Delivered July 2014 in Reno, NV for the American Water Resources Association's Summer Specialty Conference on Integrated Water Resources Management.
Abstract: Ever since the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Workgroup (YRBWEP Workgroup) arrived at a consensus agreement, its Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (Yakima Plan) has been touted as a paragon for collaborative watershed planning. While the YRBWEP Workgroup holds some potential as a model of success for similar basin planning groups, it is critical to first understand the drivers behind its success. This study examines the process that created the Yakima Plan and evaluates the Yakima Plan’s success. In order to identify factors that led the YRBWEP Workgroup to consensus agreement, I analyze qualitative data collected from interviews with approximately 12 stakeholders who represent a variety of interests. I set my findings against theory of successful practices of collaborative watershed partnerships and compare theory to practice. I found that grassroots stakeholders united on shared values to move forward, the state and federal stakeholders engaged actively and coordinated initiatives, and the YRBWEP Workgroup committed to a balanced approach to watershed planning. By closely examining the case of the YRBWEP Workgroup and the Yakima Plan, this study seeks to inform collaborative watershed planning groups of what to think about while considering theoretically effective strategies for success.
14. Fish Passage
Fish Habitat Enhancement
Modification of Existing Structures and Operations
Surface Storage
Market-Based Reallocation
Groundwater Storage
EnhancedWater Conservation
23. 1. Design a semi-structured interview
2. Identify and contact stakeholders
3. Conduct, transcribe, and code interviews
4. Supplement with documents
24.
25.
26. Key Findings 1: Local groups
united on their
shared values
2: State and
federal leaders
pushed initiative
forward
3:Workgroup
committed to a
balanced approach
27. 1: Local groups united on their
shared values
You know, we've fought tooth and nail with
Roza Irrigation District in our long history.
We don't have a friendly relationship with
them, prior to this.We came together and
we both agreed, we can't go forward with
that proposal called Black Rock.
[Our joint letter to Reclamation and
Ecology] was co-signed, and that
shocked the valley. […] That was a
game-changer, I guess is how they
call it around here.
“
”
“
”
YAKAMA:
28. 1: Local groups united on their
shared values
[We realized] that our
interests were more similar
than different.Together,
we could convey an awful
lot of power.
ROZA:
“
”
29. 1: Local groups united on their
shared values
Sense of urgency; Frustration over lack of progress
Shared preference for a better alternative to Storage study
Recognition of power in collaboration
30. 2: State and federal leaders
pushed initiative forward
We got leadership at Reclamation
and leadership at Ecology to agree
with us, and that's when things
started to rapidly change.ROZA:
“
”
31. 2: State and federal leaders
pushed initiative forward
We had the right political
leadership.They all supported
moving forward on what we
called the integrated approach
to solving these problems.
“
”
ECOLOGY:
32. 2: State and federal leaders
pushed initiative forward
everybody at that point was
a lot more comfortable in
talking about the ultimate
solutions
“
”
RECLAMATION:
33. 2: State and federal leaders
pushed initiative forward
Responded to local concerns
Adjudication reduced conflict
“Water, Jobs and Fish Bill” enacted
34. 3:Workgroup committed to a
balanced approach
They're getting enough out of the
plan“
”Friends of
Bumping Lake
35. 3:Workgroup committed to a
balanced approach
We're not putting one
interest in front of the other.
“
”KITTITAS
COUNTY:
36. 3:Workgroup committed to a
balanced approach
Everyone was willing to compromise
Workgroup was consciously designed
Sopracciglio
Good morning
I will refer to this as the Integrated Plan
The group that created this plan was nationally recognized
There’s talk of it being a model for watershed management across the West
How did this group of decades-old enemies come to a consensus agreement?
Why Yakima?
First AWRA IWRM award in 2012
It’s been brought up several times over the past couple days
Against the odds, with several decades of quarreling, the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Workgroup, or the YRBWEP Workgroup, came to a consensus agreement on how to manage the basin’s waters looking forward.
