocen y no están cuantificados, resulta lógico que estas y otras partes interesadas sientan ansiedad sobre la disponibilidad del agua en el futuro, con la cuenca asolada por las sequías, y pretendan hallar formas de trabajar en conjunto para garantizar un futuro sostenible.

Para acceder a resúmenes de políticas, informes y otros materiales elaborados por la iniciativa Water & Tribes, visite www.naturalresourcespolicy.org/projects/water-tribes-colorado-river-basin.

Salvar la brecha

Desde su concepción, la WTI pretendió mejorar la capacidad de las tribus de promover sus intereses y una gestión sostenible del agua en la cuenca mediante la resolución colaborativa de problemas. “Estamos caminando sobre una cuerda floja”, dice Matt McKinney, quien cofacilita la iniciativa con Vigil. McKinney es mediador desde hace mucho tiempo y dirige el Centro de Recursos Naturales y Políticas Medioambientales en la Universidad de Montana. “Por un lado, es bastante fácil vernos como defensores de las tribus, y lo somos. Pero el marco más amplio es que defendemos un proceso justo, equitativo y efectivo para resolver problemas y tomar decisiones”.

“El éxito de los acuerdos hídricos para las tribus se ha basado en las relaciones de las personas que se reúnen”, dice Margaret Vick, abogada de las tribus indígenas del río Colorado. “Y la iniciativa Water & Tribes hizo que aumentara la [cantidad de] gente en la reunión”. Hoy, la WTI está trabajando para alejarse de las negociaciones estrechas de acuerdos hídricos individuales y acercarse a una conversación mucho más amplia que abarque a toda la cuenca:  las pautas actuales de gestión del río vencerán a fines de 2026, y pronto se acordarán otras nuevas para las próximas décadas.

La Oficina de Recuperación de los Estados Unidos (USBR, por su sigla en inglés), la división del DOI que administra el Colorado y otras vías fluviales del oeste, está revisando las negociaciones y operaciones de los últimos quince años a fin de prepararse para la próxima ronda. “Necesitamos un proceso de renegociación más inclusivo”, dice Morgan Snyder, funcionario sénior del programa de medioambiente de la fundación Walton Family. “Esta es la oportunidad de influir en los próximos 25 años de gestión hídrica en la cuenca”.

Para anticiparse al proceso de renegociación, en 2019 McKinney y Vigil realizaron entrevistas con más de 100 personas, entre ellas dirigentes de tribus, gestores hídricos y otras personas vinculadas con asuntos hídricos en la región, para identificar los problemas importantes de la cuenca y buscar modos de promover la resolución colaborativa de problemas, en particular la participación de las tribus en las decisiones acerca del río. La WTI realizó talleres con miembros de tribus y otras partes interesadas de toda la cuenca para identificar estrategias y así aumentar la participación de las tribus y otros participantes.

“Muchas de las personas entrevistadas creen que es momento de ir más allá de administrar el río como un sistema de plomería e ingeniería que provee de agua a ciudades y granjas, pensar en un sistema más holístico e integrado que responda mejor a múltiples necesidades e intereses, como por ejemplo valores sagrados y culturales de las tribus, valores ecológicos y recreativos, y la integración de decisiones sobre la gestión del suelo y el agua”, escribieron McKinney y Vigil. “Aquí, la intención es articular una visión holística e integrada y luego progresar hacia esa visión de forma gradual en determinado lapso . . . y pasar de un sistema centrado en el uso del agua a la gestión de la cuenca” (WTI 2020).

La WTI está publicando una serie de resúmenes de políticas para concientizar, ayudar a comprender mejor y catalizar conversaciones; los temas abarcan desde la función permanente de las tribus en la cuenca hasta una visión de sostenibilidad para todo el sistema. También está ayudando con el desarrollo de un plan estratégico a Ten Tribes Partnership, una coalición creada en 1992 para aumentar la influencia de las tribus en la gestión del agua del río Colorado.

Pero no será fácil cambiar la índole de las negociaciones sobre la gestión hídrica, y ni hablar de la índole de la gestión hídrica en sí. “Al igual que cualquier otro proceso muy complicado, se debe hallar un modo de desglosarlo”, dice Colby Pellegrino, gerente general adjunto de la Autoridad del Agua del Sur de Nevada, que abastece a Las Vegas y sus suburbios. “Hay que abordar la ley del río Colorado y todos los problemas interrelacionados de a un bocadito a la vez. Esto es problemático si distintos grupos interesados tienen opiniones discrepantes sobre el alcance de las negociaciones”.

Algunas tribus se han frustrado por lo difícil que les resulta hacerse oír, a pesar de que son naciones soberanas. “No somos ‘partes interesadas’”, dice Vigil. “Siempre nos meten en la misma bolsa que las organizaciones sin fines de lucro, grupos conservacionistas. Pero, ‘No, somos soberanos’”.

Los gobiernos estatales y el federal también han dado traspiés importantes. En 2009, la USBR lanzó un estudio importante para evaluar la oferta y demanda actuales y futuras en el río (USBR 2012), pero no se incluyó a las tribus en ese proceso con la relevancia debida. La oficina encargó un estudio de asignaciones hídricas a las tribus solo tras ser presionada por varias de ellas; se hizo con Ten Tribes Partnership y se publicó años más tarde (USBR 2018). El estudio resume las barreras que impiden que las tribus desarrollen sus derechos hídricos por completo y analiza los posibles impactos de que lo hagan, en particular para otros usuarios que ahora dependen del agua que las tribus no usaron durante mucho tiempo. Y en 2013 los estados de la cuenca y el gobierno federal comenzaron los debates sobre el Plan de Contingencia ante Sequías sin notificar a las tribus.

“Los estados ignoraron el uso y los derechos hídricos de las tribus desde el convenio de los 20”, dice Vick. “El [estudio de oferta y demanda] fue un proceso que surgió de los estados; estos no comprendían los derechos hídricos de las tribus y casi no se involucraron siquiera para pensar qué ocurre dentro de la reserva en lo que respecta al uso del agua. Ya no podemos [hacer esto], porque se debe comprender todo para poder administrar la sequía de 20 años que hay ahora”.

Un desafío básico, pero esencial, aún no resuelto es hallar una forma común de comprender y debatir los asuntos relacionados con el río.  Anne Castle, exsubsecretaria de agua y ciencia del DOI, responsable de la USBR entre 2009 y 2014, hoy es miembro del equipo de liderazgo de la WTI. “El desafío es que no solo estamos hablando de sumar personas (representantes de las tribus) a las reuniones”, dice. “Esos representantes de las tribus también incorporan distintos valores. Nunca habíamos lidiado de verdad con esos valores culturales, espirituales y ecológicos en estos tipos de debates”.

Castle añade que sortear esa brecha es un proceso lento. “Los gestores hídricos estatales hablan el mismo idioma desde hace tanto tiempo . . . que es difícil exponerse a una forma distinta de hablar sobre el agua”, dice. “Pero lo opuesto también es cierto: [a los representantes de las tribus] les lleva mucho tiempo de sentarse en reuniones y oír para comprender cómo los afectará lo que están diciendo los gestores hídricos estatales”.

Qué sigue

Las renegociaciones venideras “son un punto de inflexión muy importante acerca de cómo los estados de la cuenca y el gobierno federal tratarán la soberanía de las tribus sobre la cuenca de ahora en adelante”, dice Robison, de la Universidad de Wyoming. “Cuando se planee ese proceso, podremos ver hasta qué punto están apartando de nuevo a las tribus a los márgenes. Hasta qué punto los altos cargos federales y de los estados de la cuenca de verdad no tienen intenciones de seguir pateando el asunto”.

Varios organismos hídricos grandes están aportando fondos a la iniciativa Water & Tribes, lo cual es una señal de esperanza para la posible colaboración; algunos de ellos son la Autoridad del Agua del Sur de Nevada, Denver Water, el Distrito de Irrigación de Imperial (CA), el Distrito Metropolitano de Agua del Sur de California y el Proyecto de Arizona Central. Además, The Nature Conservancy y otros grupos ambientalistas han apoyado convocatorias de la WTI.

No queda muy claro cómo las tribus podrían tener una opinión más sustancial en las decisiones acerca del futuro del río. Una propuesta que surgió de las entrevistas de 2019 de la WTI en toda la cuenca es crear un equipo revisor soberano que incluya representantes estatales, federales y tribales, quizás con el complemento de un consejo asesor de representantes de las 29 tribus de la cuenca.

