REPORT OF THE SOUTHEAST WATER SUPPLY ROUNDTABLE

Executive Summary

In November 1999, 125 public and private sector water management professionals and others whose work relates to water supply convened for the Southeast Water Supply Roundtable. This meeting was the culmination of an effort to address water supply problems and their solutions that formally began at the Southeast Water Resources: Management and Supply Symposium held in Chattanooga, Tennessee in August, 1998. The overall goal of the Roundtable was to launch a long-term dialogue designed to cooperatively address the water supply problems facing the Southeast. In order to achieve this goal, the Roundtable set forth three objectives, to: 1) develop practical, politically-acceptable strategies for addressing current and future water supply issues facing the region; 2) encourage participants to evaluate these strategies in the context of how they could be applied in their own communities and states; and 3) develop a Roundtable charter which would establish the structure and processes needed to maintain a dialogue.

Over a three day period, Roundtable participants met in professionally facilitated discussion groups to address four water supply priority areas: 1) conservation and end use efficiency; 2) data acquisition and dissemination; 3) educating the public and decision makers; and 4) water supply planning and conflict resolution. On Day 1, 26 participants met to finalize key water management issues and strategies within these four areas that would frame the discussion over the next two days. On Day 2, all the participants participated in two of the four priority area discussion groups and on Day 3, they participated in ‘wrap-up’ activities. Following is a summary of the outcomes of Days 2 and 3. For Day 2, we present the key challenges each priority area group faced and a synopsis of their overall strategies for meeting these challenges. For Day 3, we provide a summary of the participants’ views towards the Roundtable’s future as well as its current status.

Data Acquisition and Dissemination

Key Challenge: To obtain and disseminate good data for ensuring a dependable water supply.

Strategy Synopsis: An assessment of available data and its shortcomings and limitations should be undertaken to lay the foundation for a sound data collection effort. This effort, in turn, should identify key data needs, establish a regional data collection effort headed by governmental agencies and supplemented by citizen-based groups, and develop a consortium of states and NGOs to serve as a clearinghouse for ensuring that data are useful and accessible to decision makers and citizens.

Key Implementation Consideration: Conferees widely debated the advantages and disadvantages of various data collection and dissemination approaches. Discussion hinged on whether it would be better to establish a centralized clearinghouse which might ensure data consistency as opposed to forming a decentralized network that would reduce costs and provide greater agency control.

Educating the Public and Decision Makers

Key Challenge: To effectively educate citizens and decision makers on the urgency of water supply problems and their possible solutions.

Strategy Synopsis: An assessment of the current status of water-related educational programs and their strengths and weaknesses should be conducted to provide the basis for development of innovative, targeted educational programs and services. These programs and services should be packaged in the form of a ‘toolbox’ that can be used by schools, government agencies, businesses, and citizens. Partnerships should be formed to implement these programs and services.

Key Implementation Consideration: Conferees were particularly concerned about the diverse audiences that need to be reached and the need to send a clear, consistent message to each of them.

Planning and Conflict Resolution

Key Challenge: To promote effective local, state, and regional water supply planning which integrates land and water issues and uses innovative conflict resolution techniques.

Strategy Synopsis: States and other key stakeholders should collectively seek to develop a cooperative framework that encourages long-term, basin-wide water supply planning in the Southeast. Individual states should also be encouraged to develop water supply plans that are equitable and protective of instream flow and other beneficial uses. Mediation and alternative dispute resolution tools should be used to avoid and/or minimize water supply conflicts.

Key Implementation Consideration: Conferees debated the possible benefits from a framework that promotes regional planning as well as barriers to its development. Among the benefits of a regional framework, conferees identified serving as a clearinghouse for planning information and providing case studies of successful as well as unsuccessful planning efforts. Among the barriers to achieving such a framework, conferees discussed its cost, the lack of buy-in from public officials, and the incompatibility among regional and local plans.

Conservation and End-Use Efficiency

Key Challenge: To more effectively conserve the region’s water supplies for the benefit of current and future generations.

Strategy Synopsis: A multipronged approach should be adopted to conserve water from regional to local levels. Awareness-building and educational activities should be promoted which target the public, industries/businesses, and decision makers on why and how they should support water conservation. Water supply infrastructures must be better maintained and water conservation technologies should be developed that are specifically tailored to the Southeast. Existing regulations, market incentives, and land use policies which support water conservation should be bolstered and/or new ones should be adopted. Finally, local initiatives aimed at conserving water should be supported at regional and state levels.

Key Implementation Consideration: Conferees considered establishing a federal/state interagency coalition for the region to formulate water conservation goals and objectives and to assist states in achieving them. They also debated the value of ‘reusing’ water (grey water) and decided that this issue is so controversial that it should be addressed in a future conference.