And though I’ve asked myself this in different ways, the core question I’ve been working on for the last year is:
(Slow down)
Basin characteristics and history
The Yakima Integrated Plan
Previous watershed planning attempts: Yakima River Watershed Council
Literature on successful watershed partnerships
Findings from qualitative data
Basin characteristics and history
The Yakima Integrated Plan
Previous watershed planning attempts: Yakima River Watershed Council
Literature on successful watershed partnerships
Findings from qualitative data
Here’s the Yakima Basin, it’s in central WA
Multitude of water users
Notably: multibillion dollar agriculture-based economy
Two things led to concern over water shortages
Adapted from http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/images/wsci_04_img0559.jpg
2) Salmon that Yakama rely on are going extinct
Before the dams, salmon runs numbered in the hundreds of thousands
I mentioned some of the actors in the Basin, like the irrigators and the Yakama Indian Nation
These actors are not only stakeholders affected by the Plan, but also have representatives on the YRBWEP Workgroup
What is the YRBWEP Workgroup? Who else involved in this Plan?
-Overappropriation and drought
-During water shortage years, because of the water rights system in the Western U.S., some of the water is rationed
Water is imp’t to agriculture-based economy, and even a 70% proration has significant impacts on the yield
And it’s not just agriculture economy that’s affected
2) Salmon that Yakama rely on are going extinct
Before the dams, salmon runs numbered in the hundreds of thousands
I mentioned some of the actors in the Basin, like the irrigators and the Yakama Indian Nation
These actors are not only stakeholders affected by the Plan, but also have representatives on the YRBWEP Workgroup
What is the YRBWEP Workgroup? Who else involved in this Plan?
Five reservoirs = 1 million af of capacity
Snowpack = “sixth reservoir”
http://ybsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Climate-Change-Forecast.jpg
Basin characteristics and history
The Yakima Integrated Plan
Previous watershed planning attempts: Yakima River Watershed Council
Literature on successful watershed partnerships
Findings from qualitative data
Grp that created the plan – composed of representatives from a variety of interests
Plan is a consensus agreement that all of these elements are necessary to meet the goals of the different actors on the YRBWEP Workgroup,
There were past efforts to create a solution to water shortage in the basin
* = signatories after consensus agreement on elements in the plan was made
Basin characteristics and history
The Yakima Integrated Plan
Previous watershed planning attempts: Yakima River Watershed Council
Literature on successful watershed partnerships
Findings from qualitative data
LOOK HOW UGLY THIS IS
Droughts spurred action
2009 – Workgroup formed out of Integrated Alternative EIS
2011 – Consensus agreement for integrated plan
Another way to pose my RQ: These efforts did not lead to an acceptable solution. What was different about the Integrated Plan? What changed this time around?
To answer this question, I looked at factors in previous literature
Basin characteristics and history
The Yakima Integrated Plan
Previous watershed planning attempts: Yakima River Watershed Council
Literature on successful watershed partnerships
Findings from qualitative data
Some might deride this definition of success as “symbolic policy;” in other words, organizational success does not necessarily lead to implementational success. Indeed, a body of literature argues against consensus agreement as a predictor of success of a collaborative watershed partnership (Kenney 2000); however, watershed partnerships exhibit variance regardless of this rule, and consensus agreement should not be argued against on principle (Conley and Moote 2003). The success of watershed partnerships truly lies in their results, which are hard to measure (Schlager and Blomquist 2008). While organizational success is not sufficient, it makes implementational success more probable and is important to study.
Leach and Pelkey is a meta analysis of such studies
These help me design my methods
Basin characteristics and history
The Yakima Integrated Plan
Previous watershed planning attempts: Yakima River Watershed Council
Literature on successful watershed partnerships
Findings from qualitative data
Conducted fourteen interviews with stakeholders (45-50 min)
Coded in NVivo – qualitative software
Applied codes based on the literature of successful collaborative watershed planning groups
Identify broader themes
Main pt: collected interviews
Here are my interviewees
Here’s what a code is and how I coded them
Here’s a sample coded transcript
Codes – When I label segments of a transcript that discuss a factor
Political, Scientific, Interpersonal
Now, after going through some analysis, what insights does my study provide?