No importa cómo se estructuren las negociaciones, los riesgos son muchos para todas las partes involucradas. Si bien parece haber un compromiso general con el consenso y la colaboración, en el fondo del empeño hay una tensión fundamental. McKinney indica: “Uno de los intereses fundamentales de las tribus es desarrollar y usar sus derechos hídricos. Ese interés parece ser el extremo opuesto de los intereses actuales de los estados de la cuenca y los objetivos del DCP, que se centran en usar menos agua”. Históricamente, el agua que no usaban las tribus terminaba en manos de entidades externas; así, en algunos casos, dichas entidades podían excederse de su asignación. Ahora, en un momento de sequía a largo plazo y cambio climático, hay cada vez menos agua para repartir. “Es evidente”, dice McKinney, “que la cuenca se enfrenta a conversaciones y elecciones complicadas”.

Para muchas tribus, la elección es clara. “Debemos desarrollar nuestros derechos hídricos”, dice Crystal Tulley-Cordova, principal hidróloga del Departamento de Recursos Hídricos del pueblo navajo. “No deberían exigirnos que renunciemos a nuestro desarrollo”.

Uno de los problemas más conflictivos se centra en la posibilidad de que las tribus alquilen el agua a usuarios por fuera de las fronteras de su reserva. Permitir a las tribus alquilar el agua (o no) es una de las fuentes principales de ventaja que tienen los estados individuales sobre las tribus que están dentro de sus fronteras. “Dado que el estado en que se encuentra la reserva administra los derechos hídricos de las tribus, estas deben trabajar con los funcionarios estatales y otros usuarios para hallar soluciones que beneficien a todas las partes y equilibren las necesidades y los intereses”, dice McKinney.

Vigil concuerda, y enfatiza que el derecho de una tribu de hacer lo que quiera con su agua, ya sea usarla para agricultura o desarrollo económico en tierras propias, o alquilarla a otros usuarios, es un axioma clave del principio de autodeterminación codificado en las políticas federales desde los 70. “El núcleo de esto son los conceptos básicos de poder determinar nuestro propio futuro”, dice Vigil. “Y para mí, eso es la soberanía”.

Hallar puntos en común

La WTI ya está ayudando a las tribus a acercarse al tipo de solidaridad que dificultará que cualquier entidad ignore su voz colectiva. Hace poco, 17 dirigentes tribales se unieron para enviar una carta al DOI sobre la próxima etapa de las negociaciones. “Cuando las tribus participan en los debates y acciones importantes sobre el río Colorado, podemos contribuir (como ya lo hemos hecho) con las soluciones creativas necesarias en una época en la que el agua es cada vez más escasa”, decía la carta. “Creemos que la comunicación frecuente, de preferencia cara a cara, es adecuada y constructiva”.

“La ‘ley del río’ siempre evoluciona”, dice Holway, del Centro Babbitt.  “Confío en que podremos incorporar mejor las perspectivas y los intereses de una comunidad más amplia en los debates futuros sobre la gestión del río Colorado. Ante una mayor escasez del agua, será esencial contar con una mayor base de partes involucradas. También tengo la esperanza de que podamos ver una voz tribal más fuerte en el Departamento del Interior de los Estados Unidos” (al momento de la publicación, el presidente electo Joe Biden había nominado a la representante Deb Haaland, de Nuevo México, para ser secretaria del interior; Haaland sería la primera nativa de los Estados Unidos en estar a cargo del organismo y la primera secretaria nativa de los Estados Unidos en el gabinete).

Según McKinney, el principio que rige a la WTI es “seguir forjando la cultura de colaboración en la cuenca y centrarse en los puntos en común, crear una sensación de ímpetu al trabajar en el 80 por ciento de los asuntos en los que los dirigentes tribales y otros pueden estar de acuerdo, y luego regresar y abordar esas diferencias”.

Ese enfoque en los puntos en común está ayudando a crear vínculos más fuertes, no solo dentro de las tribus, sino también entre las tribus y la comunidad establecida que gestiona el agua. “Uno de los mejores aspectos de la iniciativa Water & Tribes es que intenta crear una red de gente que puede apoyarse entre sí”, dice Colby Pellegrino. “Es crear un tejido para que la gente pueda cruzar, en vez de una cuerda floja”.

Matt Jenkins es un escritor independiente que ha colaborado con New York Times, Smithsonian, Men’s Journal y muchas otras publicaciones.

Fotografía: Un miembro de la tribu cocopah examina la antigua zona de pesca de su tribu en el río Colorado. El cambio climático y las sequías intensas están provocando una escasez de agua crítica en toda la cuenca del río Colorado. Crédito: Pete McBride.

Referencias

Dyer, Jan. 2020. “Practicing Infection Prevention in Isolated Populations: How the Navajo Nation Took on COVID-19”. 17 de agosto. Infection Control Today 24(8). https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/how-the-navajo-nation-took-on-covid-19.

Fradkin, Philip. 1996. A River No More: The Colorado River and the West. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Jenkins, Matt. 2019. “Más allá de la sequía: La búsqueda de soluciones ante el impacto climático sobre un río legendario”. Land Lines. Enero. https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/beyond-drought.

McCool, Daniel. 2003. Native Waters: Contemporary Indian Water Settlements and the Second Treaty Era. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.

USBR (Oficina de Recuperación de los Estados Unidos). 2012. Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study. Washington, DC: Departamento del Interior de los Estados Unidos. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/finalreport/index.html.

———. 2018. Colorado River Basin Ten Tribes Partnership Tribal Water Study Report. Washington, DC: Departamento del Interior de los Estados Unidos. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/tws/finalreport.html.

WTI (Water & Tribes Initiative). 2020. “Toward a Sense of the Basin”. Missoula, MT: Centro de Recursos Naturales y Políticas Medioambientales de la Universidad de Montana. https://naturalresourcespolicy.org/docs/colorado-river-basin/basin-report-2020.pdf.

Contenido relacionado

StoryMap: The Hardest Working River in the West

Next Steps: Hammering Out a Future for Water Users in the U.S. West

Rick Schultz doesn’t hate grass outright. He can see the use for it in some places—kids should be able to play soccer somewhere, sure—but there’s no need for it in road medians or sweeping lawns in arid places, says Schultz, a water conservation specialist at the municipally owned utility in Castle Rock, Colorado.

Located on the southern fringes of the Denver metro area, Castle Rock is one of the fastest growing communities in the country. Its population has skyrocketed from 20,224 in 2000 to nearly 72,000 today. Seventy percent of Castle Rock’s water supply comes from non-renewable groundwater, so as the town grew, officials had to figure out how to stretch that supply. In 2006, the water utility and the planning department started collaborating to address that issue. 

The community created a water master plan that set guidelines—like where it made sense to have grass—to delineate how and where they could conserve water while still accommodating growth. Schultz says they had to think outside of traditional land use regulations and water supply patterns to work toward long-term sustainability, steering disparate parts of the planning process toward smart growth: “We needed to push the boundaries a little if we wanted a better outcome.”

Since then, Castle Rock has introduced financial incentives, regulatory changes, and even behavioral science strategies to ensure that water supply is actively considered as part of every planning and development process. From offering incentives to developers who install water monitoring systems to requiring landscapers to pursue professional certification in water efficiency, Castle Rock has become a leader in this area, recognized by the state of Colorado for its efforts and for sharing best practices with other organizations. 

In communities across the United States, water managers and planners are emerging from the silos they’ve traditionally operated in to find new ways to work together. This is in part because climate change is causing turbulence for the water sector nationwide, in the form of prolonged droughts, damaging floods and wildfires, severe storms, and sea-level rise. The urgency of developing resilience in the face of these threats is becoming increasingly clear. Collaboration is also increasing because, although communities face many different challenges and operate with countless variations on municipal structures, many are rediscovering a singular truth about land and water: when you plan for one, you have to plan for both. 

“Water engineers are beginning to recognize they cannot provide sustainable services without involving those in the development community—including planners, architects, and community activists,” explains the American Planning Association’s Policy Guide on Water (APA 2016). “Leading edge planners are reaching across the aisle to water managers to help advise on their comprehensive plans, not only to meet environmental objectives, but also to add value and livability, rooted in the vision of the community.” 

How We Got Here

Picture the view from an airplane as you fly over rural areas or the outskirts of any major city: the way the right-angled boundaries of agricultural fields and housing plots contrast with the twisting braids of river channels and the irregular shape of lakes and ponds. Land and water are very different resources. They have been managed differently—and separately—as a result.