Day 3 Roundtable ‘wrap-up’ activities began with participants being asked to evaluate conference outcomes for common themes. Five cross-cutting “needs” emerged: 1) better inter-agency coordination; 2) better educated and more aware decision-makers and publics; 3) dedicated funding for strategy implementation; 4) stronger partnerships at all levels within the Southeast; and 5) one or more ‘champions’ who share a common vision for the Roundtable’s future.

Participants were also asked to identify the ‘next steps’ that should be taken in this effort. Their suggestions fell into six general categories: 1) education -- to conduct a comprehensive educational effort throughout the Southeast on water supply issues; 2) administration -- to develop a clear mission statement containing a vision, goals, rationale, and structure; 3) regional resource assessment -- to conduct a comprehensive assessment of conservation, planning, education, and data management initiatives related to water supply across the Southeast; 4) political legitimacy -- to obtain political ‘buy-in’ and endorsement from top officials; and 5) increased representation -- to pursue more diverse representation.

In general, participants thought the Roundtable was productive and its timing and continuation opportune. It should strategically move forward so as not to lose momentum, set realistic objectives, and be fiscally creative and prudent. The Roundtable should be inclusive and serve as an “impartial fact-based group.” In the short-term, it should identify a “champion” to garner wide support and respect for “initiating the most important first steps of the Roundtable dialogue.” Over time, that it should evolve into a long-term dialogue to produce cooperative solutions to regional water problems.

Since the November Roundtable, its Steering Committee has begun to enact the participants’ recommendations. A charter and strategic plan have been developed and the University of Tennessee (UT) and the Southern States Energy Board (SSEB) have established a partnership to help move them forward. The strategic plan defines the responsibilities for these two entities and provides an organizational secretariat and “internal” and “external” advisory committees to oversee implementation of programmatic objectives. The new secretariat has proposed, and is seeking funding for, an assessment of water data needs for the Southeast over the next 20 years. This assessment is seen as partly fulfilling the intent of the organizers of the Roundtable to launch a long-term dialogue to cooperatively address the region’s water supply challenges. Thanks to the work of the Roundtable participants, the first steps have been taken toward this goal.

Introduction

On November 8-10, 1999, 125 public and private sector water management professionals from the Southeast region of the United States met to develop practical, politically-acceptable strategies for addressing current and future water supply issues facing the region. This meeting, the Southeast Water Supply Roundtable, was the culmination of a scoping effort on water supply problems and their solutions that formally began at the Southeast Water Resources: Management and Supply Symposium held in Chattanooga, Tennessee in August, 1998. This report reviews describes the Roundtable’s goals, structure, and outcomes and summarizes the background of events leading up to it and steps taken following it.

Goal & Objectives

The general goal of the Roundtable was to launch a long-term dialogue designed to cooperatively address the water supply problems facing the Southeast. Toward this goal, three specific objectives were adopted, to:

Draft water supply strategies under four previously identified priority areas: 1) data acquisition and dissemination; 2) conservation and end use efficiency; 3) educating the public and decision makers; and 4) planning and conflict resolution;
Encourage participants to return to their states and communities to determine how these strategies could be locally adapted and applied; and
Develop a Roundtable Charter to establish the structure and mechanisms necessary for maintaining a regional dialogue on how to effectively address high priority regional water supply challenges.

Background

Changing land use, population growth, and drought have placed enormous pressures on the Southeast’s water supplies. Water conflicts similar to those which have occurred in the Western United States are becoming more commonplace in the region. Such conflicts revolve around actual or contemplated interbasin diversion, difficulties in reconciling multiple water uses during drought, low streamflow, and efforts to balance instream needs and offstream demands. They are also enmeshed in the challenges of protecting water quality while sustaining economic growth.

Southeastern water professionals have become increasingly aware of the pressing need to avoid as well as minimize the problems experienced by their Western and Southwestern counterparts. In the early 1990s, a group of academics and public and private sector professionals, as well as others whose work relates to water supply, began meeting to discuss how they might cooperatively navigate these new and turbulent waters. With initial seed funding from the Appalachian Regional Commission and subsequent support from TVA, EPA Region IV, the University of Tennessee, and several private sector organizations, they informally assessed the interest in establishing a regional initiative dedicated to addressing water supply challenges. Finding a high level of interest across multiple sectors, a formal Steering Committee was established to begin shaping this initiative (Appendix A).

Steering Committee members agreed that in order to build a solid foundation for this initiative, a broad cross-section of Southeastern water professionals should be convened to systematically assess the complex regional water supply needs of the region and their potential solutions. Funds raised by the Steering Committee were used to hold a meeting. In August, 1998, 180 experts gathered in Chattanooga for the Southeast Water Resources: Management and Supply Symposium. Over two and one-half days, case studies and management frameworks were presented and discussed and attendees participated in break-out groups that discussed economic, environmental, legal, and political trends affecting the Southeast’s water supply. A primary outcome of this meeting was consensus among participants on four overarching, priority needs related to the Southeast’s water supply:

Improving acquisition and dissemination of reliable and consistent regional water data.