Frustration over a lack of progress; “desperation”
Desperate times call for desperate measures
Roza+Yakama got together and wrote a joint letter;
interpersonal; dinner;
reached out and wrote mutual concerns;
signaled “basinwide” the bridge btwn irrigators and fish interests
Maybe letter was a promise of the power of cooperation (Don't you get tired of fighting sometimes? -Jewell)
Jewell: “The only way you really get what you want in life is by helping others get what they want.” – Zig Ziglar
Create power through allyship
[Our relationship started with] the mutual concern that the [Storage] study was not being properly conducted, that the whole study needed to start over and be done in a different manner, with local input.
(drought, climate change, growing water need)
Some of the overall sentiments I heard was….
The joint letter signaled the bridge btwn irrigators and fish interests
The next finding was that the government listened:
But [the Storage study] was government-driven, and they didn't listen to any of us that tried to provide input. We finally just got fed up until both the state and the federal government said, “This isn't working. It's going down the tubes, it's time to take a different direction.”
You had ppl who had been involve din litig for many many yrs over water issues int he basin and realized that they haven't gotten anywhere, just simply they were just beating e/o over the head and it wasn't really making progress. And I think…
Supported the movement through various efforts
The other thing that transpired in the mid 2000s was
State’s involvement was important; THEY answered the Roza & Yakama calls;
They initiated the Ecology study when the Reclamation storage study looked inadequate;
Initiated Study looking at a more integrated approach, to supplement the storage one being conducted by Reclamation
Gov. Jay Inslee – former Nat Rsrcs Cmte Chair – first legislative action as governor was “Water, Jobs and Fish Bill” for Ecology to implement YBIP
State legislature provided the money
State initiated the Adjudication which confirmed rights and reduced conflict (backup with data)
Gov. Chris Gregoire (former Ecology chair):
“Former Gov Christine Gregoire was instrumental in this, sort of to get a compromise piece of legislation that provided for fish flows and provided for some new out of stream water supply thru dvlpmt programs. “ - Ecology
Support of important stakeholders (angel shift: powerful allies) – Yakama gets what they want; they have a huge stake
Yakama didn’t like transfer from Columbia; irrigators didn’t like paying more for water; Ecology didn’t like contamination from Hanford; no one liked water loss due to leakage
State champions / “policy entrepreneurs”
Federal:
Rep. Doc Hastings pushed for YRBWEP funding; Chair of Cmte on Natural Rsrcs
Rep. Sid Morrison pushed for it in House
Sen. Henry Jackson (authored NEPA)
Sen. Daniel Evans (former Gov. of Washington; founder of WA Dept of Ecology) also sponsored bills in support
Overall, I think the balanced nature of the plan I think is really important. The fact that you've got the members advocating for every aspect I think is important. But
Not only that, all Wkgp members respected each others’ goals and supported them, even if they would traditionally be against it
i.e. And now what you've ended up with is a situation where you have farmers advocating for the interests of fish restoration. And you have environmental groups […] advocating for new storage projects i.e. dams and expansions of reservoirs. That's pretty unusual.
Nobody gets their full wishlist, but everybody gets something that puts them in a better position than they've ever been – Roza
Most of these ppl were satisfied by Dec 2009: w/ the prelim IWRMP
These ppl were involved from the start: Sandison, Van Gundy, Rigdon
Newer grassroots groups are not satisfied
YBSA formed – opposition; first initiative was to fund Black Rock study
Friends of Bumping Lake and enviros e.g. Sierra Club (Washington Chapter) –opposition; did not exist before basin planning efforts
To exclude some of the more extreme hardline groups that would veto everything (*QUOTE: you don’t want people like that who are against everything – Roza)
Conflict reduction – wkgp served as discussion forum
Workgroup meetings were a way for stakeholders to express shared value, mutual concern; gave sense of ownership and empowerment
Built on previous efforts and streamlined them
But they were set also based on who would recognize the integrated nature of the plan, e.g. excluded local environmental groups
I will now offer a few reflections.
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity
Some of these might be obvious, but it helps point to what watershed partnerships should prioritize in the development and implementation of a basin management plan
Maintaining relationships through implementation
Appealing to Congress without Rep. Doc Hastings
Securing funding
In the spirit of the conference theme, I offer some reflections on IWRM.
Before I end, I want to thank the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, the Stanford Bill Lane Center for the American West, and the Stanford Public Policy Program for supporting my research.
Thank you