The divide between water and land planning has deep roots. Although water is connected to all parts of sustainable growth, from ecosystem health to economic viability, planners and water managers have long worked separately. From volunteer planning boards in rural communities to fully staffed departments in major cities, planners focus on land use and the built environment. Water managers, meanwhile, whether they are part of a municipally owned utility, private water company, or regional wholesaler, focus on providing a clean and adequate water supply. 

“I can’t think of a single city where [planning and water management] are contained within a single division,” says Ray Quay, a researcher at Arizona State University’s Global Institute of Sustainability who has served as both assistant director of land planning and assistant director of water services in Phoenix, Arizona. Quay says regional and watershed-wide development choices about growth often don’t line up with water supply.

“A typical divide would be that planners plan for growth while assuming the water utility will be able to supply water, while water utilities don’t participate in decisions about community growth, they just build infrastructure to serve the new growth that comes to them,” adds Jim Holway, director of the Babbitt Center for Land and Water Policy, which was created by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in 2017 to advance the integration of land and water management.

Ivana Kajtezovic, planning program manager at Tampa Bay Water, a regional wholesale drinking water utility in Florida, confirms that lack of alignment. “Tampa Bay Water doesn’t have a say in growth in the counties and cities we serve,” says Kajtezovic. “Our only mission is to provide drinking water, no matter the growth or the speed of growth. Land use decisions are made by the counties and cities we serve.”

In a 2016 APA Water Working Group Water Survey, 75 percent of land use planners felt they were not involved enough in water planning and decisions (Stoker et al, 2018). “We know that land and water are connected, and no one ever argues that they’re separate,” says Philip Stoker, assistant professor of Planning at the University of Arizona, who conducted the APA survey. “It’s only people who have separated them.” 

This divide is partly a result of historical regulatory structures. “Water is very much state law-based, with some federal hooks into various aspects of it,” says Anne Castle, former assistant secretary for Water and Science at the U.S. Department of the Interior. Federal management involves regulations such as the Clean Water Act and agencies such as the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and water rights are allocated at the state level. Meanwhile, although there is federal and state oversight of some public lands, most of the regulation and planning related to private land happens locally or regionally, reflecting individual and community rights and desires. While there are state-level initiatives to “put more emphasis on the consideration of water in developing land,” Castle says—including in Colorado, where she is based—there are still wide gaps in priorities and responsibilities.

Communities across the country are dealing with unique issues, of course, but Stoker’s survey suggests the barriers to solving them are similar: lack of time, lack of resources, fear of a loss of jurisdictional power if they surrender some control, and differences in education, experience, and technical language. It can be hard to surmount those issues. “Logically it should be easy, but when institutions grow up with a single focus, it’s hard to change their mission and expand into other places,” says Bill Cesanek, cochair of the APA Water & Planning Network. Cesanek says things work better when planners share the responsibility for determining where the water to meet future demands will come from.

Land and water planners have to work together, agrees Quay, and need to be realistic about where, how, and whether their communities can grow. “One of the really critical factors is political will,” he says. “We should be thinking about what’s most important for our community, and we should be allocating our water to that.” 

According to Holway of the Babbitt Center, that’s becoming more common. “With growing demand for water in the face of increasing challenges to acquiring new water supplies, utilities and land planners are having to figure out how to work together to maintain a balance between supply and demand.”  

“Too Much, Too Little, Too Dirty”

According to the APA Policy Guide on Water, water-related threats often fall along familiar lines: not enough water, thanks to increased population growth and climatic stress on top of already fully allocated or overallocated water supplies; too much water, due to flooding and rising sea levels; or compromised water quality due to agricultural and urban runoff and other sources of contamination. In every case, the urgency is growing.

Not enough water. In the Southwest—especially the overtapped Colorado River Basin, which serves 41 million people in seven U.S. and two Mexican states—persistent drought means diminishing snowpack, dwindling supplies in natural aquifers, and shrinking reservoirs. Researchers predict that Colorado River flows will decline by 20 to 35 percent by 2050 and 30 to 55 percent by the end of the century (Udall, 2017). 

The drought also has cascading impacts on water systems. For instance, increasingly frequent and large wildfires in dry Western forests are causing watershed contamination in areas that haven’t previously dealt with it, like the headwaters of the Colorado. During fires and for years afterward, according to the EPA, water can be polluted by ash, sediment, and other contaminants, which forces water managers to scramble for solutions. “I do think there’s a much greater trend of land use planning and water management collaboration occurring fastest in places that are facing scarcity,” Stoker says.

Too much water. Over the last 30 years, floods in the United States have caused an average of $8 billion in damages and 82 deaths per year (Cesanek 2017). As climate change fuels more extreme weather events, Quay says, floods are exceeding parameters defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency that have traditionally guided planning decisions. Quay says it’s hard to adapt because our stationary planning guidelines and laws aren’t set up for those extremes. 

Places like low-lying Hoboken, New Jersey—where rising sea levels and superstorms like Hurricane Sandy have inundated sections of the city—are building water system resilience into their planning. The city is incorporating features like manmade urban sand dunes that work as physical barriers and can divert storm surges to newly built flood pumps. “The stormwater system is at the same level as the river—[stormwater] has nowhere to go, so they’ve had to build a really innovative resilience planning program,” Cesanek says.

Contaminated water. During heavy rains, which are increasingly frequent due to climate change, the combined sewer system in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, overflows into neighboring rivers and Lake Michigan, polluting the waterways, compromising the ecosystem, and affecting the water supply. “Stormwater gets into our combined and sanitary systems. Nothing is water-tight,” says Karen Sands, director of Planning, Research, and Sustainability at Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD). Sands says MMSD has had to align at-odds geographic and jurisdictional layers to find solutions that protect the watershed. One of those solutions is the construction of 70-acre Menomonee stormwater park, built in conjunction with city planners, which is expected to treat 100 percent of runoff from industrial and commercial areas nearby. It both ensures a clean supply of water now, and preemptively manages demand for the future. 

Chi Ho Sham, president of the American Water Works Association, a nonprofit international organization for water supply professionals, says one of the group’s biggest concerns is water quality, particularly protecting water at the source, limiting pollutant use, and creating barriers to slow or prevent contamination. “From my point of view, our job is to work very collaboratively with landowners,” he says. “Water managers cannot do it alone.”

Infrastructure and Equity Issues

The U.S. population is projected to reach 517 million by 2050, and the fastest-growing cities are in the South and West (U.S. Census Bureau 2019). You can’t keep people from moving to Tempe or Tampa Bay, but this population growth is occurring in regions where the pressure on both water quality and quantity is already high. In some places, this rapid growth has forced the hand of planners and water managers, who have implemented water conservation and reuse measures to ensure there will be enough water to go around.

To complicate matters, our nation’s water infrastructure hasn’t kept up with changing demographics. Old lead pipes are disintegrating, and water treatment plants are overwhelmed by the amount of water they need to process. In 2017, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the nation’s drinking water a D grade, estimating a cost of $100 billion for all the necessary infrastructure upgrades (ACES, 2017).

There is also a divide between places that can afford to upgrade their infrastructure and those that cannot. Addressing that inequity is crucial to securing future water supplies for everyone, says Katy Lackey, senior program manager at the nonprofit US Water Alliance, a national coalition of water utilities, businesses, environmental organizations, labor unions, and others which is working to secure a sustainable water future. 

“We believe water equity occurs when all communities have access to clean, safe, and affordable drinking water and wastewater services, infrastructure investments are maximized and benefit all communities, and communities are resilient in the face of a changing climate,” she says. Reaching that goal will require new ways of working.

How to Work Together Well

Integrated planning starts with getting people in the same room to understand the needs of their community, the gaps in current processes, and how they can better work together, says Holway of the Babbitt Center. From there, formalizing goals around planning and water is critical, whether those goals are reflected in a comprehensive or master plan for community development, in a more specific plan based on conservation and resilience, or in zoning and regulatory changes. 

“We are focused on identifying, evaluating, and promoting tools to better integrate land and water, with input from a diverse group of practitioners and researchers,” Holway says, noting that Babbitt Center Research Fellow Erin Rugland has produced several publications for practitioners, including a matrix of available tools for integrating land and water (Rugland 2021) and two manuals focused on best practices (Rugland 2020, Castle and Rugland 2019).

