Social-Ecological Resilience and Law in the Platte River Basin (original) (raw)

Abstract

Efficiency and resistance to rapid change are hallmarks of both the judicial and legislative branches of the United States government. These defining characteristics, while bringing stability and predictability, pose challenges when it comes to managing dynamic natural systems. As our understanding of ecosystems improves, we must devise ways to account for the nonlinearities and uncertainties rife in complex social-ecological systems. This paper takes an in-depth look at the Platte River basin over time to explore how the system's resilience-the capacity to absorb disturbance without losing defining structures and functions-responds to human driven change. Beginning with pre-European settlement, the paper explores how water laws, policies, and infrastructure influenced the region's ecology and society. While much of the post-European development in the Platte River basin came at a high ecological cost to the system, the recent tri-state and federal collaborative Platte River Recovery and Implementation Program is a first step towards flexible and adaptive management of the social-ecological system. Using the Platte River basin as an example, we make the case that inherent flexibility and adaptability are vital for the next iteration of natural resources management policies affecting stressed basins. We argue that this can be accomplished by nesting policy in a resilience framework, which we describe and attempt to operationalize for use across systems and at different levels of jurisdiction. As our current natural resources policies fail under the weight of looming global change, unprecedented demand for natural resources, and shifting land use, the need for a new generation of adaptive, flexible natural resources governance emerges. Here we offer a prescription for just that, rooted in the social, ecological and political realities of the Platte River basin.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (56)

