![](media/image1.jpeg){width="2.8027777777777776in"
height="1.3444444444444446in"}

**[Sustainable Water Resources Roundtable Meeting]{.mark}**

**September 13-14, 2004**

**[Landmark Center, 75 West Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota]{.mark}**

**PROCEEDINGS**

[]{.mark}

[The meeting was held in St. Paul to encourage participation from the
Upper Midwest. The goal was to focus on the criteria and indicator
categories that had been worked on at previous meetings and "populate"
those categories with indicators from the large list of candidate
indicators drawn from many sources including other multi-stakeholder
groups working with water. Significant progress was made and lists of
categories and indicators for the ecological, economic and social
systems are being edited by volunteer subcommittees. Many thanks to John
Wells for hosting this successful meeting!]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

**[Participants:]{.mark}**

[Larry Baker,]{.mark}

Stephan Barg,

Paul Barlow,

David Berry

Sara Bertelsen,

Terry Birkenstock,

Bruce Bomier,

Martha Brand,

Kent Cavender-Bares,

Nancy Conley,

R. John Dawes,

Chris Elvrum,

Jan Falteisek,

John Helland,

Brian Hill,

Dale Homuth,

Louise Hotka,

Roman Kanivetsky,

Arturo Keller,

Rhonda Kranz,

Ralph Marra,

James Nachbaur, Raymond Newman,

Dale Phenicie,

Laurel Reeves,

Paul Schmiechen, Glenn Skuta,

Jeff Stoner,

Michael Strigel,

Judy Sventek,

Rick Swanson,

Robert Szaro,

Harvey Thorleifson, Paul Toren,

Sarah Tufford,

Susan Van Mosch, Jean Wagenius,

John Wells,

Keith Wendt,

Bob Wilkinson

**[Day 1, Monday, September 13]{.mark}**

[]{.mark}

**Opening: David Berry**, SWRR Manager, opened the meeting with a
reminder of the fundamental importance of water to life and that we were
gathered to consider criteria and indicators that would support
sustainable decision-making about water.

**John Wells**, Water and Sustainable Development Director, Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board, welcomed participants to Minnesota and gave
background on the recent work on water information, sustainable
development and research in the State of Minnesota.

**Review of the purpose of SWRR and progress to date:** **Rick
Swanson**, US Forest Service and SWRR Co-chair, summarized the
relationships of the SWRR to the White House Council on Environmental
Quality's environmental indicator effort, to the Forest, Rangelands and
Minerals Roundtables and to the Advisory Committee on Water Information.
He also reviewed SWRR's work so far on criteria, categories and
indicators that we would build upon at this meeting. Participants had
the latest criteria and indicators e-mailed to them prior to the
meeting.

**Self-Introductions:** Facilitated by **David Berry:** Participants
each spoke for a minute about their interest in water issues, what their
hopes were for the meeting and what visions or concerns they brought
into the discussions.

**Panel: Presentations on Sustainability of Water Resources** **from
various viewpoints.** **Rhonda Kranz**, Ecological Society of America,
moderated.

**Speakers:**

**Martha Brand**, Executive Director, Minnesota Center for Environmental
Advocacy and Board Chair, American Rivers: From the standpoint of water
quality advocacy, Martha said it is essential that the most important
criteria be written into statutes, regulations and enforceable
agreements. Regulation of water quality in the Clean Water Act refers to
the chemical, physical and biological integrity of water. These have
served us well over the last thirty years but are limited both in scope
and the fact that in most cases they are one-dimensional. The challenge
ahead is to write enforceable multi-dimensional standards that will help
us address the remaining, tougher water quality issues facing us today.

**Jeff Stoner**, Minnesota District Chief, Water Resources, USGS: Jeff
described the USGS and Minnesota perspective on assessing sustainability
of water resources under the context of data availability, assessment
and analysis of data, and specific analysis to support sustainability
decisions. Decisions, such as for assessing water resources
sustainability, commonly are made on limited information. Understanding
lag times in hydrologic processes and the value of transferability of
data and information are key points of discussion encouraged on the
sustainability issues and for remembering to think about the future of
water resources.