Those focused on the importance of integrating land and water say there are several factors that contribute to successful collaborations, including:

Build relationships. Stoker found that getting people out of their silos is an important first step. “In the places that have been the most successful at integrating land and water planning, the utilities and planners were friends. They knew that if they worked together, they would benefit,” he says. Stoker cites Aiken, South Carolina, where water managers helped build the comprehensive plan, as an example, adding that this kind of collaboration is important at every scale. In Westminster, Colorado, water managers participate in preapplication meetings for any new development. From the beginning, they have a chance to advise on how choices made about things like plumbing and landscaping will impact a project’s water use and fees.

Westminster is one of 33 western communities that have participated in the Growing Water Smart program, a multiday workshop run by the Babbitt Center and the Sonoran Institute with additional funding from the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Gates Family Foundation. Growing Water Smart brings small teams of leaders together to communicate, collaborate, and identify a one-year action plan. 

“The heart of Growing Water Smart is getting land use planners and water managers from the same communities together to talk to each other, sometimes for the very first time,” says Faith Sternlieb of the Babbitt Center, who helps to facilitate the program. “Once they start sharing resources, data, and information, they see how valuable and important collaboration and cooperation are. It isn’t that they didn’t want to work together, it’s that they truly thought they had everything they needed to do their jobs. But they don’t often have the time and space they need to think and plan holistically.”   

“What has worked in my experience is to form relationships with the planners making decisions,” confirms Kajtezovic of Tampa Bay Water. “To the extent possible, I communicate with them and explain the importance of source water protection.”

Be creative and flexible. Once relationships are formed, creativity and flexibility are key. Because every community is facing different planning challenges, “context is incredibly important,” says Quay. This is true not just among different regions, but within regions, and sometimes even from one community to the next. “What works in Phoenix won’t necessarily work in Tempe [a city of nearly 200,000 just east of Phoenix], so we can’t just adapt best management practices, we have to think about best for who.” He recommends identifying a broad, flexible set of tools that can be used and adapted over time.

Be willing to learn. Because of specialization, planners and water managers “don’t speak the same language,” says Sham, who says the AWWA has been working on collaborative education about source water protection for members and landowners. Sometimes it feels like added work on the front end, and he says people can be reluctant to take on work that’s not in their purview, but developing a shared language and understanding is crucial for long-term sustainability. 

John Berggren helps communities coordinate land and water planning as a water policy analyst for Western Resource Advocates. He says one of his first steps is to educate local leaders and get them excited about including water in their comprehensive plans. “We get them interested and concerned about conservation, to create top-down support for planning departments and water utilities,” he says. Once water is codified in a comprehensive plan, he says, that allows planners and utilities to come up with creative, progressive solutions. 

Be comprehensive. The integration of land use and water planning works best when it is included in state-level regulations or in comprehensive plans at the community level. According to the Babbitt Center, 14 states formally incorporate water into planning in some form, and that number is growing. For example, the 2015 Colorado Water Plan set a goal that 75 percent of Coloradans will live in communities that have incorporated water-saving actions into land use planning by 2025; communities across the state are working on that process, and 80 communities would have to take action to hit the 2025 deadline. Colorado also recently passed state legislation that outlines water conservation guidelines for planning and designates a new position in the state government to support the coordination of land and water planning. 

Since 2000, when Arizona passed the Growing Smarter Plus Act, the state has required communities to include a chapter in their comprehensive plans that addresses the link between water supply, demand, and growth projections. It’s happening in less dry places, too. The Manatee County, Florida, comprehensive plan matches water quality with need to make the best use of non-potable water. It includes codes for water reuse and alternative water sources to increase availability, and to make sure that water gets to the most appropriate destination.

To incorporate water into comprehensive plans, Quay says, communities need a concrete idea of the type and amount of their available resources. Water managers and planners can then work together to identify new and alternative water sources like treated wastewater and graywater (household water that has been used for things like laundry and can still be used for flushing toilets); to identify projected demand; and to outline how to meet it.

Embrace the power of local action. Even if water-related planning is not mandated by the state or incorporated in a community’s comprehensive plan, water managers and planners can still find ways to collaborate. More specific local plans can include water supply and wastewater infrastructure plans; hazard mitigation and resilience plans, like floodplain and stormwater management; demand management; watershed processes and health; and plans for interagency coordination and collaboration. If those variables feel overwhelming, Berggren suggests that planners look to their peer communities for best practices. Although each community is different, he says, “no one needs to reinvent the wheel.” 

Local policy shifts can also include form-based codes that outline water-related aspects of the built environment. In Milwaukee, Sands says best practices for managing flooding and pollution include “updating municipal codes and ordinances to encourage green infrastructure and more sustainable practices.” That green infrastructure, which mimics natural processes at the site level through things like bioswales and stormwater storage, can make communities more resilient to climate change, while restoring ecosystems and protecting water supply.  

Water-wise policy shifts can also come in the form of zoning ordinances, like smaller lot sizes. Planners can use subdivision and land development regulations to promote on-site capture, infiltration, and slow release of stormwater. Some communities have adopted plumbing codes that require high efficiency fixtures, or building codes that permit water recycling, or submetering to increase efficiency in multifamily residences. Fountain, Colorado, has conservation-oriented tap fees, which incentivize developers to meet water efficiency standards beyond the building code. Developers can pay lower tap fees if they agree to options like native landscaping or including efficient indoor fixtures across a development.

The benefits of integrating land and water planning are myriad, from measurable results like adapting plans for development to ensure an adequate water supply to more indirect, long-term effects like reducing conflict between water users as supplies shrink. Back in Castle Rock, Schultz and his colleagues have observed that water-focused land use ordinances can have a big impact, and can benefit quality of life as a whole. It hasn’t always been easy, Schultz says, but the new way of doing things seems to be paying off: “We’ve shown that we can do better if we provide a good foundation.” 

Heather Hansman is a freelance journalist, Outside magazine’s environmental columnist, and the author of the recent book Downriver: Into the Future of Water in the West.

Lead Photograph: In Castle Rock, Colorado, planners and water utility managers have partnered on plans for sustainable growth. Credit: Robert Young via iStock Editorial/Getty Images Plus.

References

APA (American Planning Association). 2016. APA Policy Guide on Water. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. https://www.planning.org/policy/guides/adopted/water/.

ACES (American Society of Civil Engineers). 2017. Infrastructure Report Card. Washington, DC: American Society of Civil Engineers. https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/.

Castle, Anne, and Erin Rugland. 2019. “Best Practices for Implementing Water Conservation and Demand Management Through Land Use Planning Efforts: Addendum to 2012 Guidance Document.” Denver, CO: Colorado Water Conservation Board. January. https://dnrweblink.state.co.us/cwcbsearch/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=208193&dbid=0.

Cesanek, William, Vicki Elmer, and Jennifer Graeff. 2017. Planners and Water: PAS Report 588. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. https://www.planning.org/publications/report/9131532/.

Rugland, Erin. 2021. “Integrating Land and Water: Tools, Practices, Processes, and Evaluation Criteria.” Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/working-papers/integrating-land-water. (February).

Rugland, Erin. 2020. Incorporating Water into Comprehensive Planning: A Manual for Land Use Planners in the Colorado River Basin. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/other/incorporating-water-comprehensive-planning.

Stoker, Philip Anthony, Gary Pivo, Alexandra Stoicof, Jacob Kavkewitz, Neil Grigg, and Carol Howe. 2018. Joining-Up Urban Water Management with Urban Planning and Design. Alexandria, VA: The Water Resource Foundation. https://www.waterrf.org/research/projects/joining-urban-water-management-urban-planning-and-design.

Udall, Bradley, and Overpeck, Jonathan. 2017. “The Twenty‐First Century Colorado River Hot Drought and Implications for the Future.” Water Resources Research 53 (3): 1763-2576.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2019. “Fastest-Growing Cities Primarily in the South and West.” Press release. May 23. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/subcounty-population-estimates.html.

Related

Growing Water Smart: Workshop Helps Western Communities Integrate Water and Land Use Planning

Water Planning: Land Use Decisions Could Make or Break the River that Sustains One in Nine Americans

Land and water policy can shape the built and natural environment to reduce the extent of climate change and help communities and natural systems withstand the impacts of a changing climate. The Lincoln Institute is advancing good planning practices to address these challenges and aspires to foster climate justice as a key element of this work. We reached out to people across our global network to ask them this question: If you could implement one land-based solution during 2021 that would have a meaningful impact on climate change, what would it be?

