Jeffrey Sachs’ recent assessment of the systems overhaul needed for government to implement already agreed upon policies is spot on. Check it out at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-failing-of-us-government. Including such things as achieving water health + fish recovery under the Clean Water & Endangered Species Acts, the regulatory frameworks were built out by focusing on procedures rather than outcomes. While getting these procedures in place was key to slowing bad things from happening, these same pieces keep us from making good things happen at scale. For the first time, technology can stretch with across the fragmented system of multiple agencies that tries—largely with futility—to address an issue that cuts across them all. Water/aquatic habitat is a case in point: EPA, USDA, BLM, USFS, NOAA, USFWS, USACE, USBR, and their state corollaries all have an interest here, but despite best efforts, the issue is too vast, staff too small, and manual methods remaining in use cannot scale to the problem holistically. While coordination has made gains, it cannot keep pace.

The Oregonian frequently runs guest editorials from members of the community. On August 4, they ran one on global warming from Gordon Fulks, a physicist from Corvallis, who doubts human impacts on climate change. The piece was so rife with misinformation that a complete rebuttal would require far more space than I generally use in a blog. Most of Fulks’ points are easily debunked by a quick review of EPA’s climate change web site, or National Geographic’s “Global Warming Fast Facts” site. I will try to address his major points in brief. First, the term “global warming” itself is misleading and no longer in common usage among scientists. “Climate change” or even “climate disruption” is more accurate, as what we are really talking about are the global impacts of even a modest average increase in Earth temperatures. This is not about the planet suddenly getting much hotter – which is why there was very little serious “global warming” talk around last week’s heat wave. In fact, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) data show that the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 1.2 to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 100 years. The eight warmest years on record (since 1850) have all occurred since 1998, with the warmest year being 2005. This seems modest, but the impacts on Earth are real. Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later. These are facts. Fortunately, climate change deniers like Fulks are growing extinct nearly as rapidly as climate change impacts are manifesting.

If we completely stopped the carbon economy tonight at midnight, we would still be a century away from the crescendo of climate disruption already set in motion. Smartly, the recently passed Waxman-Markey bill (American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009) holds in it several provisions for adaptation planning and implementation to provide needed resilience to ecosystem function, but these will be predicated on state and federal coordination.

Here lies the potential for breakdown: states aren’t ready, and the feds can’t innovate. Together, these factors paint a bleak picture for what could be a great opportunity to make a difference as an applied matter.  

Less than 20 states have even started to develop their climate adaptation gameplans, and few of those would be robust enough to meet the bar laid out in the bill.  Data gaps, outmoded methods of management, and insufficient integration across agency silos at state and federal levels stand as barriers to action on the ground. 

Girding up our freshwater ecosystems with the resilience they need to face the coming climate challenges will not happen through traditional methods of conservation. The vast, pre-existing federal-state funding cloud will likely swallow the implementation dollars without gaining much ground. The last 40 years stand as testament: despite billions of dollars spent on freshwater health and restoration annually, our nation’s water quality continues to decline. Our wild fish flicker at fractions of historic abundance. And we are running out of time. 

The administration has the opportunity—indeed the imperative—to direct its agencies to focus on outcomes rather than procedures to protect, maintain, and restore ecosystem function. The Natural Resources Climate Change Adaptation Panel, led by the chair of the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality and populated with natural resource agency heads, is charged with coordinating the plan at the federal level. Pay attention, because while the headlines will follow the cap and trade design, the first measure of success or failure happens here. 

Climate change (really, climate disruption) manifests most spectacularly in its impact on freshwater. Shrinking snow packs, erratic rainfall and increases in extreme weather events alter formerly predictable patterns and dramatically impact river function and flow.

• A reduction of more than half the snowpack by 2040, having broad impacts. Glacial runoff provides for not only aquatic habitat, but irrigation, drinking water and hydroelectric power.
• A decrease in streamflow of at least 50 percent during summer months in many rivers and streams by mid-century.
• A negative impact on salmon and other anadromous fish due to increased winter flooding, reduced summer and fall streamflows, and warmer stream and estuary temperatures.
• A decrease in water quality due to higher temperatures, increased salinity and pollutant concentration by mid-century.
• Sea level rise will increase saltwater intrusion into groundwater in some regions, affecting drinking water and agriculture in coastal zones.
• An increase in evaporation will reduce effectiveness of reservoirs.
• An increase in extreme weather events and more erratic rainfall means more water falls on hardened ground unable to absorb it, leading to flash floods instead of replenishment of soil moisture or groundwater levels.

We call Earth the “Blue Planet” for a reason: water covers most of it. But just 2.5% of all of that H20 is freshwater. Of all that freshwater, only 0.3% is surface freshwater (rivers, lakes and streams). The rest is frozen or underground. If the entire world’s water were in a gallon jug, only a tablespoon would be freshwater—and most of that tablespoon would be frozen.

All life on earth requires water for survival.  And though our biosphere has never had more or less water than it does right now—the ultimate closed loop—humans have mismanaged our way into a looming freshwater crisis.  Most aquatic health indicators continue to trend downward, with many accelerating.

The time has come to change the course of water, and this blog will help reframe, rethink, and retool how we relate to this most precious resource.