### Sustainable Water Resources Roundtable (SWRR)

# Proceedings for Meeting on June 19 & 20, 2003

######### U.S. Geological Survey, Reston VA

**Attendees**

Paul Barlow, DOI, USGS Steve Borchard, Bur. Land Management

Matthew Borgia, Nat. Oceanic & Atmospheric Adm. Tracy Bowen, Alice
Ferguson Foundation

Paul Brouha John Castellano, US Fish & WildlifeService

John Dawes, W. PA Watershed Program Warren Flint, Sustainable DC

Paul Freedman, Limno-Tech Cynthia Garman-Squier, US Army Civil Works

Stephen Gasteyer, Rural Community Ass't. Prog. Bob Goldstein, Electric
Power Research Institute Andrew Hagelin, Army Civil Works Keith Hanson,
Minnesota Power

Ted Heintz, DOI, CEQ Steve Hellem, Global Envt Mgmt Intiative

Doug Holy, Nat. Resources Conservation Service Sean Ianicone Intern US
Forest Service

Toni Johnson, US Geological Survey Rhonda Kranz, Ecological Society of
America

Jill Lane, Water Envt Federation Chris Lant, Univ. Council on Water
Resources

Kevin Lynott, National Weather Service Robin O'Malley, Heinz Center

Marshall Popkin WEF intern Stephen Ragone, Nat. Ground Water Assoc.

Doug Ryan, US Forest Service Craig Schiffries, Nat. Council Science &
Envt.

Jim Sedell US Forest Service Ron Shafer, Environmental Protection Agency
Karen Solari, US Forest Service Rick Swanson US Forest Service

Rahul Vaswani John Wells, State of Minnesota

Harry Zhang, American Water Resources Assoc. Tim Smith, SWRR Coordinator

David Berry, SWRR Manager/Facilitator

**Day 1\
**\
**Opening and review of the SWRR purpose and work done so far. Ted
Heintz**

How can we move toward a National System of Indicators on Natural and
Environmental Resources? We can develop a framework for the long run and
draw upon many building blocks from previous work. Water Resources is an
important part of natural and environmental resource systems

How can we use other Roundtables conducted in the areas of forests,
rangelands, and minerals?

1.  Roundtables as open, collaborative efforts among people with:

> Different expertise and interests
>
> Different knowledge and concepts
>
> Sometimes conflicting goals

2.  Roundtables share processes that "construct shared knowledge:"

> \- Broad stakeholder participation
>
> \- Committed people and organizations
>
> \- A culture of respect and trust despite differences
>
> \- Tolerance of fuzziness
>
> \- A mix of work settings and processes

Summary of Main Points:

Sustainability is a long run goal that reflects both widespread human
values and our scientific knowledge of the biosphere and the role of the
human species within it. The SWRR focus on indicators is consistent with
the fundamental concept that the miracle of the biosphere's
sustainability is in major part due to the feedback processes.
Indicators can help us to achieve sustainability by improving the
realism of the feedback within our social and economic systems. Such
feedback is a key element in most decision and management processes. The
SWRR can provide a process involving people from various contexts who
can together decide what indicators are relevant and useful in managing
water resources, a resource that is very important to achieving
sustainability. A key outcome of such efforts is the recognized
legitimacy of the information that is eventually assembled.

Questions for Ted Heintz

What is the role of CEQ in determining national environmental
indicators?

Ted: This group will discuss agency programs and the capability,
expertise, and equipment to do so; and which/where will be a National
lead/repository. We need to discover how to consolidate access to
multiple aspects of a resource, to conduct routine statistical reporting
on large assemblages of information (like economic stats) and to
collect/monitor ambient quality data

**Keynote Panel: Presentations on Sustainability of Water Resources from
six points of view followed by discussion. Rhonda Kranz, ESA moderator**

###### Steve Hellem -- Global Environmental Management Initiative GEMI {#steve-hellem-global-environmental-management-initiative-gemi .unnumbered}

The Global Environmental Management Initiative (GEMI) is a non-profit
organization of leading companies dedicated to fostering environmental,
health and safety excellence and corporate citizenship worldwide through
the sharing of tools and information in order for business to help
business achieve environmental excellence. In this SWRR meeting, we can
focus on the fact that indicators should have truly global impacts. GEMI
has done considerable work on the sustainability of water resources and
has water trends and other information on its web site at
[www.gemi.org/water](http://www.gemi.org/water). We have a vision that
the interests of our participating corporations and all industry are
supported by sustainability. The business case for pursuing
sustainability includes awareness of the uses and supply of water, the
potential for business disruption if water resources are not sustained
and customers expectations related to water. Smart companies will get
out in front of the issue.