Increasing state and regional water conservation and end-use efficiency efforts.

Better educating the public and decision makers on water management/supply issues.

Initiating and improving state and regional water management planning, including conflict resolution.

As a result of these identified priority needs, the Symposium’s Steering Committee determined that a second regional meeting -- a Southeast Water Supply Roundtable -- was in order. This meeting would be comprised of mid-to high-level policy makers and political advisors from the Southeast. They would be charged with developing strategies to address these priority areas and launching a long-term regional effort to facilitate their implementation.

To prepare for the Roundtable, a “Core Group” of 26 decision makers responsible for water management throughout the region met on September 16, 1999. Assisted by members of the Steering Committee, the Core Group: 1) analyzed problems, issues, and concerns under four water management priority areas; 2) discussed and debated strategies for addressing them; and 3) identified regional or inter-jurisdictional mechanisms or institutions for facilitating strategy development. The outcomes of this meeting were used to frame the Roundtable discussion.

Roundtable Structure & Attendees

To make the most efficient use of participant’s time, the Roundtable was conducted at a remote suburban location (Wyndam Peachtree Executive Conference Center in Peachtree City, GA) from noon on Monday, November 8, 1999 through noon on Wednesday, November 10. Figure 1 provides a schematic of the daily agenda including lists of tasks each of the discussion groups were charged with completing by the end of their sessions. Appendix B the Roundtable Program. The reader should note that the information provided in the Roundtable Program is not entirely consistent with that provided in Figure 1. Minor mid-course changes as to what was expected of the discussion groups were made by the meeting organizers and facilitators during the Roundtable in order to keep discussions productive, focused, and representative of diverse views.

A total of 125 individuals attended the Roundtable including representatives of federal, state, and local environmental, planning, and development agencies; environmental, natural resource and community groups; and academics. Attendees came from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Twenty-six of these attendees were part of the ‘Core Group’ who, a month earlier, helped generate draft strategies for addressing priorities. These draft strategies were used as the point of departure for Roundtable discussions (see “Background”). Appendix A lists all Roundtable participants, including those who participated as Core Group members.

	Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday
8:00	.	Plenary (all participants) 1. Re-iterate Roundtable goals 2. Provide guidelines for concurrent session discussions	Plenary (all participants) 1. Conduct group reports from each issue area 2. Provide guidelines for morning sessions
9:00	.	.	Concurrent Sessions (all participants) 1. Review & evaluate high priority strategies identified on Tuesday 2. I.D. Roundtable’s ‘next steps’ 3. I.D. most desired outcome emerging from Roundtable 4. Provide final thoughts & reflections on Roundtable 5. Complete Roundtable evaluation
10:00	.	Session I (all participants) 1. Evaluate Core Group strategies & refine & add to them, as desired 2. Prioritize revised strategies 3. For four top strategies, identify barriers & enabling mechanisms to overcome them
11:00	.		News Conference
12:00	Core Group Assembly 1. Review/revise draft strategies under four priority areas 2. Clarify & refine draft charter and vision statement 3. Clarify roles that Core Group members would play in discussion groups over the next two days	.	.
1:00		.	.
2:00		Session II (All participants) 1. Evaluate Core Group & Concurrent Session I strategies & refine & add to them, as desired 2. Prioritize revised strategies 3. For four top strategies, identify barriers & enabling mechanisms to overcome them	.
3:00			.
4:00			.
5:00		.	.
6:00	.	Summary Session (Group Reps & Facilitators) 1. Prepare summary report of concurrent sessions’ outcomes	.

Figure 1. Schematic of Roundtable’s Daily Agenda

Overview of Roundtable Process

Core Group and Steering Committee members arrived on November 8, in advance of other Roundtable participants, in order to finalize the key water management issues and strategies which would frame group discussions involving all 125 Roundtable participants over the next two days. Meeting from noon to 5 pm, the Core Group members were charged with accomplishing three tasks. First, they reviewed and, as needed, revised the draft strategies developed in the September 16 meeting. Second, they clarified and refined a strawperson Roundtable Charter and Vision Statement that had been drafted by David Feldman, the Roundtable convener. Third, they discussed the role they would play in the ‘priority area’ discussion groups on November 9. This role included serving as a technical advisor: being a resource to those who had questions on the Core Group’s draft strategies and an active listener. The Core Group accomplished the first two tasks in four facilitator-led ‘priority area’ discussion groups. The third task was accomplished under the guidance of David Feldman and Carl Moore, the coordinator of the facilitation team, who together conducted a ‘coaching’ session for the Core Group members on the role they would play the following day.

The November 9 Roundtable began with a brief plenary session for all 125 participants in which the overall goals of the meeting were re-iterated and guidelines for the day’s discussion groups were provided. Each attendee was asked to pick two discussion groups from the four priority area topics (data acquisition and dissemination; conservation and end-use efficiency; educating the public and decision makers; planning and conflict resolution) in which to participate.