Regarding Data, Jeff said that USGS periodically compiles and
synthesizes data and information to describe national status and trends
in water use. ("Estimated Use of Water in the U.S. in 2000," USGS
Circular 1268). The foundation of such estimates comprises State
databases, such as from Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources (MDNR):
(<http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/appropriations/wateruse.html>.
Long-term data sets are vital for indicating quantity (availability) of
surface and ground waters. Such data are used to estimate water
conditions into the future. (USGS, MDNR, USACOE, watershed districts,
Metropolitan Council of Environmental Services and local groups support
Data collection). Trends in USGS data collection for stream-flow
monitoring in Minnesota have been in a slight decline since 1975. (Some
of these stream-gauging sites have been picked up by state agencies at
similar and (or) different locations). USGS in cooperation with MDNR
recently has initiating "real-time" ground-water levels for data and
public awareness about ground-water storage sensitive to climate change.
See the USGS-Minnesota Home page:
[http://mn.water.usgs.gov](http://mn.water.usgs.gov/) for links to
real-time hydrologic data and reports.

With respect to assessment and analysis of data, Jeff said the Upper
Mississippi National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) is part of a USGS
program to link land use with quality of streams, rivers, and ground
water. Indicators focus on drinking water sources and benefits for
aquatic organisms. An analysis of water-use data in the Red River of the
North Basin (in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, N.
Dakota Water Commission and MDNR) used State water-use information plus
permitted-point-discharge data from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA)/EPA on return flows to provide a consistent picture of
surface-water resources within this multistate basin. Canada is
interested as a downstream user of water. The study purpose was to
synthesize basin flows from historical surface water withdrawals and
returns to the stream system. Issues discovered about water-use
indicators included:

-   Differing state formats for water use were filtered to a common
    format. Differing periods of water use records among the states
    resulted in a common, but shorter than the desired period for the
    study.

-   To model water use in the basin, return flows also were required.
    Return flows are no longer part of the National Water Use
    Compilation. Return flow information was obtained from the EPA PCS
    database, which is populated from discharge permit information
    maintained by the MPCA. These data were checked for outliers and
    consistency.

> Recent exploratory analysis of existing data in USGS files indicates
> value of reviewing long-term data for relevance in water resources
> sustainability. Results suggest that managing the instream water
> resources may benefit from (1) reviewing historical precipitation
> data, (2) estimating low-flow characteristics related to precipitation
> data, and (3) incorporating effects of varying climate over a 15-year
> period. The customary time period of 30 years, commonly used to define
> weather conditions, may be an excessive period of time and not as
> relevant for assessing water-resource sustainability of current
> conditions in some basins.

Regarding specific analysis to support sustainability decisions, USGS
conducted a study for source-water protection in central Minnesota, in
cooperation with Mn. Dept. of Health, Cities of St. Cloud, Minneapolis
and St. Paul, to verify theoretical time of travel with a field
experiment. The field-verified results proved useful for managing an
actual accidental manure spill. USGS studies of ground-water
availability rely on fundamental frameworks of hydrogeology. Geologic
and hydrologic models are commonly used to extend limited point data for
such studies. These tools further demonstrate the importance of lag-time
and data transfer principles that might be considered in choosing
indicators sustainability water resources for various purposes.

**Stephan Barg**, Senior Corporate Advisor, International Institute for
Sustainable Development

Winnipeg, Manitoba), made a presentation on international indicator
usages.  He discussed the European Water Directive, which sets out the
policy framework for countries in the EU.  The framework includes a
watershed based approach and specific implementation timelines.  The
second international example covered was one component of the indicators
of water quality developed by the U. K. Environmental Change Network,
which uses a simple quality index to present complex scientific
judgements.  Finally, a tool developed by IISD for evaluating
sustainable development progress in energy policy was presented. This
tool links actual progress to an analysis of whether the progress is
fast enough, and relates the progress to the level of policy activity in
governments.

 