GEMI has a water sustainability tool on its web site. We have also made
case studies and drawn some key lessons for companies.

# 

##### [Keith Hanson -- Minnesota Power]{.underline}  {#keith-hanson-minnesota-power .unnumbered}

Minnesota Power operates Coal / hydroelectric power plants in North
Central Minnesota which is a water-rich environment (the Land of 10,000
lakes) and also part of the Great Lakes Basin. There are increasing
pressures on water quantity in the Region.

Corporations have an interest in maintaining a sustainable supply of
clean water for their operations and to meet customers' needs.
Performance is enhanced using technology to use water more efficiently
for their operations and having data a water balance within the system.
A next step for Minnesota Power is to look at the water balance on a
watershed scale to assess vulnerability to droughts. The watershed view
should help to enhance the overall performance.

Minnesota Power attempts to meet corporate and social goals by:

a.  Reaching out to stakeholders

b.  Watershed Partnership (Business, industry, municipal, local, tribal,
    NGOs, educational, and research)

c.  Developing a watershed analysis for NW Lake Superior's watershed

d.  Framework designed to evaluate water resource issues and strategy

In response to a question from Rick Swanson of the Forest Service, Keith
said that the source waters for his company were primarily from public
land and that they had contacts with the Forest Service.

## 

## John Wells: State of Minnesota. State Perspective on Sustainable Water Management

[Defining what's sustainable.]{.underline} Minnesota has invested time
and energy into understanding "sustainable development" and its
implications and opportunities. The concept may best be understood when
stated simply as:

-   Thinking and acting as if the long-term future mattered

-   Recognizing how things connect

-   Living within our means

-   Meeting people's needs in ways that are good for communities,
    profitable and compatible with nature

We see a sustainable community, state or nation, as one that can persist
over generations and not undermine its economic, environmental or social
wealth, or that of others.

[The water context for understanding sustainability in
Minnesota]{.underline} Minnesota has identified nearly 2,000 impaired
lakes & streams so far, based on assessment of only 5% of its streams
and 12% of its lakes. Of the 911 impaired lakes identified thus far, 87%
are due to mercury in fish -- a regional, if not national problem. Up to
90 % of all lakes in agricultural areas are thought to be impaired by
excess nutrients. The more one travels south in Minnesota, the more a
water body is likely to be impaired.

The presence of herbicides is pervasive in shallow wells, with
detections of parent compounds in 60% of the 200 wells tested and
degradates in 95 % of the wells. Volatile organic compounds,
pharmaceuticals, growth hormones, endocrine disrupters and antibiotics
are also present. Every fish has mercury. Some also have PCBs, dioxins
and polybrominated diphenyl ethers. Minnesota also has concerns with
frog malformations and fish gender morbidity.

The availability of water in many areas also may limit growth. Heading
northwest of Minneapolis along a major growth corridor, supplies of
ground water become limited. Yet, we don't know the safe yield of
aquifers in the area, nor do we understand surface-ground water
interconnections or the sensitivity of aquifers to contamination. No one
takes responsibility for assessing the implications of projected growth
on supplies. All are keys to the sustainable management of water. The
use of Minnesota's waters does not appear to be on a sustainable course.

[The role of states and the opportunities:]{.underline} It can only get
increasingly difficult to protect the environment as time passes if the
economy says not to. States interested in aiding the move to
sustainability therefore have a responsibility to recognize a triple
bottom line. They must work hard to be -- and help others become
--fiscally prudent, ecologically intelligent and socially just. The
state role in helping society become sustainable is complex and
multi-faceted. States are advocates and integrators of social, economic
and environmental goals. They work to protect and allocate resources.
They levy taxes and set fees, fund research, educate, regulate,
subsidize, invest and act as product consumers. They also collaborate
extensively with local governments, regional organizations and the
federal government. How the states perform each of these jobs is the
key. Understanding how to do a job in a sustainable manner is not always
easy, and states will need help and guidance to do so.

Indicators help us think long term with systems & interconnections in
mind. Through the use of indicators, people can develop a common
language and better understand what outcomes are likely to be
sustainable, and where mid-course corrections are needed. According to
the Bellagio Principles, states (and others) must measure the well-being
of the whole system and its social, economic and environmental parts.
They need to understand the state of the system, as well as its
direction and rate of change and the interactions across system parts.
They also need to track the drivers of change, including intended and
unintended incentives, and their consequences. To understand water
sustainability, states must understand how water affects and is affected
by social, economic and environmental systems, today and long term.