Concurrent group discussions were conducted in the morning and, again, in the afternoon (see Figure 1). Professional facilitators led each group discussion. At the outset of the morning session, the facilitators described the framework for the ensuing discussion: the group was asked to evaluate the ‘priority area’ strategies drafted by the Core Group and refine and add to them, as desired. Then, they were told to prioritize their revised list of strategies. Third, for the four strategies which received the highest ranking, they were to identify potential barriers to implementing each of them and to identify possible enabling mechanisms for overcoming these barriers and make them workable. The second round of concurrent sessions in the afternoon followed the same discussion framework as the morning session. However, rather than only reviewing the Core Group draft strategies, they were also urged to refine and add to the work previously done in the morning session.

At the conclusion of the afternoon session, all Roundtable attendees reconvened for a brief closing plenary session. Reports, provided by all eight discussion groups, highlighted two of the most significant points emerging from group discussions. Later that evening, the facilitators and group representatives met and prepared a consolidated summary of the highest priority strategies, their barriers, and enabling mechanisms to overcome them identified by the four priority areas groups. Appendix C summarizes these.

Finally, on November 10, all Roundtable participants were randomly assigned to four facilitator-led discussion groups for five ‘wrap-up’ activities. First, they reviewed and evaluated the prior day’s summary of the high priority strategies (see Appendix C). Second, they offered ideas on what the key ‘next steps’ for the Roundtable should be. Third, they identified one outcome they most wished to see emerge from the Roundtable. Fourth, they provided final thoughts, comments, and reflections on the Roundtable process. Due to time constraints imposed by the flow of the discussion, the latter two activities were not conducted by all groups. Finally, all participants were asked to anonymously evaluate the Roundtable (Appendix D) and identify whether he/she would be willing to volunteer to participate in ongoing Roundtable efforts, and, if so, how (Appendix E).

Outcomes

Tuesday Discussion Groups

Roundtable participants engaged in very thoughtful and thorough discussions of potential strategies for managing the Southeast’s current and future water supply. Following is a description of the outcomes of these discussions by issue area. We first summarize the challenge presented to each issue area group and identify how their proposed strategies could potentially meet this challenge. We then enumerate the overarching strategies which they developed. In some instances, we synthesized these overarching strategies from extensive lists of specific strategies generated by the groups. In these cases, we summarize the specific strategies, along with any pertinent discussion points, immediately following each overarching strategy.

Data Acquisition and Dissemination

Participants in the two Data Groups were given the challenge of finding a means to obtain and disseminate valid, reliable, and comprehensive data in order to ensure a stable water supply for the Southeast. They responded to this challenge by recommending eight major strategies designed to improve data compatibility, ensure that the “right” data are collected to address current policy needs; make data accessible and useful to decision makers and the public; and, improve the underlying infrastructure and support system for data.

Their specific strategies were to:

Adhere to a seven step data gathering and dissemination process, as follows: 1) define the problems and their geographic scales; 2) assess available data; 3) determine current and future data needs (e.g., water-resources; instream flow vs offstream withdrawal; demographic, socioeconomic, land use); 4) determine how to fund the data collection process; 5) identify data collection methods; 6) determine how to manage and store data; and, 7) determine how to disseminate data to those who need it.
Undertake a comprehensive assessment of currently available data including identifying the type of data collected; how it is stored and managed; how it is disseminated; and who uses it.
Have state and local governments take the primary role, with federal assistance, in defining regional and local water issues and related questions that need to be addressed and in identifying the “core set” of data needed to answer these key questions.

Conferees felt that identifying these questions, as well as generating the core set of data needed to answer them, would be particularly challenging and could benefit from a benchmarking effort. This effort could explore how other regions have dealt with these questions. Furthermore, pilot projects could be established using a limited number of data sets (e.g., precipitation, stream flow, water withdrawal, and return flow).

Conferees discussed the importance of quality control/quality assurance (QA/QC) when obtaining data from volunteer monitoring groups. Specifically, they discussed the need to provide comprehensive training, the ongoing challenge of volunteer coordination, the use of standardized collection systems across the region, and achieving buy-in from agency heads for using volunteers.

Conferees felt that there are two major impediments to this strategy: 1) a lack of adequate funds to establish these systems; and, 2) the lack of political will in state legislatures that do not yet see this as a funding priority. They also felt that this strategy could initially be implemented through a pilot project to demonstrate its value.

Conferees agreed that a major challenge to implementing this strategy would be getting agencies to first agree upon a common data collection system and to then agree to alter their current missions to accommodate it. Some conferees noted that this common data, to be viable, would have to be made mandatory.

Conferees debated the advantages and disadvantages of establishing a clearinghouse versus establishing a decentralized network. The general consensus was that the latter was preferable and that its features should include making data accessible to all users, enabling data sharing, providing chat rooms, promoting citizen group technical assistance, and facilitating the adding of new data. Barriers to establishing such a network, they felt, included reconciling the different data collection methods and equipment among agencies and organizations, resolving the issue of network ownership and control and protecting proprietary rights of data collectors who wish to use data for their own research and publication.