Kongjian Yu
Founder and President, Turenscape
Contributor, Nature and Cities

The most effective and holistic solution to climate change is “sponge lands.” Expanding on the concept of “sponge cities,” which uses green infrastructure to absorb stormwater and combat pollution in urban areas, this land-based solution can retain rainwater at the source, slow the water in the course of its flow, and be used adaptively at its outlets (rivers, lakes, and oceans). This is completely opposite to the conventional engineering solutions widely used across the globe, particularly in developing countries in the monsoon climate: damming rivers to create big reservoirs, channelizing water using concrete flood walls, building concrete drainage in the city, and pumping water out. Gray infrastructure consumes huge amounts of cement, creating a significant amount of carbon emissions, suffocating the most productive ecosystems with the highest biodiversity, and making land less resilient. Sponge lands means the creation of porosity in vast, hilly landscapes that are suffering from erosion; the creation of “sponge fields” in the form of small ponds in farmland where runoff pollutes nearby rivers and lakes; and the creation of sponge cities. Sponge lands means the prudent use of cement in hydrological engineering and pavement in urban areas. It also means the removal of concrete flood walls and dams along waterways to restore habitat, replenish groundwater, nurture lush vegetation, and create other benefits. Sponge lands are an efficient, inexpensive solution that will empower the resiliency of the land against climate change.

Linda Shi
Assistant Professor of City and Regional Planning, Cornell University
C. Lowell Harriss Dissertation Fellow, 2015–2016

The United States needs a national climate adaptation plan that includes a land use and development strategy. Efforts related to carbon dioxide removal and renewable energy, such as biofuels and solar arrays, will significantly impact rural land use. Failure to decarbonize means escalating climate impacts, climate-induced migration, and new landscapes of injustices in the form of climate oases and climate slums. Growing urban–rural political conflict already reflects spatial and socioeconomic inequality, rooted in rural resource and human extraction for processes of urbanization, dynamics that the climate crisis can exacerbate. Market responses will not be sufficient in scale, target geographies that can sustainably accommodate growth, or enable a just climate transition. The magnitude of needed actions to tackle the climate crisis therefore requires a new national architecture of land policy. This includes (1) science- and equity-informed identification of geographies where future growth and investment should go; (2) fiscal, investment, and grant policies that enable local governments to respond to climate impacts rather than burden them with unfunded mandates or punitive measures; and (3) legal reforms to banking and organizational regulations that would expand cooperative ownership models that help build community control of housing and land for local wealth retention and creation.

Alan Mallach
Senior Fellow, Center for Community Progress
Coauthor, Regenerating America’s Legacy Cities

The zoning of America’s suburbs, resulting in a suburban landscape dominated by large single-family houses on large lots and by vast areas—often largely vacant—zoned for industrial and office use, has fostered an auto-dependent pattern of widely dispersed population and employment centers which in turn has led to increased emissions from vehicular travel, as well as from energy use for lighting, heating, and cooling. It has also curtailed housing production, exacerbated housing affordability problems, and led to millions of lower-income workers making long daily treks from urban centers to suburban jobs. Solutions are straightforward, and do not require undoing single-family zoning. State zoning statutes should require municipalities to allow accessory apartments and structures in single-family zones wherever feasible from a health and safety standpoint, permit multifamily housing along commercial corridors and in industrial or office zones, and rezone bypassed vacant parcels, of which dozens exist in nearly every American suburb, for multifamily housing. Higher residential densities along corridors and in mixed-use clusters will, in turn, vastly increase the opportunities for cost-effective, efficient transit solutions. Increased and diversified housing options in already largely developed suburbs will address unmet housing needs and reduce the pressure for further outward expansion of metros, making the suburbs themselves more sustainable in the face of demographic shifts, changing housing demands, and future climate shocks.

Sivan Kartha
Senior Scientist, Stockholm Environment Institute
Advisor, Lincoln Institute Climate Program

A survey across 64 countries estimated that forests held collectively by indigenous peoples and forest communities contain approximately one trillion tons worth of carbon dioxide, equal to more than three decades’ worth of global emissions from fossil fuel use. These lands are also among the world’s richest in biodiversity and home to vital freshwater resources. However, those living in these forests often lack formally recognized land rights. Forest-rich countries generally have colonial legacies, in which land and resources were seized at the expense of local communities. Centuries-old property rights and land tenure regimes originally set up for taxation and extraction persist, contributing to the continued degradation of forest resources. A growing body of research shows that when land rights are formally recognized and legally safeguarded, indigenous peoples and local communities can protect common resources through informal practices and collective action that prevent deforestation, preserve biodiversity, and protect ecosystem services such as soil enrichment and watershed health. Imposing conventional private property regimes, on the other hand, can cause new problems, triggering land speculation and clashing with local cultural norms. Establishing secure land tenure rights for indigenous peoples and rural communities can help preserve the world’s declining forest resources, while safeguarding the livelihoods on which their hundreds of millions of residents depend.

Tamika Butler
Built Environment and Equity Consultant, TLB Consulting
Guest Speaker, Big City Planning Directors Institute

My hope for 2021 is that the increased attention, conversation, and resource allocation directed toward fighting racism, white supremacy, and anti-Blackness will not disappear with the flip of a calendar page as people push toward “getting back to normal.” Just being better than it is now shouldn’t be enough. As a Black person, I could look at the statistics and know that the old normal meant my life was expendable. As a Black person, I also know that in this new normal, I can look at any statistic about COVID-19, hate crimes, or environmental racism and see that my life is still expendable. Beyond not being good enough, “getting back to normal” will not meaningfully impact climate change. Instead, I hope that those in power examine who they are listening to and funding when it comes to land-based solutions. The ideas, solutions, and pursuits of fighting climate change with land-based solutions should focus on ensuring that we listen to Black people, Indigenous people, and other racialized people and members of historically oppressed groups who have long been leaders in climate change, sustainability, and serving as protectors of humanity. All climate change solutions should center the idea that in 2021 we must stop the killing of Black people, Indigenous people, and other people of color.

Melinda Lis Maldonado
Lawyer, Matanza-Riachuelo River Basin Authority, Argentina
Instructor, Lincoln Institute, Latin America and the Caribbean

The implementation of development charges with environmental components would have a meaningful impact on climate change. These are building or urban permits that consider water and vegetation aspects as requirements to exercise basic or additional building rights. To illustrate the last case, in exchange for increasing density, adding land for green urban spaces could be an additional charge. These urban planning tools could finance climate change adaptation and mitigation, because they could generate, at the local level, resources to finance conservation or the implementation of green and blue infrastructure in private or public spaces. Nature-based solutions would be prioritized. Nature can provide more affordable long-term solutions and more benefits to humans and cities than solutions that only use gray infrastructure. At the same time, such solutions can function as mitigation and adaptation measures. These requirements would typically be fulfilled in the same place where the building occurs, in the form of sustainable drainage, reforestation, or green space. In some exceptions, they would involve financing green infrastructure in another place. Attaching environmental conditions to building rights would take different forms according to local climate change effects and the magnitude of the urban development project. Urban planning, law, and private property regulation have an important role to play in facing climate change.

Frederick Steiner
Dean, University of Pennsylvania Stuart Weitzman School of Design
Coeditor, Design with Nature Now

While we work on enacting effective policy, we need to change our hearts and minds about climate change and adjust how we live accordingly. Everyone reading this would make a list of 365 personal activities that contribute to climate change and make a commitment to replace them, one each day, with an action to mitigate or adapt to climate change. By sharing their pledge on social media, they could encourage their family, friends, and followers to do the same. Each of these actions ties back to land, water, and energy. For example: 

using a copier planting a tree
building a patio digging a garden
driving a car taking a walk
complaining about politicians calling and emailing representatives
ordering a book online visiting a local bookstore
buying imported produce growing a tomato
dropping off dry cleaning learning to iron
grilling beef eating a cricket
flying to a conference organizing a Zoom
turning on the air conditioner opening a window
cutting the grass planting native flowers
upgrading your cable watching birds

and so on for another 353 days.