**Lunch Speaker: Harvey Thorleifson**, Director, Minnesota Geological
Survey:

Harvey said that in many regions, groundwater is the principal drinking
water source, it is the principal source of irrigation water, it is a
critical water supply for industry, it is our principal usable
freshwater reserve, and it is the source of water for wetlands &
streamflow. We therefore need to ensure that our groundwater usage is
sustainable, defined by United States Geological\
Survey as development and use of groundwater in a manner that can be
maintained for an indefinite time without causing unacceptable
environmental, economic, or social consequences. Achievement of this
objective will ensure sustainable long-term yields, maintenance of river
flow, effective use of stored water, preservation of water quality, and
preservation of aquatic environments. We can achieve this by balancing
groundwater pumping and land use activity with maintaining groundwater
quality and quantity. These objectives require indicators of groundwater
quality and quantity, as well as indicators of our state of knowledge
regarding groundwater systems. This is a challenge, because groundwater
systems are difficult to visualize, and technologically challenging to
assess. But geological survey agencies are developing methods for
enhanced 3D groundwater system mapping. Surficial and bedrock maps are
being digitized and reconciled, while multiple generations of legends
are being made accessible in a categorized format. Regional 3D
geological models that integrate soils and geology, surficial and
bedrock geology, as well as onshore and offshore are increasingly in
demand as the information, technology, and protocols to build them
progress. Applications such as regional groundwater modeling require
digitizing, reconciliation, and assembly of a digital elevation model,
bathymetry, offshore geology, soils, surficial geology, public domain
drillhole and geophysical data, bedrock maps, and existing stratigraphic
models typically expressed as structure contours. New stratigraphic
modeling, particularly required for surficial unconsolidated deposits in
many regions, requires information from cored holes logged by geologists
as well as geophysical surveys. These high-quality results are
extrapolated laterally using drill hole data,\
commonly large quantities of water well data of varying resolution and
reliability. Much effort is required to adequately georeference the
drillhole data, and to parse large numbers of unique lithological
descriptions. Stratigraphic modeling methods ideally use all data in an
approach that permits judgment in the acceptance or rejection of data,
while interpolation and extrapolation are guided by genetic insights.
Models are best captured as a grid of predicted stratigraphy profiles
that convey expert opinion on interpolation and extrapolation from the
data points.\
Reconciliation of mapping with that of neighbouring jurisdictions is a
key step, as is balancing subjective definition of strata with more
objective geostatistical approaches to characterizing the heterogeneous
physical properties of the strata. Progress is readily achievable in
undeformed\
strata, while deformed strata present far greater challenges.
Increasingly, databases of observations and measurements are being
retained alongside the interpreted model, and models are being assigned
varying confidence levels such that the result is seen not as an end but
a means for prioritizing new mapping. Current activity is broadening our
reliance not only from paper maps to digital models, but also from plan
view maps, to drillhole databases, to 3D models, to dynamic models such
as groundwater flow models. Pressing user requirements demand that
geological survey work rapidly advance along this progression. To
encourage this progress, we need indicators to monitor our success.
These can include the proportion of public domain drillhole records that
are digital, georeferenced, and categorized, the area that is mapped in
detail with respect to surficial and bedrock geology in a manner that is
consistent, comprehensive, and categorized, as well as the extent of 3D
mapping of groundwater systems that takes advantage of available
drillhole data, geophysical surveys, and expert knowledge.

> **Presentation by Criteria & Indicators Group:**
>
> **Paul Barlow**, USGS:\
> Paul summarized the work of the SWRR Concepts Work Group which
> developed a set of concepts as a basis for the Roundtable\'s ongoing
> efforts to identify criteria and indicators that would be useful in
> the assessment of the sustainability of water resources in the United
> States. The conceptual framework consists of two components: Systems
> Concepts and Information Concepts. Systems Concepts are used to
> identify the overall relationships among the three major systems
> encompassed by water-resources sustainability: the Natural
> (Ecological) System, the Human Social System, and the Human Economic
> System. These three systems can be broken down into subsystems and
> then into subsystem components. A key idea here is that we can
> understand how water-resources sustainability might work if we can
> specify the structures and processes through which the subsystems and
> components interact. Information Concepts are used to show the
> relations among different forms of information. These vary from the
> most widely communicated forms of information, which are relatively
> simple stories that are told in various media, to detailed
> measurements of specific data types. Water-sustainability criteria and
> indicators are types of information used to develop the stories that
> we communicate. Criteria are standards, or points of reference, from
> which indicators may be chosen; indicators are measurements that track
> system processes and conditions over time.
>
> **Rhonda Kranz,** Ecological Society of America.
>
> Rhonda presented the current progress of the Integration and synthesis
> group of the Roundtable Network, a collaborative effort of the four
> Resource Roundtables (Forests, Rangelands, Minerals and Water). The
> main basis of the emerging framework is to consider the state of each
> resource as a stock or capacity and observe the uses and changes that
> increase or diminish the capacity of those resources over time.

**Breakouts on Criteria & Categories of Water Sustainability:**
Participants divided into three groups focusing on Ecology, Economics
and Social systems to discuss the recommended criteria and indicators in
detail and propose acceptance or modification. The groups later reported
back and discussed the work in plenary. The current state of this work
is in appendices to this proceedings summary.

The first day ended with lively discussions at the first Kurdish
restaurant in the United States to which John Wells guided us on foot.

**Day 2, Tuesday, September 14\
**

**Opening Speaker**

**Kent Cavender-Bares**, Water Sustainability Indicators & The H. John
Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment:

Kent told the participants that the Heinz Center is heavily into the
process of updating its 2002 *State of the Nation's Ecosystems* report
for 2007. Among the indicators of ecosystem condition and use in the
2002 Report were fifteen indicators for freshwater ecosystems. While not
indicators directly of "sustainable water use," these indicators do
provide necessary elements of the larger sustainability picture.