The conferees agreed that this Council should be comprised of representatives from federal, state, regional, and local government agencies and should also include representatives from universities, nonprofit groups, industries, and citizen groups as well as other interested parties.

Educating the Public and Decision Makers

Participants in the two Education Groups were presented with the challenge of finding ways to effectively educate the public and decision makers on current and anticipated water supply issues and concerns. They responded to this challenge by recommending over 40 specific actions that fell under six broad strategies. Achievement of these strategies, conferees felt, would enhance existing water-related programs currently being conducted in the region and provide products and services related to water education that could be effectively adapted to local needs.

The six broad strategies are to

Conferees agreed that a ‘resource matrix’ should be developed that identifies who is doing what in regards to water education in the Southeast. In addition, model programs in environmental areas other than water should be identified for inclusion in the regional toolbox since such programs might offer valuable applicable lessons.

Conferees brainstormed a number of potential target audiences that should receive water education. These included, but were not limited to, governors and other state officials; local decision makers including planning boards and county commissioners; school teachers; ‘smart growth’ groups and water utilities. They agreed that each of these groups would have to be educated though unique delivery systems and that it is particularly important to provide these services to hard-to-reach groups. Moreover, they agreed that as a part of these delivery systems, effective marketing strategies would need to initially be employed to raise the audiences’ awareness of and interest in participating in these educational programs. Finally, it was suggested that key decision makers receive special ‘certification’ training on water supply issues.

Conferees want the toolbox to contain: 1) a range of educational programs comprised of diverse themes which could be marketed and delivered to different audiences through multiple educational media; 2) lists of water education resources available to educators and the public throughout the Southeast; and 3) case studies which would benefit decision makers by providing lessons learned. The conferees agreed that the messages conveyed through this toolbox should be consistent and simple.

Conferees discussed how this data could be used to determine which attitudes and behaviors should be targeted for modification through educational programs. They also suggested using the data to evaluate the effectiveness of conservation education programs if coupled with a post-intervention assessment.

Conferees suggested developing a water character similar to ‘Smokey the Bear’ that would depict the essence of the education program and could be used to promote it.

Conferees offered examples of potential partnerships and their benefits. These included involving scientists in data communication efforts beyond their own research groups and possibly to the public (i.e., if first translated to lay-terms);asking businesses and industries to contribute to the support of educational programs in return for receiving good public relations and improved local hydrologic conditions; and working with industry associations’ education coordinators to potentially expand their programs’ service areas.

Planning and Conflict Resolution

Participants in the two Planning Groups were given the challenge of determining how water supply planning and conflict resolution techniques could be more effectively conducted in the Southeast in order to maintain a stable water supply. They responded to this challenge by identifying approximately 20 separate actions that fell under six broad strategies. These strategies, if implemented, would: 1) result in basin-wide (or other appropriate hydrologically-defined area) planning supported at both the regional and state levels; 2) promote policy development that better integrates land use and growth issues with water supply planning; 3) encourage the development and use of new and innovative water supply technologies; and 4) promote the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques and interstate compacts as means of equitably resolving water supply conflicts while also avoiding costly litigation.

Their strategies were to:

Conferees identified ways in which this ‘mechanism’ could support and benefit planners. These methods included maintaining planning data and models in an open access framework to promote understanding and trust; operating as a clearinghouse in order to more effectively share planning resources and knowledge; and providing case studies that exemplify both water supply planning successes as well as failures.

Conferees prioritized various factors that would need to be considered in order to effectively conduct such planning. First, they felt that obtaining funding sources was of utmost importance. Suggested sources of funding included having users pay a share of the planning costs; redirecting existing resources; and seeking additional federal funding. It was also suggested that existing regional entities could be used in the planning process (e.g., Southern Governors Association; Southern States Energy Board) to reduce overall planning costs. The second priority was identifying the environmental, economic, and social benefits and costs of comprehensive planning. Decision makers could use these benefits and costs to promote basin-wide planning and planners could use them in the planning process, itself. The third priority was to have clearly articulated and compatible goals at each level of planning (i.e., local, regional, state). Where feasible, these goals should mutually benefit multiple water users (e.g., agriculture, environmental conservation; business; recreation). The fourth priority was the need to define the scope and terms of what to include in the planning process (e.g., coverage of both ground and surface water). Finally, conferees emphasized that water supply planning needs to be coordinated at all levels of government.

Conferees discussed how decision makers would need to become better educated about the adverse impacts of land use decisions on water supply in order to develop policies that proactively integrate land use and water supply. They also suggested that states may need to consider applying regulatory approaches to balance urban growth against water supply. Conferees agreed that regulatory approaches should initially not be too restrictive and should only become more restrictive, if necessary.

