Top-Down or Bottom-Up Approach to Water Management? Part 1

This post is under development! What follows is the introduction, as this will take at least two days to complete. I am a James Joyce/Ernest Hemmingway-type writer. That means that I write in spurts! (I do not claim to be a Joyce or a Hemmingway!) The first spurt follows:

A reader (Christopher) wrote the following in response to my "Cadillac Desert" post:

After years of working seasonally as a raft guide and ski bum, I felt it was time to get a "real job." This proved to be difficult when I had to answer the question, "what have you been doing in the last five years?" Charged with an interest in natural resources, water in particular, I decided to go back to school. I read Cadillac Desert on a suggestion from a professor at a prospective grad school, and after finishing the book I knew that more schooling in the field of water resource management was a good idea.

As I break from working on my thesis proposal, I realize that the number of water related issues that need to be addressed is both great and daunting. My question for you is, “what approach should be taken? A top down, or bottom up approach?”

One of my projects addresses the value of water-based ecosystem services in a large National Forest. I hope to gain public input about the services supplied, and how certain stakeholders value those services. My hope is this information can be used to inform water-based management decisions.

Christopher asks a penetrating question with regard to the management of water resources: "A top down, or bottom up approach?"

Having been involved in water-planning and management programs for many years, I can say, unequivocally, that the answer depends on (at least) four factors: 1) the nature and scale of the planning/management matters to be resolved; 2) access to information needed to make reasonable assessments of (and proposals to resolve) problems, 3) available financial resources required to address the design and implementation of planning/management problems, and 4) legal and institutional barriers/restrictions.

Years ago, I favored a top-down approach to water planning and management, but that was before my involvement in water-planning programs in Texas and Louisiana gave me a different perspective on planning and management. I have learned a lot since then. The company I worked with at the time ((Leggette, Brashears & Graham) was a prime consultant to two of Texas's 16 water-planning regions and a significant subcontractor for at least one other region. We were the prime contractors for Regions E and J, and a subcontractor for work in Region F. We worked on planning documents for three years (1998 - 2000) and submitted final reports to the Texas Water Development Board in December 2000.

In 2001, LBG worked with C.H. Fensertmaker (Lafayette, LA) to develop a guide for groundwater management in Louisiana. The program was administered by the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Office of Conservation. I was the technical director of the statewide water-management plan. Over a period of 13 months, we produced, by December 2002, a three-volume report (Vol 1 - Identification and Use Assessment of Louisiana Waters, Vol. 2, Water Management Issues, and Vol. 3, Appendices).

TO FOLLOW OVER THE NEXT DAY OR SO:

COMPLETION OF PART 1, DIFFERENCES/SIMILARITIES BETWEEN WATER PLANNING IN TEXAS AND LOUISIANA

PART 2: STATUS OF WATER PLANNING IN EACH STATE

TOP-DOWN/BOTTOM-UP/OR SOMEWHERE IN-BETWEEN?