This is a daunting task, and it makes opportunities for collective
action important to seize. Examples of these opportunities include:

-   Understanding systems, system change and drivers

-   Understanding out-of-bounds inputs and sinks (such as mercury or
    acid deposition from sources outside a state's boundaries)

-   Collaboration in monitoring, research, assessment, regulation,
    education, fund raising, consuming

These state responsibilities also show the work of the Sustainable Water
Resources Roundtable to be timely and on target. In particular, the SWRR
can help by developing a uniform framework for understanding water
sustainability, including a vision, principles, criteria and indicators.
It also can identify the key water connections within social, economic
and environmental systems.

States would benefit greatly from a commonly accepted model for
understanding and measuring progress toward water sustainability. The
model could include examples of how the concept of water sustainability
includes, pervades and affects social, economic and environmental
elements. Just like you cannot "take water out of the environment," you
cannot divorce water from its uses and benefits when analyzing its
"sustainability." The concept of "water sustainability" has little
meaning in a vacuum -- without the tie to how water may or may not meet
existing and long term future demands of humans and ecosystems.

# 

# [Linda Eichmiller, ASIWPCA: Sustainability in the Water Arena]{.underline}

Traditional national mandates and one-size fits all solutions are not
adequate, but that realization needs to be translated into a new
management paradigm at the national, state and watershed levels. Many
challenges can only be resolved at a watershed level and collaboration
is needed due to complex and interrelated issues. Perhaps the greatest
challenge that a manager faces is the need to effectively communicate
with, and engage, the public as full partners. This includes seniors,
youth and the private sector.

Generally, the technology and science exists to move forward in an
adaptive management process. The human factor is the weak link that
needs much greater attention. This entails new management skills,
improved strategies and better communication. Successful application of
social marketing principles is important, due to the need for behavioral
and life style changes. But, that is a foreign concept to managers.
Since resources are limited, it is important to correctly diagnose the
situation and consider the benefits and risks of alternatives, without
getting bogged down in trying to craft "the perfect solution."

Starting small and building on success is often a good strategy.
Education may be the single most effective management practice. State,
regional and national governments must take a leadership role to
establish a clear vision and facilitate the process. Other stakeholders
rely on them for useful information and tools to help focus on the right
questions and penetrate the thicket of intertwined programs, laws and
regulations. Since effective approaches involve local land use, the
traditional national/state toolbox must be supplemented with other
stakeholders' tools. New and more creative approaches are needed,
including flexible market based approaches. Stakeholders at all levels
of government need to gain a better understanding of, and fully utilize,
their collective assets. Significant progress has been made on
coordination, but we have only scratched the surface of what
stakeholders are capable of doing.

Stakeholders need to reach consensus on what biological integrity means,
how it should be measured. While this is the Clean Water Act's goal, the
national program has not been driven by that goal. More monitoring and
better techniques are needed to gather the right kind of data and
provide enough information to make good decisions. Managers should seek
creative alternatives. Volunteer and other 3^rd^ party initiatives
should be encouraged. Improvements are essential in data base management
as well as public access to information. National governments need to
pay more attention to transboundary issues and foster large
multi-jurisdictional watershed efforts. Watershed managers in the public
and private sector need a forum to periodically come together to discuss
issues and share information. Issues that need much more attention
include: The impact of air deposition (mercury); Infrastructure -- how
to build and pay for it; and drought management and climate change.

**[Chris Lant, University Council on Water Resources: Water Resources
Sustainability: An Ecological Economics Perspective.]{.underline}**

Ecological economics provides us with the best normative and analytical
guide to identifying sustainable paths and rectify unsustainable paths
by, essentially, expanding the meaning of "efficiency" to include system
interactions and non-market components such as ecosystem services and
human capital. Figure 1 presents a systems conceptualization of
sustainable development where natural, human, intellectual and
manufactured capital are transformed continuously, one into another, by
the processes of the market economy.

Water plays at least three critical but distinct roles in the
ecological-economic process diagrammed in Figure 1. 1) withdrawn water
as a raw material or a factor of production of a number of marketable
commodities 2) potable water as a critical contributor to human health
3) water in oceans, estuaries, rivers, lakes, wetlands, soil, and other
components of the hydrologic cycle as a, if not the, critical factor of
production of ecosystem services.

Measuring the components of this figure in specific situations, however,
represents a steep methodological challenge that has not yet been met.
In order to apply ecological economics rigorously in any given specific
situation, we need to know how to measure the current local marginal
ecological opportunity costs and benefits associated with various
management or policy options as well as the marginal economic costs and
benefits. Contingent valuation and genetic algorithms currently
represent the most promising methodologies.