  1. Kincaid Act, 33 Stat. 547 (previously codified at 43 U.S.C. § § 222-224 (1970) (repealed 1976));
  2. See Gary J. Hobbs, Jr., Colorado Water Law: An Historical Review, 1 U. DENV. WATER L. REV. 1, 4 (1997).
  3. DUANE A. SMITH, ROCKY MOUNTAIN WEST: COLORADO, WYOMING AND MONTANA 1859- 1915 8-9 (1992).
  4. See G. E. RADOSEVICH ET AL., EVOLUTION AND ADMINISTRATION OF COLORADO WATER LAW: 1876-1976 4 (1976).
  5. CAROL M. ROSE, PROPERTY AND PERSUASION: ESSAYS ON THE HISTORY, THEORY, AND RHETORIC OF OWNERSHIP 186-87 (1994).
  6. ROBERT W. ADLER ET AL., MODERN WATER LAW: PRIVATE PROPERTY, PUBLIC RIGHTS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS 23 (2013).
  7. Id. at 46-61. 34. Id. at 87.
  8. See GEORGE VRANESH, COLORADO WATER LAW 60-64 (1987).
  9. ADLER ET AL., supra note 32, at 87-89.
  10. Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 184 (1978).
  11. FREEMAN, supra note 10, at 30. 89. 16 U.S.C. § 1533 (2014).
  12. Platte River Recovery Program, UNITED STATES FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE, http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/wtr/PlatteRiver.htm (last visited Dec. 3, 2014) [hereinafter USFW PRRP 2012].
  13. Id.
  14. Id.
  15. EDELLA SCHLAGER, EMBRACING WATERSHED POLITICS 77 (Willaim Blomquits ed., 2008).
  16. See generally Aiken, supra note 100; As Doyle and Drew explain, "The three affected states (Nebraska, Colorado, and Wyoming) and water providers along the river, under the leadership of USBR, facing serious curtailment of water operations by and endless consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in its capacity as en- forcer of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), agreed in 1994 to negotiate a basin wide agree- ment." FREEMAN II, supra note 97, at 55.
  17. USFW PRRP 2012, supra note 93.
  18. FREEMAN II, supra note 97, at 78. 106. Id. at 85.
  19. SCHLAGER, supra note 102, at 78.
  20. FREEMAN II, supra note 97, at 71-72.
  21. Robert Autobee & Bureau of Reclamation, North Platte Project, 3 (1996), available at http://www.usbr.gov/projects/ImageServer?imgName=Doc\_1305124785545.pdf; See generally Neb. Dept. of Natural Res., Platte River Recovery Implementation Program, (2006), available at http://dnr.ne.gov/Media/iwm/PDF/PRRIP\_Document\_2006.pdf (discussing the final Platte River imple- mentation program) [hereinafter PRRIP].
  22. FREEMAN II, supra note 97, at 71-72.
  23. See generally PRRIP, supra note 112. 115. Id.
  24. FREEMAN, supra note 10, at 84; Platte River Recovery Implementation Program, WYOMING STATE ENGINEER'S OFFICE, http://seo.wyo.gov/interstate-streams/know-your-basin/platte-river-basin (last visited Nov. 11, 2014).
  25. As explained in the Nebraska depletions plan, "Nebraska's Cooperative Hydrology Study models and other tools will be used by the state and the NRDs to determine the amount, timing and location of depletions to state-protected flows and target flows and also to evaluate the effectiveness of proposed offset projects. In all cases, the offset objective will be to replace the water depleted in the amounts needed and at the times and locations needed to prevent harm to the water uses and/or the target flows for which such flow protection is required. All offset measures shall be constructed and operated or implemented so that they do not cause additional shortages to either target flows or state-protected flows." PRRIP, supra note 112, at 3.
  26. FREEMAN, supra note 10, at 84.
  27. PRRIP, supra note 112, at 4-5.
  28. SCHLAGER, supra note 102, at 83-85; See generally Platte River Recovery Implementation Program 2010 Budget and Work Plan, PLATTERIVERPROGRAM.ORG, https://www.platteriverprogram.org/PubsAndData/ProgramLibrary/Forms/AllPublicDocs.aspx (last visited Nov. 18, 2014).
  29. PRRIP, supra note 112, at 5-6, 9.
  30. SCHLAGER , supra note 102, at 80. 134. Id. at 80-81.
  31. Justice Gregory J. Hobbs, Colorado Water Law: An Historical Overview, 1 U. DENV.
  32. WATER L. REV. 1, 21 (1997);
  33. Gary Bryner & Elizabeth Parcel, Groundwater Law Sourcebook of the West- ern United States, NATURAL RESOURCES LAW CENTER 64 (2003), available at http://cacoastkeeper.org/document/groundwater-law-sourcebook-of-the-western-united-states.pdf.
  34. J. David Aiken, Hydrologically-Connected Ground Water, Section 858, and the Spear T Ranch Decision, 84 NEB. L. REV. 962, 977 (2006).
  35. Id.; Kirk Stephenson, Groundwater Management in Nebraska: Governing the Commons through Local Resource Districts, 36 NAT. RESOURCES J. 761, 764 (1996).
  36. Aiken, supra note 136, at 978.
  37. Stephenson, supra note 137, at 761-62.
  38. See Mary Kelly, Nebraska's Evolving Water Law: Overview of Challenges & Opportunities, PLATTE INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH (2010), available at http://www.platteinstitute.org/Library/docLib/20100927\_Kelly\_Paper\_-\_FINAL.pdf. 141. Id. at 17.
  39. SCHLAGER , supra note 102, at 80.
  40. Kelly, supra note 140, at 21.
  41. Id.
  42. SCHLAGER , supra note 102, at 80-84.
  43. Poff et al., supra note 7; PRRIP, supra note 112.
  44. Kristine T. Nemec et al., Assessing Resilience in Stressed Watersheds, ECOLOGY & SOC'Y, 2014, at art. 34, available at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss1/art34/ [hereinafter Nemec et al.]. 148. While many frameworks have been proposed to systematically evaluate resilience, few have proven applicable to a broad range of systems.
  45. Carl Walters et al., Ecosystem Modeling for Evaluation of Adaptive Management Policies in the Grand Canyon, ECOLOGY & SOC'Y, 2000, at art. 11, available at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol4/iss2/art1/.
  46. See Robin Kundis Craig, "Stationarity Is Dead"-Long Live Transformation: Five Princi- ples for Climate Change Adaptation Law, 34 HARV. ENVTL. L. REV. 9, 31-40 (2010) (discussing current norms of preservation and restoration and the need to move to a resilience framework). 151. Id. at 43-53.
  47. Id. at 40-43, 63-70; Regulatory triage is described by RK Craig as the application of medi- cal triage assessment to water systems. A triage assessment recognizes which systems are beyond interven- tion and should be ignored, and which are worth the cost of intervention and restoration. See Robin Kundis Craig, Climate Change, Regulatory Fragmentation, and Water Triage, 79 U. COLO. L. REV. 3, 920-21 (2008).
  48. Craig, supra note 191, at 31-35;
  49. C. S. Holling & Gary K. Meffe, Command and Control and the Pathology of Natural Resource Management, 10 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2, 328-30 (1996), available at http://www.ecology.ethz.ch/education/Ecosystem\_Files/Holling\_and\_Meffe\_\_1996\_\_Pathology\_of\_Natura l_Resource_Management.pdf.
  50. Simon A. Levin, Ecosystems and the Biosphere as Complex Adaptive Systems, 1 ECOSYSTEMS 431, 431 (1998), available at http://www.esf.edu/cue/documents/Levin\_Ecosys-Biosphere- ComplexAdaptSys_1998.pdf.
  51. Id.
  52. J.B. Ruhl, Panarchy and the Law, ECOLOGY & SOC'Y, 2012, at art. 31, available at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss3/art31/.
  53. Levin, supra note 197, at 431-32.
  54. Adapted from CS Holling, LH Gunderson, and D Ludwig, editors. Panarchy: Understand- ing Transformations In Human And Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. (2002).
  55. C. S. Holling & Lance H. Gunderson, Resilience and Adaptive Cycles, in PANARCHY: UNDERSTANDING TRANSFORMATIONS IN HUMAN AND NATURAL SYSTEMS 25, 32-47 (Lance H. Gunder- son & C. S. Holling eds., 2002).
  56. Steve Archer et al., Mechanisms of Shrubland Expansion: Land use, Climate or CO2?, 29 CLIMATIC CHANGE 91, 92-96 (1995), available at http://ag.arizona.edu/research/archer/reprints/Archer%20et%20al.%201995%20Mechanisms%20Shrubland %20Expansion.pdf; O. W. Van Auken, Shrub Invasions of North American Semiarid Grasslands, 31 ANN. REV. ECOLOGY SYS. 197, 198 (2000), available at http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.197\. 165. See WALKER, supra note 77, at 76-90.