Astrid R. N. Haas
Policy Director, International Growth Centre

From a governmental perspective, implementing land-based solutions in my own country, Uganda, is inherently challenging. In part this is because our Constitution, and all subsequent legislative instruments pertaining to land, unequivocally vest land in the people. In addition, Uganda has multiple coexisting tenure systems, yet limited administrative capacity to delineate each of them or document ownership. This situation means the government’s ability to implement land-based solutions, which unlock public value, is extremely limited. It is within this context that in 2021 I would therefore pursue land readjustment as an entirely practical approach and the most viable land-based solution. Particularly within urban areas, this tool [a model in which landowners pool their properties to accomplish a redevelopment project] has enormous potential. For example, working at a local level, it would be possible to determine land tenure and ownership and elicit community buy-in to pool parcels for more densified development. There is growing evidence that denser cities are greener and more climate efficient. Therefore, this solution would not only have a significant impact on the efficiency of how Ugandan cities could be managed, particularly with regards to public service provision, it would have a meaningful impact on climate change as well.

Larry Clark
Director of Strategic Initiatives, International Association of Assessing Officers

I am an appraiser with 40 years of experience working in three local jurisdictions, writing articles, lecturing, and teaching mass appraisal in many parts of the United States and the world. My association with people from many parts of the world has given me an appreciation for the issues surrounding climate change. One of the realities of climate change is that water resources are poorly distributed among our 50 states. Climate change exacerbates that situation by causing droughts in one part of the country while the warmer atmosphere brings soaking rains and floods to another. Therefore, my wish would be for the development of a nationwide network of reservoirs and distribution systems to collect and redistribute precipitation nationally. It would require an effort similar in scope to the federal highway system begun under President Eisenhower, and should be governed by a regulatory body that prioritizes humanitarian needs above those of agriculture and commerce. Collection systems should be sited in areas of current and anticipated future flooding, as well as natural runoff, to feed into reservoirs for later distribution into municipal water systems where it is needed.

Forster Ndubisi
Professor of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M University
Author, Ecology in Urban Design and Planning

Climate solutions require us to fundamentally rethink our ethical relations to the land. I propose that we initiate the process of critical reflection on our ethical obligations to the land and adopt a place-based ecocentric ethic (PBEE) as one climate solution in 2021. The adoption of PBEE via lifelong immersive education stipulates the ethical behavior and moral obligations that designers and planners should adhere to in addressing climate challenges. PBEE is based on the interdependency between people and biophysical [nature] processes, in which each depends on the other for continued existence. Human interactions with natural processes will necessarily result in the degradation of natural resources and processes [natural capital] to a certain degree, including landscapes that provide vital ecosystem services. By implication, PBEE confers the moral imperative for preserving natural capital when feasible; conserving natural capital when a justifiable degree of use is demonstrated; replenishing natural capital through active restoration of degraded ecosystems; minimizing the extent of human footprint; reducing carbon usage; and actively embracing environmental stewardship. To combat climate change effectively, PBEE employs ecological knowing as a process for understanding the interdependency between human and natural ecosystems. In turn, ecological knowing works best by using a coupled system-design thinking process and participatory collaboration in creating climate mitigation and adaptation solutions.

Robin Bronen
Executive Director, Alaska Institute for Justice
Steering Committee, Climigration Network

Return stolen lands to Indigenous Peoples and erase the borders and boundaries that divide and separate the ecosystems upon which we depend. Indigenous Peoples have conserved the biodiversity of this planet for millennia. The one-fourth of the Earth’s land occupied by Indigenous Peoples coincides with 40 percent of the natural areas protected and territories that remain undamaged. According to studies undertaken by the World Bank, these territories hold 80 percent of the planet’s biodiversity. In the United States, settler colonialism created the legal and institutional structures that forcibly removed and relocated Indigenous populations from their traditional lands and recast Indigenous Peoples’ land as property and as a resource. Repatriating land to Indigenous Peoples, as the original stewards of these lands now known as the United States, helps to rectify this injustice. Removing the social construction of boundaries and borders that artificially divides land and erasing these invisible lines ensures that the ecosystems and biodiversity upon which humanity depends can thrive as the climate crisis transforms the web of life.

Cintia Fernandes
Lawyer for the Municipality of Curitiba, Brazil
Instructor, Lincoln Institute, Latin America and the Caribbean

Considering the socioeconomic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, both local and metropolitan solutions are necessary to prevent unwanted impacts on the environment, such as pollution, garbage accumulation, and reduction of green areas. Cities must have connectivity, systemic thinking, and metropolitan sustainability. Cities must implement both a circular economy and circular taxation, strengthening real estate and environmental taxes in order to permit swifter, more effective and efficient local responses. These systems may also result in less corruption, a better quality of life, and the mitigation of climate changes. Aiming to achieve this, we propose a circular tax, an intelligent fiscal tool for the construction and development of cities and metropolitan regions. This entails the strengthening of real estate taxation (property tax, taxation differentiated by use and location, betterment tax) and of environmental taxes (garbage collection and recycling fees, tax on metropolitan environmental threats, application of the polluter pays principle). A circular tax would strengthen planning and sustainable urban management and is a land policy that can help preserve the environment.

Photograph: Aerial view of a solar power station in Germany. Credit: Bim/Getty Images.

Related

Land Matters Podcast: In First of 75th Anniversary Shows, An Interview with Bill McKibben

In the fall of 2018, water managers in Arizona were in heated discussions about how to limit the damage from a decades-long megadrought on the Colorado River. The drought has forced painful reckonings and realignments related to water use throughout the Colorado River Basin. Because of the way the water has been allocated over time, it had become clear that Arizona would bear the brunt of the looming shortages—and that farmers in the state, many of whom have low-priority water rights, would face severe cuts.

At a meeting that October, Stefanie Smallhouse, president of the Arizona Farm Bureau, denounced the proposed cuts. She suggested that the proposals showed disrespect for farmers, in particular for a white settler named Jack Swilling who, in her telling, had heroically made the desert bloom. “I find it’s ironic that we are exactly 150 years from the first farmer starting the settlement [of] the Phoenix area,” Smallhouse said. “There wasn’t anybody else here. There [were] relics of past tribal farming, but [Swilling] was pretty much the starter.”

Later in the meeting, Stephen Roe Lewis spoke. Lewis is the governor of the Gila River Indian Community, a reservation south of Phoenix that is home to members of the Akimel O’otham and Pee Posh tribes. The Akimel O’otham trace their heritage to the Huhugam civilization, which constructed a massive system of irrigation canals to support the cultivation of cotton, corn, and other crops in the area beginning about 1,400 years ago. But in the 1870s and 1880s, new canal systems built primarily by white farmers drained the Gila River, devastating the Akimel O’otham and Pee Posh farms and leading to famine and starvation. “History is important,” Governor Lewis stated, correcting Smallhouse’s account of Swilling finding only “relics” of tribal farming. “We’ve been farming for over 1,000 years, and the only time that was disrupted was when that water was taken away from us.”

The Gila River Indian Community has, in fact, spent much of the past 150 years trying to win back water its members had long depended on. In 2004, a congressionally approved settlement awarded the community a substantial quantity of water from the Colorado. Since then, the community has actively worked to protect those rights. “We will be here as long as it takes to find solutions,” Lewis told the assembled stakeholders in 2018. “But we will fight to the end to make sure that our water is not taken again.”

As that exchange illustrates, the long history of Native Americans in the Colorado River Basin is often ignored in discussions about the management of the resource, as are their social, cultural, and environmental attachments to the river. The comments from Lewis indicate how committed today’s tribal leaders are to changing that. Since the late 1970s, tribes in the region have won a series of settlements confirming their rights to Colorado River water. Today, tribes control an estimated 20 percent of the water in the river. As the entire basin faces the reality of serious shortages, it has become clear that tribes—which have sovereignty under the U.S. Constitution, giving them the right to govern themselves—must be key players in any conversation about the future.

The stakes are considerable, not just for tribes but for everyone who depends on the Colorado. Some 41 million people in seven American and two Mexican states use water from the river, which irrigates more than four million acres of farmland. If the Colorado watershed were a separate country, it would be among the 10 largest economies in the world. But drought and other effects of climate change are pushing the river beyond its ability to meet the enormous demands on it, bringing tribes more squarely into the river’s politics.

To improve the ability of tribes to manage their water, and to give them a stronger voice in management discussions and decisions in the basin, several organizations launched the Water & Tribes Initiative (WTI) in 2017, with funding from the Babbitt Center for Land and Water Policy, a program of the Lincoln Institute. Leaders of the project, which is now also funded by the Walton Family Foundation, Catena Foundation, and several other partners, include a cross-section of tribal representatives, current and former state and federal officials, researchers, conservation groups, and others.

“If we work together, we can find solutions to these issues,” says Daryl Vigil, a member of the Jicarilla Apache Nation and co-facilitator of WTI. He says this is a delicate time for the tribes: “If we’re not ahead of this game, in terms of just a basic recognition of tribal sovereignty in this process, there are huge risks.”