These ideas were applied to three issues in water resources management:

> 1\) a human right to water
>
> 2\) integrated water resources management (IWRM)
>
> 3\) virtual water

Each were found to be generally consistent with the ecological economics
perspective on sustainability.

> ![](media/image1.jpeg){width="5.999305555555556in"
> height="4.2340277777777775in"}

#### 

#### 

#### [John Dawes Summary: Western Pennsylvania Watershed Program]{.underline}

The purpose of the Western Pennsylvania Watershed Program is to protect
or restore Pennsylvania's unique water resources on an ecosystem basis
and to foster separate technologies used to preserve and reclaim
watersheds.

The Western Pennsylvania Watershed Protection Program is a small grants
program, funded by private philanthropy, with the intent to leverage
state and federal contracts for watershed restoration and preservation.
To date, having been in business for nine years, \$3m has been granted
to watershed associations, and this has resulted in over \$27m. in
projects.

Program areas include, Abandoned Mine Drainage. Whether a discharge is
acidic or alkaline makes a difference in design of a passive treatment
system and the Program fosters separate technologies. A unique
opportunity has been an outcome of Program grants. Some groups are
attempting to implement separation technologies for metals into their
designs, in order to produce a saleable oxide as well as produce clean
water. This Program area is called Resource Recovery. Non-point source
pollution is becoming the number one water quality problem in the state,
as stretches of stream come back to life through AMD abatement. Toward
this end, grants are made to groups that implement rotational grazing
systems, spring development, and streambank fencing. Riparian planting
using native species is a good method for filtering nutrients.
Accompanying this Program area is the Cold Water Heritage Fisheries
Program of DCNR and the Western Pennsylvania Watershed Program makes
small grants to facilitate this planning process.

[\
**Presentation by Sustainability Concept Group (Stephen Gasteyer).
**]{.underline}

Members of the group: Rhonda Kranz, Ted Heintz, Warren Flint, Al
Steinman and Stephen Gasteyer.

We discuss concepts in order to better deal with complexity and to build
a shared language and common understanding. This understanding will help
to structure the SWR Roundtable process and promote learning needed to
move toward sustainability

There are a number of systems concepts we can use to understand how the
world works including the Systems Perspective and Set Theory Model. We
see a biosphere, encapsulated with three systems: natural, social, and
economic systems. Two examples were given of how these interconnect:

1.  Community Water Supply Example of the Systems Perspective

2.  Hydropower and Fishery Example of the Systems Perspective

All systems have subsystems and components, structure and processes
through which subsystems and components interact and properties that
result from the characteristics of subsystems, components structure, and
interactions.

In a view of sustainability we must look at the role of capital. Capital
is the capacity to produce a flow of value over an extended time and all
three systems produce flows of services, experiences, or goods over
time. All three systems contain capital. Sustainability can thus be
assessed using criteria and indicators of environmental, social, and
economic capital. Capital is a property that results from the
characteristics of subsystems, components, structure, and interactions.
The Brundtland Commission definition of sustainability as: "Meeting
current needs without compromising the opportunities to meet the needs
of future generations" it can be closely related to the maintenance of
these various forms of capital.

Concepts We Can Use to Organize Information:

Roles and Uses of Information: Three Views:

Assessment, Diagnosis, Prognosis, Prescription, Treatment, Reassessment

Policy Making, Forecasting and Evaluation, and Management

Research and Education

Information Pyramid shows the levels of data, information and indicators
and distinguished the role of each.

Three Meanings of "Criteria":

A specific target that is accepted as a threshold of success for an
objective

A generally desirable direction of change for a category of phenomena

A general category of phenomena for which we may later specify the
desirable direction of

> change or a specific target

A Process for Identifying Criteria and Indicators Based on Relationships
Between Systems & Information Concepts to Assess Resource Sustainability
could links the idea of criteria to a set of general categories of
capital. Once categories of capital have been identified, indicators can
be determined. Here are some examples of identifying criteria:

Types of outputs people value: Food, Energy, Recreation, Wildlife,
Drinking water

Types of valued capital: Biodiversity and biological productivity,
climate and hydrologic capacities, built structures and facilities, fish
and water stocks, fisheries management laws and institutions

Questions and Answers regarding Sustainability Concept Group (Stephen
Gasteyer presiding)

In the discussion period the SWRR participants spoke about the
relationship between long-term and. immediate concerns, the need to look
broadly into many issues such as technology and salinization,
agricultural development, and a focus on the future. We need to develop
indicators that might lead to alternative outcomes perhaps through a
discussion of water budget. Any discussion of sustainability must factor
in how we impact the inputs and outputs of the water cycle.