Conferees suggested that some of these responsibilities could include: 1) developing statutes and programs that protect instream flows and are consistent with the protection of other beneficial uses; 2) developing equitable and comprehensive water management and allocation strategies that consider regional impacts; and 3) identifying an agency/organization that has a clear mandate and responsibility for water supply and conservation issues. They also identified the need to get governors more involved and interested in water supply issues.

Conferees suggested that to maximize the use of these conflict resolution techniques in the Southeast, the following actions should be taken: 1) mediators should be made available in all Southeastern states; 2) training should be provided to all parties interested in using these techniques; and 3) the benefits of the use of these techniques (e.g., cost savings of mediation vs. litigation) should be promoted.

Conferees agreed that to expedite the development and use of new technologies, additional research would need to be funded and that the process of implementing new technologies would need to be streamlined. One way the latter could be done would be to ensure that regulators are well educated on a new technology’s use. Conferees also advocated that new technologies be developed to improve the efficiency of water delivery systems and to develop more ecologically appropriate water supply sources.

Conservation and End-Use Efficiency

Participants in the Conservation Groups were given the challenge of how to more effectively conserve the Southeast’s water supplies for the benefit of current and future generations. They responded to this challenge by identifying approximately 30 separate actions that fell under six broad strategies. These strategies, if implemented, would: 1) achieve a paradigm shift from the perception that regional supplies are limitless to a more accurate assessment that accounts for regional water supply constraints; 2) create a conservation ethic that eliminates the win/lose mentality commonly found when managing/negotiating regional and local water supplies; 3) help maintain a more durable and efficient water supply infrastructure; 4) develop more consistent, comprehensive regulatory and voluntary approaches to conserve the Southeast’s water; 5) encourage greater participation, and thus, enhance a sense of ownership by citizens, businesses and industries in local water conservation efforts; and 6) develop better water conservation techniques that can be tailored to the Southeast.

Their strategies were to:

Conferees discussed a range of actions that could be taken to promote and implement water conservation education. To better educate youth, they suggested incorporating water conservation programs in the K-12 educational systems throughout the region. To promote water conservation among adults conferees suggested providing information on utility bills on the economic and environmental benefits of using water more wisely and tips on how users may do so. To educate industrial and business representatives and decision makers, they suggested establishing a Southeastern Regional Information Clearinghouse that would distribute water conservation information, models, case studies, and web-site links. The clearinghouse could serve both as a resource and as a vehicle to promote information exchange. They also suggested creating a ‘toolbox’ of educational materials and programs that agencies, businesses, and industries could use to conduct in-house training. Finally, conferees also suggested encouraging trade associations to conduct their national meetings in the Southeast (e.g., American Water Works Association Symposium). An overarching recommendation tied to each of these actions was to keep the water conservation message straightforward and simple.

Conferees discussed the importance of tracking, correcting, and reporting ‘unaccounted for water’ loss which largely results from leaks in customers’ service lines and plumbing fixtures. Repairing leaks conserves water and extends the life of the existing infrastructure. Also, by replacing faulty meters and metering un-metered connections, conferees pointed out that additional revenue could be generated to help fund infrastructure maintenance, repair, and expansion.

Conferees recommended lobbying for the retention of current federal legislation that effectively conserves water and modifying or repealing legislation that does not. An example of the former is the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1992 that has been considered for repeal, and which mandates a number of effective conservation-related practices (e.g., use of low-flush toilets). On the state level, conferees recommended that well-defined water conservation programs be established, and legislation be enacted, that would enable local governments to enforce water conservation practices. They also suggested reviewing and modifying health codes that inhibit water conservation. For example, some state health codes prohibit the lodging industry from promoting water conservation practices (e.g., reuse of towels). Conferees suggested that a federal/state interagency coalition be established that would be dedicated to promoting water conservation in the Southeast. This coalition, among other responsibilities, would develop common water conservation goals and objectives for this region and assist states in achieving them. Conferees also advocated water conservation incentives related to law, policy and pricing structure. These incentives should apply to industries, businesses and wastewater treatment plants. Finally, conferees also recommended incorporating ‘smart growth’ strategies into land use policies to deter urban sprawl.

Conferees suggested that local hydrologic assessments should be conducted to determine how best to manage water supplies. Such assessments could include aerial photography to determine the extent of impervious surface within local watersheds and basins. Such assessments would help local engineers and hydrologists to determine how to most effectively treat runoff from developed areas. They would also help to determine ways to retain water within basins where the water originates, which, as conferees pointed out, can help to alleviate downstream flooding and recharge local aquifers. Conferees also discussed the importance of citizens and businesses taking ownership of local water conservation efforts. For this to occur, they need to be provided information on actions they could take to conserve water (e.g., landscaping with native vegetation in order to lower water demands). Finally, conferees suggested that water management agencies consider the use of ‘water harvesting’ as an option for storing water after rain events.