“We are excited to be part of this evolving and growing partnership,” says Jim Holway, director of the Babbitt Center. “The work WTI is doing is critical to the long-term sustainability of the basin and is central to our goal of improving the links between land and water management.”

Divided Waters

The 29 federally recognized tribes in the Colorado River Basin have long lived within a paradox. In 1908, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that tribes have a right to water for their reservations. In the first come, first served hierarchy of western water law, the Court dealt them a powerful trump card, ruling that a tribe’s water rights were based on the date its reservation was created. Since most reservations were established by the U.S. government in the second half of the 1800s, tribes are theoretically in a stronger position than any of the other users on the river. Like the Akimel O’otham and Pee Posh, all of the tribes were here long before non-native settlers.

But when representatives from the seven basin states gathered in 1922 to draw up the Colorado River Compact, they pushed tribes into the background. The compact specifies the division of water among California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico and laid the foundation of a complex web of agreements, laws, and court rulings collectively known as the “Law of the River”—which essentially ignored Indians. (See the special issue of Land Lines, January 2019, for an in-depth exploration of the river and its history.) Although the compact briefly acknowledges “the obligations of the United States to American Indian tribes,” it does not go into detail about tribal water rights. As the scholar Daniel McCool has noted, “the omission of any consideration of Indian rights left unresolved one of the most important problems in the basin” (McCool 2003).

The author and historian Philip Fradkin put a finer point on it, declaring that “the Colorado is essentially a white man’s river.” But Anglo settlers had ignored Indians at their peril, he noted: the unresolved issue of Indians’ true rights to water from the Colorado was a “sword of Damocles” hanging over the river’s future (Fradkin 1996).

The full extent of Indian water rights is still not quantified. In the early 1970s, federal policy took a radically new course, adopting the principle of tribal self-determination. That led to tribes negotiating directly with the federal government to settle their water rights. In 1978, Arizona’s Ak-Chin Indian Community was the first to do so; since then, 36 water-rights settlements have been negotiated between tribes, other water-rights holders in the basin, and state and federal agencies. “The onset of negotiated settlements was an important part of the evolution” of tribal water rights, says Jason Robison, a law professor at the University of Wyoming. “But the features they’ve come to incorporate have also broken new ground.”

While tribal water rights were originally seen primarily as a necessity for farming on reservations, the settlements of the 20th century allowed some tribes to lease their water rights to users outside their reservations. This came to be seen as an economic development tool and a way to fund basic services for tribal members.

For the Navajo Nation in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah, tying water to economic development is “all about creating a permanent homeland, where people go off, get educated, and come home,” says Bidtah Becker, a tribal member and attorney who has long been involved in water issues as a Navajo Nation government official. “We’re trying to develop a thriving homeland that people come home to, that works.”

In many cases, tribes don’t have the physical infrastructure to put their allocated water to use. Throughout the United States, Native American households are 19 times more likely than white households to lack indoor plumbing. On the Navajo Nation, the widespread lack of water services has likely contributed to the tribe’s horrendous losses to COVID-19; at one point in 2020, the nation had a higher per capita infection rate than any U.S. state (Dyer 2020). “Between 70,000 and 80,000 Navajos still haul water [to their homes] on a daily basis,” Vigil says. “In our country, in 2020, there’s still 70,000 to 80,000 people who aren’t connected to water infrastructure in a pandemic. It’s crazy.”

Vigil is the Water Administrator for the Jicarilla Apache Nation in New Mexico. In a 1992 settlement with the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), the tribe was allotted 40,000 acre-feet (roughly 13 billion gallons) of water per year, which it leased to the operator of a coal-fired power plant. The lease helped fund annual payments to tribal members for many years. But as the economy shifted toward green energy, the leases were not renewed. “So all of a sudden we’re left with settlement water stored [in a reservoir] 40 to 45 miles away, with no ability to use that water,” Vigil says.

Given the current drought, he says, the tribe could easily lease its water to others, but the terms of its federal settlement prohibit leasing water outside of New Mexico. Instead, the water flows out of the tribe’s hands and into the hands of other users. “No mechanisms are available to take our water outside of state boundaries,” Vigil says. “For the last two years, we’ve had over 30,000 acre-feet of unleased water going down the river.”

The ability to lease water can give tribes leverage—and an economic boost. In a hard-fought 2004 settlement, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) secured rights to more than twice as much water as the city of Las Vegas. It has used those rights to become a major, though often overlooked, force in Arizona water policies and politics. The tribe participated in negotiations around the Drought Contingency Plan (DCP), a multiyear, basinwide agreement signed in 2019 to address the impacts of the decades-long drought (Jenkins 2019).

States negotiated their own agreements as part of the DCP process; in Arizona, GRIC agreed to leave some of its water in Lake Mead, the reservoir that provides water to the Lower Basin, and to lease another portion to the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District to address concerns about long-term water supplies for new development. Together, the two deals could be worth as much as $200 million to the tribe.

The Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT)—a community that includes the Mohave, Chemehuevi, Hopi, and Navajo tribes on a reservation spanning the river in Arizona and California—was also an important participant in the DCP. The community’s participation was not without internal controversy: some tribal members were opposed to the DCP and attempted to recall the members of their tribal council. Ultimately CRIT agreed to leave up to 8 percent of its annual allocation in Lake Mead for three years in exchange for compensation of $30 million from the state of Arizona and an additional $8 million pledge from a group of foundations and corporations organized by the Walton Family Foundation and Water Funder Initiative.

The DCP negotiations were complex and contentious. In the end, coming to a resolution required getting tribes, cities, farmers, and other major stakeholders to the table.

The Relationship Between Tribal and State Allocations

When a tribe wins the right to use or lease a certain amount of Colorado River water, that water is considered part of the allocation of the state where the tribe is based. Because the states have individual allocations of water under the laws and agreements governing the river, newly negotiated tribal water settlements reduce the amount of water available for other users in that state. In the past, when tribal water allocations were not used, this water was left in the system for use by others. This issue is particularly acute in Arizona, where 22 of the 29 basin tribes have reservations. With the water rights of many tribes still unrecognized and unquantified, tribes and other stakeholders are understandably on edge about the future availability of water in the drought-stricken basin and intent on finding ways to work together to ensure a sustainable future.

To access policy briefs, reports, and other materials produced by the Water & Tribes Initiative, visit www.naturalresourcespolicy.org/projects/watertribes-colorado-river-basin.

Bridging the Gap

Since its inception, WTI has aimed to improve the tribes’ abilities to advance their interests and to promote sustainable water management in the basin through collaborative problem-solving. “We walk a tightrope,” says Matt McKinney, who co-facilitates the initiative with Vigil. McKinney is a longtime mediator who directs the Center for Natural Resources & Environmental Policy at the University of Montana. “On the one hand, it’s pretty easy to see us being advocates for tribes, which we are. But the larger frame is that we’re advocates for a fair, equitable, effective process of solving problems and making decisions.”

“The success of tribal water settlements has been based on the relationships of the people in the room,” says Margaret Vick, an attorney for the Colorado River Indian Tribes. “And the Water & Tribes Initiative has expanded the [number of] people in the room.” WTI is now working to shift away from narrow negotiations on individual water settlements to a much broader conversation spanning the basin: the current guidelines for managing the river will expire at the end of 2026, and new guidelines for the next several decades will soon be hammered out. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR)—the division of DOI that manages the Colorado and other western waterways—is reviewing the past decade and a half of negotiations and operations to prepare for the next round. “We need a more inclusive renegotiation process,” says Morgan Snyder, senior program officer at the Walton Family Foundation’s environment program. “This is the opportunity to influence the next 25 years of water management in the basin.”

Anticipating the renegotiation process, McKinney and Vigil conducted interviews in 2019 with more than 100 people, including tribal leaders, water managers, and others involved in water issues in the region, to identify major issues facing the basin as well as ways to enhance collaborative problem-solving, particularly tribal participation in decisions about the river. WTI held workshops with tribal members and other interested parties from across the basin to identify strategies to enhance tribal and stakeholder engagement.

“Many interviewees believe it is time to move beyond managing the river as a plumbing and engineering system that supplies water to cities and farms and toward a more holistic, integrated system that better accommodates multiple needs and interests, including but not limited to tribal sacred and cultural values, ecological and recreational values, and the integration of land and water management decisions,” McKinney and Vigil wrote. “The intent here is to articulate a holistic, integrated vision and then make progress toward that vision incrementally over some period of time . . . and to move from a system focused on water use to watershed management” (WTI 2020).