**[Breakouts on Concepts of Water Sustainability]{.underline}**

1.  Questions and discussion on the concepts presented? On components of
    sustainability? 

2.  Is anything missing?  What should be added or deleted?

3.  Is the focus on long-term capacity (capital) rather than indicators
    of current outputs   acceptable and within constraints of programs
    you work with?

4.  Is focus on assessment in criteria and indicator selection, setting
    aside diagnosis and forecasting to be addressed later in the
    roundtable process acceptable?

5.  Will the concepts presented work as a guide for the roundtable
    process of selecting criteria, indicators and related elements?    
     

####### Summary -- Robert Goldstein---Brown Group

Unlike the first SWRR workshop, that was for the most part
organizational, this workshop centered on substantive deliberations
about water resources sustainability issues, criteria, indices and
research. SWRR already has gone a long way to producing two important
products, both of which have been discussed at this meeting. The first
is a conceptual framework for surface water resources sustainability,
produced by Rhonda Krantz and her conceptual framework committee. The
second is the review by Tim Smith of the literature on environmental and
sustainability criteria and indices. At the meeting is was decided that
Rhonda and Tim will be responsible for preparing papers on their
products to be published in a special issue of Water Resources Update
devoted to the topic of water sustainability.

Key points by Ted Heinz. Decision-making is an iterative long-term
process. While there will be major data and knowledge shortcomings that
impact our ability to produce criteria and indices, it is important for
SWRR to start now. Our objective should be to affect the way decisions
are made, improve decisions, and promote sustainability. It is important
that SWRR be an open collaborative process. In comparing sustainability
topics (forests, rangelands, minerals, water), it is worth noting that
not all are equally fuzzy. I would argue that minerals and water are
more tractable than forests and rangelands.

Key points by Panel. Both industrial panelists, Keith Hanson and Steve
Hellern, emphasized importance for industry to be proactive in reaching
out to stakeholders. Both agreed that water sustainability was an
important issue for industry. The pharmaceutical industry which had not
thought about water availability in the past, has recently seen that a
sufficient supply of inexpensive, clean, fresh water to meet its needs
may not always be there. Hellern also called for a simple set of
indicators such as a car instrument panel.

John Wells emphasized the need to balance growth against environmental
and human health protection. He pointed out the lots of agencies are
collecting relevant data but no one is integrating these data into the
big picture. Linda Eichmiller discussed the need for a toolbox to solve
water sustainability issues. She noted that one approach does not
resolve all issues. She also advocated more monitoring and the creation
of new scientific techniques. John Dawes demonstrated how a local-based
environmental group could use small grants to leverage highly effective
environmental projects. He specifically spoke about restoration of
waters impaired by acid mine drainage in western Pennsylvania and the
value of local action. His perspective was bottom-up, down-to earth and
pragmatic. In contrast, Chris Lant from academia took a more conceptual,
philosophical, top-down perspective. Chris introduced terms such as
natural, social, intellectual and manufactured capital, as well as
virtual water. He spoke about needing to transform the existing economic
system to effectively deal with the different types of capital.

####### Summary -- Paul Freeman---Blue Group

This breakout discussion group agreed with the basic foundation of
"capital" proposed by the Sustainability Conceptual Framework Work Group
but had other suggested improvements. The group felt the concept of
capital was an effective tool to balance and allocate "spending" in our
analogous water "checkbook and savings accounts". The goal would be to
balance our account or even accrue added capital to the accounts. The
group felt that the hydrologic cycle should be the basic organizing
structure. For the assessment and allocation of water capital, natural,
economic and social factors would effect valuation and allocation of
"spending." The group also emphasized, that the conceptual framework
needs to start with a vision, and then building a model that allows
assessment diagnosis [and]{.underline} forecasting.

**[Summary -- Rick Swanson - Green Group]{.underline}**

The breakout group began with a discussion of the presentation on
concepts of sustainability. The group looked at uses of economic
indicators as a precedent for sustainability indicators on water. They
discusses the differences in looking at capital rather than or in
addition to the output sphere (includes social, economic, and
environmental). There was a discussion of measuring process vs.
stressors on the quality and supply of water with the idea that criteria
and indicators should trigger futuring i.e. thinking about the future.
The group agreed that basic principles need to be articulated.

Who's not here? The group discussed the need to involve more
corporations, non-profit groups, communities and states in the process.
Sustainability is an issue at different scale levels.

The group liked the use of water budget as a basic framework for
indicators.