Conferees discussed the value of water reuse (e.g., the reuse of treated wastewater for drinking water sources). However, they also acknowledged that this is a controversial area that should be addressed by Roundtable participants at a separate meeting/conference in the future.

Conferees discussed the need to develop and improve water conservation technologies. They also felt that the bulk of research conducted on water conservation technologies has thus far been more directly applicable to the arid West and Southwest than to our region and that more research needs to be done on technologies and techniques that may better meet the needs of the Southeast.

Wednesday Discussion Groups

Roundtable ‘wrap-up’ activities were conducted within four facilitator-led discussion groups. Following is a description of the outcomes of these discussions. First, we identify the common themes participants found in the summaries of the prior day’s concurrent session outcomes (Appendix C). Second, we describe the ‘next steps’ that participants felt should be taken following this Roundtable. Third, we list outcomes that participants hoped would emerge from the Roundtable. Only one group participated in the latter activity.

Strategies: Common Themes

Roundtable participants first reviewed the education, conservation, planning, and data management strategies they earlier developed to identify any common links or themes that might possibly resonate across all four priority issue areas. While five key themes appeared to be reflected in the groups’ discussion notes, it was not always clear whether these themes were desired outcomes or intended to serve as the basis for enabling strategies to be adopted.

Coordination/Cooperation: There is a need for better inter-agency coordination. This will facilitate improved communication, build trust, and possibly save resources by avoiding duplicating efforts.
Education: The public and decision makers need to be made more aware of, and be better educated on, the water supply issues facing the Southeast. Both the lack of awareness and the sense of urgency of these water supply issues are primary barriers to implementing many of the Roundtable’s strategies, unless rectified. Further, for all priority issue areas, the message should be tailored to the target audience and be simple and consistent.
Costs: Cost was a key theme in all four issue areas in two different contexts. The first was the costs of maintaining the Roundtable dialogue and implementing many of its strategies as well as the need to secure dedicated funding to support these efforts. The second context in which cost was discussed was in regards to the actual cost of water use and the need to incorporate this cost into rate structures, consumer incentive programs, educational programs, and water management plans.
Partnerships: There is a critical need to build partnerships at all levels within the Southeast to address water supply issues. More and stronger partnerships could improve overall coordination of agencies and organizations, facilitate communication, allow for sharing of resources and reduction of costs, and reduce ‘turf protection.’
Leadership/Champions: One or more ‘champions’ are needed who share a common vision for the Roundtable to continue to move it forward. Without such leadership, a unified effort to address the region’s water supply challenges is unlikely to emerge. A ‘champion’ may be an agency, organization, or individual. A potential constraint to this entity is finding sufficient time to shepherd the cause, given other responsibilities.

‘Next Steps’

In response to a request to identify potential ‘next steps’ in the Roundtable effort, each of the discussion groups generated lists of ideas. These ideas were neither extensively discussed within the groups nor were milestones imposed on when these ideas should be implemented. From our analysis of these lists, we found that ‘next steps’ fell into six general categories. Following is a brief discussion of each.

Education and Marketing: A massive educational effort is needed throughout the Southeast. The public, including youth, environmental professionals, and decision makers, should all be targeted. Presentations should be developed as part of a regional water supply education ‘toolbox’ to provide a consistent message to these target audiences. As appropriate, technical workshops (e.g., conservation; water supply planning) should also be conducted. In the short term, there should be a campaign to raise the public’s awareness of general water supply issues and a special effort to inform Southeastern governors and legislators about the Roundtable efforts.
Administration: A clear Roundtable mission statement needs to be developed that presents the vision, goals, rationale, and structure of this effort. It should be accompanied by a strategic plan (“road map”) that describes the steps for achieving the Roundtable goals. One participant suggested that the Roundtable should consider partnering with a compatible organization (e.g., Southern States Energy Board; Interstate Council on Water Policy; Southeastern Water Resource Research Institutes) to help carry out its mission. Another stated that the Roundtable should be coordinated and managed by multiple agencies and organizations. In either case, it was suggested that those devising the Roundtable structure avoid fostering a public perception that additional government bureaucracy is being created and find ways to make it possible for citizens to participate. Finally, to finance this effort, Roundtable organizers should begin seeking potential collaborative funding arrangements and possible grant sources
Regional Assessment of Resources: A comprehensive assessment of conservation, planning, education, and data management initiatives related to water supply across the Southeast should be initially conducted to determine baseline assets and needs. The results of this assessment may take the form of a resource matrix. It may also encompass a mapping analysis of the decision-making processes related to water supply management in the Southeast.
Political Legitimacy: Political ‘buy-in’ and endorsement from top political leaders (e.g., governors, state cabinet members, legislators) should be sought.
Increased Representation: More diverse representation (e.g., hydropower and other industries) on the Roundtable should be pursued in order to broaden its collective perspective.