To raise awareness, increase understanding, and catalyze conversations, WTI is issuing a series of policy briefs on topics ranging from the enduring role of tribes in the basin to a systemwide vision for sustainability. It is also helping the Ten Tribes Partnership, a coalition created in 1992 to increase the influence of tribes in Colorado River water management, develop a strategic plan.

But changing the nature of water management negotiations—to say nothing of the nature of water management itself—will not be easy. “Just like any other really complicated process, you have to figure out a way to break it down,” says Colby Pellegrino, deputy general manager for the Southern Nevada Water Authority, which supplies water to Las Vegas and its suburbs. “You have to eat the elephant that is Colorado River law and all of the interrelated problems one bite at a time. This presents issues if different stakeholder groups have differing opinions on the scope of negotiations.”

Some tribes have been frustrated by the difficulty of making their voices heard, even though they are sovereign nations. “We’re not ‘stakeholders,’” Vigil says. “We always get thrown into the same pool as NGOs, conservation groups. But it’s like, ‘No, we’re sovereigns.’”

The federal and state governments have also made some significant missteps. In 2009, the USBR launched a major study to assess current and future supply and demand along the river (USBR 2012), yet tribes weren’t meaningfully included in that process. Only after pressure from several tribes did the bureau commission a study of tribal water allotments, conducted with the Ten Tribes Partnership and released years later (USBR 2018). That study outlines the barriers to the full development of tribal water rights and analyzes the potential impacts of tribes developing those rights—especially for other users who have come to rely on the water that long went unused by the tribes. And in 2013, the basin states and the federal government began discussions about the Drought Contingency Plan without notifying tribes.

“States have ignored tribal water rights and tribal water use since the compact in the 1920s,” Vick says. “The [supply and demand study] was a state-driven process, and the states did not understand tribal water rights and were rarely involved in even considering what goes on on the reservation, as far as water use. They can’t [do this] anymore, because there has to be a full understanding to be able to manage the 20-year drought that we’re in.”

One basic but critical remaining challenge is finding a common way to understand and discuss issues related to the river. Anne Castle, a former assistant secretary for water and science at the DOI who held responsibility for the USBR from 2009 to 2014, is now a member of WTI’s leadership team. “The challenge is that we’re not talking about just having additional people—tribal representatives—at the table,” she says. “Those tribal representatives bring different values to the table as well. We haven’t really dealt with those cultural and spiritual and ecological values in these sorts of discussions previously.”

Bridging that gap is a slow process, Castle adds. “When you have spoken one language for as many years as state water managers have . . . to be exposed to a different way of talking about water is difficult,” she says. “But the converse is also true: it takes [tribal representatives] a long time of sitting in meetings and listening to understand how what state water managers are talking about will impact them.”

What Comes Next

The coming renegotiations “are a very important inflection point in how the basin states and the federal government treat tribal sovereignty in the Colorado River Basin going forward,” says Robison of the University of Wyoming. “When that process gets mapped out, you’ll be able to see, okay, to what extent are the tribes again being pushed to the margins? To what extent are the basin-state principals and the feds willing to actually not kick the can down the road?”

In a hopeful sign of potential collaboration, several large water agencies are contributing funding to the Water & Tribes Initiative, including the Southern Nevada Water Authority, Denver Water, the Imperial (CA) Irrigation District, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and the Central Arizona Project. The Nature Conservancy and other environmental groups have provided support for WTI convenings as well.

Exactly how tribes might get a more substantial voice in decisions about the river’s future isn’t clear. One proposal that emerged from WTI’s basinwide interviews in 2019 is for the creation of a sovereign review team that would include state, federal, and tribal representatives, perhaps supplemented by an advisory council of representatives from each of the basin’s 29 tribes.

No matter how the negotiations are structured, much is at stake for all involved. While there seems to be a general commitment to consensus and collaboration, there is a fundamental tension at the heart of the endeavor. As McKinney notes, “One of the tribes’ fundamental interests is to develop and use their water rights. That interest seems to be diametrically opposed to the current interests of the basin states and the objectives of the DCP, which are all about using less water.” Historically, unused tribal water has been used by nontribal entities, in some cases allowing those entities to exceed their allocations. Now, in an era of long-term drought and climate change, there’s less and less water to go around. “You can see,” says McKinney, “that the basin is faced with some difficult conversations and tough choices.”

For most tribes, the choice is clear. “We need to develop our water rights,” says Crystal Tulley-Cordova, principal hydrologist for the Navajo Nation’s Department of Water Resources. “We shouldn’t be expected to forfeit our development.”

One of the most contentious issues centers on the ability of tribes to lease their water to users outside the boundaries of their reservations. Allowing tribes to lease their water—or not—is one of the principal sources of leverage that individual states have over the tribes within their boundaries. “Given that tribal water rights are counted as part of the allocation for the state in which the reservation is located, tribes need to work with state officials and other water users to find mutual gain solutions that balance everyone’s needs and interests,” says McKinney.

Vigil agrees and emphasizes that a tribe’s right to do what it wants with its water, whether using it for farming or economic development on tribal lands or leasing it to other users, is a key tenet of the self-determination principle codified in federal policy since the 1970s. “The heart of it goes to those foundational concepts of an ability to determine your own future,” Vigil says. “And that’s what sovereignty is to me.”

Finding Common Ground

WTI is already helping tribes work toward the kind of solidarity that will make it difficult for any entity to ignore their collective voice. Recently, 17 tribal leaders joined together to send a letter to the DOI about the next stage of negotiations. “When Tribes are included in major discussions and actions concerning the Colorado River, we can contribute—as we already have—to the creative solutions needed in an era of increasing water scarcity,” the letter read. “We believe frequent communication, preferably face-to-face, is appropriate and constructive.”

“The ‘Law of the River’ is always evolving,” says Holway of the Babbitt Center. “I am optimistic that we will better incorporate the perspectives and interests of the broader community in future Colorado River management discussions; in the face of increasing water scarcity, a broader base of engagement will be essential. I am also hopeful we will be seeing a stronger tribal voice within the U.S. Department of the Interior.” (At press time, President-elect Joe Biden had nominated Rep. Deb Haaland of New Mexico to serve as secretary of the Interior; Haaland would be the first Native American to head the agency and the first Native American Cabinet secretary.)

The guiding principle for WTI, McKinney says, is “to build on the collaborative culture in the basin and to focus on common ground, to build a sense of momentum by working on the 80 percent of the issues where tribal and other water leaders can agree—and then circle back around to address the differences.”

That focus on common ground is helping to create stronger ties not just among tribes, but also between tribes and the established water management community. “One of the great things about the Water & Tribes Initiative is that it’s trying to create this network of people who can all rely on each other,” says Colby Pellegrino. “It’s building a web for people to walk across instead of a tightrope.”

Matt Jenkins is a freelance writer who has contributed to the New York Times, Smithsonian, Men’s Journal, and numerous other publications.

Photograph: A member of the Cocopah Tribe surveys the tribe’s former fishing grounds along the Colorado River. Climate change and severe drought are leading to critical water shortages throughout the Colorado River Basin. Credit: Pete McBride.

References

Dyer, Jan. 2020. “Practicing Infection Prevention in Isolated Populations: How the Navajo Nation Took on COVID-19.” August 17. Infection Control Today 24(8). https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/how-the-navajo-nation-took-on-covid-19.

Fradkin, Philip. 1996. A River No More: The Colorado River and the West. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Jenkins, Matt. 2019. “Beyond Drought: The Search for Solutions as Climate Impacts a Legendary River.”
Land Lines. January. https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/beyond-drought.

McCool, Daniel. 2003. Native Waters: Contemporary Indian Water Settlements and the Second Treaty Era. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.

USBR (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation). 2012. Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/finalreport/index.html.

———. 2018. Colorado River Basin Ten Tribes Partnership Tribal Water Study Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/tws/finalreport.html.

WTI (Water & Tribes Initiative). 2020. “Toward a Sense of the Basin.” Missoula, MT: University of Montana Center for Natural Resources & Environmental Policy. https://naturalresourcespolicy.org/docs/colorado-river-basin/basin-report-2020.pdf.

Related

StoryMap: The Hardest Working River in the West

Next Steps: Hammering Out a Future for Water Users in the U.S. West