**[Questions and comments following Breakout Session (Facilitated by
David Berry)]{.underline}**

Warren Flint was concerned that too much focus on indicators will limit
us.

Stephen Gasteyer said we should not forget work on indicators that's
already been done.

Doug Holy said the vision from the Bellagio Principles will help us to
determine various other factors.

Rhonda Kranz reminded us that moving forward, people with new ideas need
to participate more fully. People respond differently to initiators and
language.

Ted Heintz spoke of using the hydrologic cycle and water budgets as
organizing principles

Chris Lant said we can rally other groups around the notion of natural
capital. Is natural capital the actual indicator and how do we measure
natural capital?

John Castellano: Social and economic values of water are based on usage.

Ted Heintz : Hesitant about the use of the word value

Craig Schiffries: Indicators may change over time.

John Castellano: Worried that we're looking at sustainability only as a
water factor. Water budgets change over long periods; any study requires
that we make projections into the future.

Rhonda Kranz: People seem to like the idea of capital

> Interest in using the hydrologic cycle must include social, economic,
> and natural capitals.
>
> Other systems and models may be incorporated.
>
> Issues persist related to vision and time scale.

David Berry: The roundtable approach for identifying criteria and
indicators allows people with many views to comment & move toward
consensus.

######## [Criteria & Indicators, Tim Smith]{.underline}

What Studies Exist about Sustainability? This review is based on seven
existing studies that include criteria and indicators. There are others
too, but this is a good place to start. The links to each of these
studies can be found on the Water Roundtable web site, at
<http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi/swrr/> The seven studies are:

Roundtables on Forestry, Rangelands, and Minerals (each developed water
indicators)

"Sustainable Development in the U.S." (IWGSDI)

"State of the Nation's Ecosystems" (Heinz Center)

EPA State of the Environment Report, in draft form

USGS "Concepts for National Assessment of Water Availability and Use"
(Circular 1223)

What do we need to learn? By examining these studies, we hope to draw on
knowledge that will help the Water Roundtable to address such important
questions as:

> What criteria do others use to select good indicators?
>
> How can these criteria be adapted for SWRR use?
>
> What do others define as an indicator?
>
> How can these indicators be used by SWRR?
>
> What indicators might be added or deleted?
>
> What is the SWRR rationale for these choices?

Technical Criteria for indicators: First we can look in the professional
literature to see what kinds of criteria are proposed for selecting good
indicators. One such source lists the following criteria

1.  The indicator from which it is calculated should be readily
    available.

2.  The indicator should be easy to understand.

3.  The indicator must be measurable.

4.  The indicator should measure something believed to be important in
    its own right.

5.  There should only be a short lag time between the state of affairs
    referred to and the indicator becoming available.

6.  The indicator should be based on information that can be used to
    compare different geographical areas.

7.  International comparability is desirable.

These criteria are from Moffatt, Ian, Nick Hanley, and Mike D. Wilson,
"Measuring and Modelling Sustainable Development," Parthenon Publishing,
New York, 2001.

Category or subject related criteria for Indicators: If we look at the
seven studies, we see that the definitions of criteria for selecting
indicators are quite varied. For example, here are how the different
studies conceive of criteria:

First, looking at the other three sustainable resource roundtables: The
Roundtable on Sustainable Forest stated criteria as goals as has the
Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable. The Sustainable Minerals Roundtable
uses criteria which are goals supplemented by indicator properties.

The Interagency Working Group on Sustainable Development Indicators (SDI
Group) used six technical indicator properties. The Heinz Center used
goals plus some indicator properties as criteria for indicators.

The EPA Report on the Environment used quality, coverage, & suitability
categories with details about indicator properties. The USGS Concepts
for National Assessment of Water Availability and Use used a mix of
indicator technical properties plus geographical and process
requirements.

[Day 2\
]{.underline}

**[Breakouts on Criteria]{.underline}**

Initial discussion to identify a range of categories to be addressed.
Which criteria common to other roundtables and groups are most useful to
the SWRR? What additional ones or modifications are needed in our
discussions on water sustainability? Can the groups identify 8 -10
categories or criteria subjects? Steering Committee members facilitate
groups.