Reflections on the Roundtable & its Future

Participants concluded their Wednesday morning session by providing final thoughts on the Roundtable and describing their aspirations for what it should ultimately try to accomplish. Some groups conducted an open discussion while others asked each participant to provide individual written responses.

In general, participants felt that the Roundtable was productive and that the process (i.e., “dialogue”) should continue. Specifically, participants stated that the timing was right (i.e., “ripe”) for such an initiative and that there truly appeared to be a “unity of purpose” among participants. One participant noted that he at no time during the Roundtable heard anyone express the view that water supply issues should not be addressed on a regional basis. Others stated that the Roundtable process should strategically move forward so as not to lose momentum, while at the same time bearing in mind that this was only the first step on a very long road; or, as another stated, “Rome was not built in a day.” Other comments also reflected this tone of realism and practicality. Some emphasized the need to set achievable objectives while others focused on the importance of being both fiscally creative and prudent. Finally, others honed in on the need to broaden and diversify perspectives and ensure that “all water issues” are addressed, not just water supply.

Several participants loosely defined a future role for the Roundtable. One aspired for it to become a “neutral forum for all stakeholders.” Another described it in a similar way, as an “impartial and fact-based group.” Finally, a couple of participants very generally saw it as serving as an ongoing “focal point for Southeast Water Supply” and as a “leader in search of solutions to water quality and quantity for future generations.”

Participants also identified a range of possibilities regarding what the Roundtable could ultimately accomplish. One participant desired that, in the short term, it would identify and/or develop a “champion capable of garnering wide support and respect” to “initiate the most important first steps of the Roundtable dialogue.” Another hoped to see the Roundtable evolve into a long-term dialogue that would result in cooperative solutions to regional water problems. Others hoped it would produce:

a more regional perspective on water supply issues;
improved communication among water resource professionals and decision makers;
better cooperation among Southeastern communities and states in water supply planning;
a public with a heightened awareness of water issues;
better informed decision makers (i.e., “more aware of just how dynamic and fragile the Southeast’s water resources are”);
a forum to facilitate comprehensive water quality and quantity programs throughout the Southeast.

Conclusions

The Roundtable concluded with a news conference to brief the media on its outcomes. Appendix F contains copies of newspaper and newsletter clippings that specifically addresses the Roundtable’s outcomes and/or issues discussed in it.

Since the November Roundtable, its Steering Committee convened on several occasions to assess the outcomes covered in this report, including the participants’ recommended ‘next steps.’ As a result of this assessment, the first step taken by the Steering Committee was to develop a charter and strategic plan which articulates a vision (“to help achieve a balanced and sustainable future water supply for the region”) and mission (“to provide a forum that ensures achievement of this vision.” A key component of the strategic plan designed to achieve this vision and mission is a partnership which has been established between the University of Tennessee (UT) - the Roundtable effort’s founder - and the Southern States Energy Board (SSEB), a consortium representing 16 states and two U.S. territories, with experience in tackling an assortment of environmental problems throughout the region.

The Steering Committee believes that UT and SSEB can be two of the “champions” (which Roundtable participants recommended were needed) to move this effort forward. Through their combined effort, the committee feels they will be able to reach out to high-level state decision makers and non-governmental organizations. They will also be able to network with economic and community development interests in the region whose involvement in, and support for reform of, water supply policies will be crucial for successful implementation of recommended strategies, particularly in such areas as conservation and water supply planning.

SSEB and UT also have complimentary assets. SSEB provides organizational strengths in fund-raising, networking, and decision maker outreach, while UT’s assets lie in water policy research and education. The strategic plan further outlines specific responsibilities for both entities and provides an organizational secretariat and “internal” and “external” advisory committees to oversee implementation of programmatic objectives, including additional stakeholder meetings, research projects, and/or mediation or facilitation services. A number of entities have endorsed the effort and serve on the secretariat, including regional representatives of EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey, Tennessee Valley Authority, U.S. Forest Service, and Southern Governors Association.

Following Roundtable participants’ recommendations, the new secretariat has proposed, and is seeking funding for, an assessment of water data needs for the region over the next 20 years. This assessment would feature a policy assessment of why current water supply data and the means by which they are gathered are fraught with inaccuracies; how these inaccuracies are products of systematic flaws in existing data collection systems; why this data problem affects the ability of decision makers to plan for impending user conflicts; and a prognosis of what may happen if these data needs remain unaddressed while demands increase and supply uncertainties remain.

It was the intent of the organizers of the Roundtable to launch a long-term regional dialogue to cooperatively tackle the region’s water supply challenges. Its outcomes have provided strategies for addressing these challenges and initial guidance on devising a structure to implement them. As one participant stated, the Roundtable is only the “first step on a very long road towards solving our region’s water problems.” It has at least set us on a course with a common destination, and given us a road map for reaching it.

311 Conference Center Building
Knoxville, TN 37996-4134
Phone: 865-974-4251
Fax: 865-974-1838

| EERC Home | Feedback | Search Entire EERC Website |