This effort came out of the White House's Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) in the mid 1990s, and the Heinz Center was
chosen to run the project given its commitment to multi-sector
processes---all committees from the board of trustees to technical
working groups have representation from industry, environmental
non-governmental organizations, academia, and federal, state, and local
government. Aside from engaging a microcosm of society while crafting of
the report, probably the single most important decision in the report's
structure was to ask participants what indicators they think would best
indicate the condition and use of ecosystems, rather than what
indicators were possible given the available data. This led to a
situation where nearly half of the 103 indicators in the 2002 report
lacked either full or partial data that was adequate for national
reporting. The Heinz Center is working to provide decision makers some
sense of the costs, priorities, and feasibilities for filling these data
gaps that prevent the most basic yet comprehensive reporting on our
nation's ecosystems.

As has been the case since the project's inception, indicator design is
accomplished largely by committees of volunteers: roughly 150 experts
were involved in the process leading up to the 2002 report. Overall, the
plan is to issue a hard-copy version of the report on a 5-year cycle,
with intermediate updates on the web site. The 5-year revisions will
contain substantial revisions, whereas the web-updates, of which one was
done for 2003, will simply be for adding new data points to time trends.
Considerable work is underway to revise entire suites of indicators
(e.g., non-native species, landscape pattern indicators, and core
national indicators). A final component of the current work plan is to
explore the appropriate institutional home for such a suite of
ecological indicators; the Heinz Center does not currently expect to be
the long-term home for the indicators.

**Presentation of draft indicators list:** Members of the steering
committee passed out a five- page list of possible indicators for the
work groups to consider using in the categories they worked on the
previous day.

**Breakout groups** (Economic, Ecological, Social) began to place water
indicators into the categories for the rest of the morning. This work is
reflected in the appendices to these proceedings.

**Lunch Speaker: Michael Strigel**, Executive Director, Wisconsin
Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters:

Michael gave a presentation on the study: "Waters of Wisconsin". In the
spring of 2000, the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters
embarked on a wide-ranging effort to review the current state and future
needs of Wisconsin's water resources and aquatic ecosystems. The Waters
of Wisconsin initiative has sought, in the process, to engage a broad
spectrum of participants: water scientists, policy-makers, members of
Wisconsin's eleven Native American tribes and bands, legislators, labor
and business leaders, environmental advocates and conservationists,
farmers and other landowners, educators and students, writers and
artists, the media, and interested citizens throughout the state. This
approach is based on the premise that, if we are to successfully address
the broad range of water issues we face, and enhance the long-term
sustainability of our waters, Wisconsin must continually build a broad
base of informed citizens and engaged institutions.

In carrying out this mission, WOW set several goals for itself. WOW
participants have sought to: 1) describe the present state of water
quality and quantity in Wisconsin, including consideration of water both
as a commodity and as an intrinsically important part of our
environment; 2) identify the major stressors or factors affecting
Wisconsin\'s water quality and quantity; 3) examine the interactions
among these factors; 4) describe selected alternative futures for
Wisconsin\'s water quality and quantity over the next two human
generations; and 5) outline a vision of a sustainable future for
Wisconsin\'s waters, with recommendations and strategies needed to
achieve this vision by ca. 2075.

Michael invited us to visit the Wisconsin Academy website at
[www.wisconsinacademy.org](http://www.wisconsinacademy.org/) to access a
copy of the report and learn more about the program or contact him at
608/263-1692 ext. 11 or email mstrigel@wisconsinacademy.org

**Plenary reports of breakout groups:** The three groups requested
another breakout session to further advance their indicator choices and
following that, the groups reported on the current status of their work.
Some formed subgroups to polish up the draft list[s]{.underline} that
are included in the appendices.

**Plenary discussion of categories and indicators:** A rich discussion
occurred of where the SWRR water indicator effort was headed and how to
support efforts to eventually develop a set of standard and useful
environmental indicators for the nation and regions within it.

**Closing Session:** Brief reports were given of SWRR work groups on
Outreach and Funding. Recent publications, conference panel
presentations and inclusion in speeches by SWRR members were summarized.
In response to questions we discussed that although most of the funding
of SWRR has come from the federal agencies that participate in it, EPRI
has contributed financially in each of the last two years and support
from other organizations, corporations and foundations is most welcome.

As we adjourned it was announced that the next meetings of SWRR will be
a working session on indicators in Washington December 7 and a session
on water research in Michigan next spring.