Green Group: Cynthia Garman Squier, Sean Ianacone, Rick Swanson, Matt
Borgia, Jim Sedell, Chris Lant, Steve Ragone

General Criteria

Surface water quality Physical condition of waterways Biological
condition of waterway

Ground water quality Ground water quantity Use and availability of water

Security Water infrastructure and condition Public health

Externalities

Climate Population density Technological innovation

Policy regulation Land use/cover/change Security issues -- extreme
events

Ecological / Economic / Social

Availability / condition Security Public health

Construct

Net availability Water budget Hydrologic function

Spatial / temporal / scale Water imbalance Data / knowledge base

Legal / economic

Blue Group: Robin O'Malley, Doug Holy, John Wells, Keith Hanson, Paul
Barlow, Paul Freedman, Marshall Popkin

Criteria groupings

Recreation Power / industrial Wildlife

Quality / quantity Ground water / storm water Natural / social /
economic

Matrix

Key: Capital that has value to protect has relevance to sustainability

Uses

Recreation i. Boating ii. Fishing iii. Swimming iv. Viewing / aesthetics

Ecosystem i. Flora ii. Fauna iii. Flood protection iv. Water quality /
waste

Drinking water

Transportation i. Navigation ii. Pipelines / coal slurries

Industrial / Commercial

Waste management

Role of energy/energy industry

Brown Group: Tim Smith, Steve Borchard, Bob Goldstein, Karen Solari,
Kevin Lynott, Stephen Gasteyer, John Castellano, Jill Lane, Rhonda Kranz

Conservation of watershed conditions

> Water yield dynamics (including physical attributes)
>
> Biological & hydrogeologic cycling (function)

Biodiversity

> Habitat fragmentation
>
> Population health
>
> Invasive Species

Water quality / bioquality

> By use
>
> By sector

In stream

Withdrawal

Ground water system integrity

Water hazards

> Floods
>
> Droughts
>
> Systemic hazards
>
> Endocrine Disruptors
>
> Species Deformity
>
> Pharmaceutical concerns
>
> Pathogens
>
> Extreme weather events
>
> Security (terrorism, hazardous waste, slurry holding areas)

Social Infrastructure

> Legal institutional policy / framework
>
> Spiritual
>
> Ethical
>
> Cultural

Economic Infrastructure

> Degraded water resources
>
> Potentially treatable water sources -- water reuse -- recycling

Coastal Estuarine

Human Hazards

> Security (terrorism, hazardous waste, slurry holding areas)

**[Discussion on Criteria Reports from breakouts]{.underline}**.

David Berry: Compatibility with other roundtables and the CEQ effort is
nontrivial. It is good to have a debate today, but we should have a
sub-group refine the criteria & come back to us. What are the
commonalities of the three groups?

Robin O'Malley: In the Heinz Project we looked at the extent of the
system; its chemical and physical characteristics; biological
components; and the uses we make of it

Paul Freedman -- A sub-group will need guidance before going to work.

Matt Borgia: Maybe there should be one sub-group that takes the "capital
and hydrologic" approach, while another takes the "uses" approach

Chris Lant: Argued for defining criteria now; a subcommittee could
tackle the next level. We should develop materials for a conference
presentation for others to recruit new participants (no special
authorization is needed). The "destination" of the SWRR process is CEQ;
Heinz Center (which gets federal \$ from CEQ); USFS 2005 report on state
of the nation's natural resources; USFS will use the indicators in
setting resource management goals, etc.; BLM may follow.

Chris Lant suggested the following criteria:

Criteria one: Maintaining the availability of water of sufficient
quality & quantity for legitimate uses

Criteria two. Maintaining the physical & biological integrity of
aquatic, wetland and coastal environments

Criteria three. Protecting human health & property against damages from
floods, droughts,

> water-borne disease and hostile actions

Criteria four. Maintaining the functionality and safety of water
resources infrastructure

Criteria five. Building & retaining the knowledge and database needed to
assess the degree to which

> these criteria are being met at the basin and watershed scale and the
> understanding of social factors that affect these criteria.

Criteria six. Ensuring the water resources decision-making process is
participatory, democratic and

Equitable

Robin O'Malley: National perspectives are important, but they should be
focused also on spinning off into small-scale places. Are national
questions and indicators the same at local levels? At what level do you
measure: local or national?

Tim Smith -- The definition of sustainability can be different based on
whether the level considered is local or national. Working "top down"
and "bottom up" simultaneously to identify "the issues" and evolve
indicators from the "issues". We need to measure sustainability at all
scales.

We also need to set boundaries around water indicators to maintain focus
on water capital.

Scarcity is a fundamental issue and may be an effective focus that
covers many other issues.

**[Presentations on indicators: Tim Smith]{.underline}**

Summary: Water Indicators Used in Studies.

Now it is possible to summarize the very large number of water
indicators as used in the seven studies mentioned yesterday:

Roundtable on Sustainable Forestry: Area, flow, biological diversity,
quality.

Sustainable Rangeland Roundtable: Area, flow, erosion, biota, quality,
channels, ground water change, wetlands, riparian extent and condition

Sustainable Minerals Roundtable: Quality compliance, problem sites re
withdrawal & ground water, use, consumption, discharge, recycling,
reinjection, evaporation.

SDI Group: Sustainable Development in the US: Quality, supply vs.
withdrawal

Heinz Center State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Area, length, chemical &
physical conditions, biota, withdrawal, groundwater level, disease,
recreation

EPA Report: Area, length, use standards, withdrawal, ecosystems,
riparian land cover, atmospheric deposition, runoff, sedimentation,
toxic releases, nutrients, wetlands, coastal waters, eutrophication,
drinking water quality, recreation, seafood consumption.

USGS Circular: Surface & ground-water availability (flow, storage);
withdrawal, consumption, losses; water cycle (inflow, outflow, storage).

Conclusions: The seven studies examined for this analysis show a great
variety of water indicators, although there are a few that appear
repeatedly. The purposes of each study are different, and that certainly
tends to tailor the indicator to the purpose. For example, the
Sustainable Minerals Roundtable is very concerned with the problems
associated with extractive mineral sites, and for that reason there
tends to be a concentration on water quality and compliance measures at
individual sites. In some of the studies water is just a part of the
focus, which tends to preclude going into detail if a limited number of
total indicators is an objective. Clearly, it will be much harder to
grasp an overall picture if one must deal with a very large number of
indicators.

Some types of indicators tend to recur. For example, some measure of
water quantity, measured in flow, area, water use, or availability. The
terminology may differ. Also, we find measures of water quality in
chemical and biological terms. It's much harder to find indicators of
extreme hydrologic conditions, such as floods and droughts. There may be
an assumption of "business as usual" underlying these studies.

Future selection of indicators for the Water Roundtable may thus depend
on how one defines water resources sustainability. If sustainability
implies some form of long-term balance among environmental, economic,
and cultural elements, then water indicators must be connected not only
with other parts of the environment, but also with the economy and the
culture as well. Substantial research problems exist in developing just
how this might be done. It is likely that working on these problems will
be part of the future work of the Water Roundtable, and perhaps finally
lead to water indicators of sustainability that can be used by a wide
variety of organizations throughout the nation.

**[Research on water sustainability: Bob Goldstein]{.underline}**

There are several possible SWRR research roles including serving as a f

orum for discussion among participants and organizing

sessions at SWRR workshops. SWRR could be a catalyst for project
development among member organizations.

In the future a newsletter could be circulated with critical reviews of
research. There could be SWRR sponsored research projects directly
funded by members or with SWRR serving as a funding broker

Research Topics could include:

•Criteria and indices

•Best Management Practices with respect to water for agriculture,
forestry and other industries

•Advanced cooling technologies

•Degraded water use

•Watershed management decision support models

•Water conservation technologies

•Water banking and trading

•Advanced monitoring technologies

Set up of workgroups on indicators and research. David Berry
(participants choose from breakout groups based on the criteria
categories identified earlier. There will also be a breakout group on
research. This is the beginning of parallel work groups.)

**[Summary of Meeting: Bob Goldstein]{.underline}**

> A. Simplicity of the criteria is pertinent

A.  Many groups collect data, but much of that data has not been
    integrated

    1.  Widespread problem

    2.  SWRR could play a role in mitigating this issue.

B.  One science doesn't fit everything\--different regions have
    different problems.

C.  Need more and better monitoring techniques

D.  Small amounts of money can be leveraged to make a big impact in an
    area. Bottom up approach. Top down approach should be done
    simultaneously

E.  Publication of SWRR work should be considered

F.  When should we hold the next meeting? Early November?

G.  Look for free/donated space---possibly in federal building

H.  Outreach to other groups needed (David Berry to chair Outreach)

**[Meeting Close: David Berry]{.underline}**

Action Items:

Criteria Group: Rhonda Kranz will call the Concept group into session to
integrate the criteria. Ted Heintz, Steve Gasteyer, Warren Flint, Al
Steinman, Paul Freedman, David Berry (others welcome to join)

Outreach Group: To enroll new participants: David Berry, Tim Smith,
Tracy Bowen

Research Group: Bob Goldstein

Facility Group: To find Free meeting space: Tracy Bowen, David Berry

Funding Group: Rick Swanson, Bob Goldstein, David Berry, Ted Heintz.
Help with Congress from Paul Freedman, John Dawes. Requests to
Foundations -- Rhonda Kranz will check with ESA and Jill Lane will check
with WEF.