Institución Educativa Bombay

The purpose of this chapter was to identify the new strategies adopted in the Carolinas to improve capacity to cope with drought, examine how the institutional framework shapes and evolved to accommodate drought adaptation options, and

investigate how drought adaptations and new strategies contribute to resilience. The case study indicates that major shifts in drought management have occurred and that

period there were weak, if any, formal institutional mechanisms to respond to drought in the Carolinas. Water users acted independently, and no formal structures and processes existed to promote interactions, communication, or coordination across water users and agencies. During the study period (1998-2008), measures at state, basin, and local scales were enacted to improve drought monitoring, communications, and response, thereby contributing to and advancing the region’s capacity to cope with drought. However, the primary responsibility for drought planning remained on the local level. Local activities were diverse, shaped by the water system-specific context, capacities, and thresholds, but still centered on supply-oriented measures to mitigate drought impacts.

The case study highlights how more purposeful attention to the meaning and practice of resilience could help inform ongoing efforts to fully build capacity to cope with current and future droughts. For example, while many water systems are well- adapted to system-specific risks, and have diversified the tools used to manage supply and demand, most measures focus on localized and short-term problems. However, building capacity to address longer-term and broader water resources challenges will require that incentives and support for transformational change exist at a variety of management levels. Local water systems and communities possess varying capacities to cope with and adapt to the complex social and environmental processes that interact to produce drought risks and vulnerabilities. The examples of transformation “successes” suggest that future policy and planning efforts at state and basin levels should be more attentive to the particular sets of institutional structures and processes are required to support different drought management strategies. By only focusing on specific threats and managing for stability, water systems may be less resilient in the long-term if they

are not also developing the capacity and flexibility to adapt to emerging challenges and changing conditions (Adger et al., 2011; Dovers and Hezri, 2010; Folke et al., 2010). Future efforts should look for and take advantage of opportunities to develop the institutional mechanisms that will foster the integration of resilience into the multiple scales of water operations, management, and planning (Carlisle, 2014; Moser and Ekstrom, 2010; Young, 2010).

2.9 Tables

Table 2.1 Supply management strategies

Level and overall objective of adaptations

Actions taken by local water systems and/or communities to secure water supply

Adaptation Secure supply - the “baseline” approach

Key Action(s) Upgrade existing infrastructure: expand pumping capacity, distribution systems, storage capacity; lower or move intakes

Institutional Components

Normative

Drought risks and impacts to water customers should be avoided Cultural-Cognitive

Beliefs: “Water is plentiful.” “Everyone thought that the Carolinas were so well- watered that we would never have that [drought] problem.”

Knowledge: technical, engineering, local knowledge about the water supply system, historical hydrological and climatological conditions

Regulative

Capital plans, reservoir safe yield analyses, operating protocols

Adaptation Diversify tools to develop and secure new supplies

Key Action(s) Develop new supplies: aquifer storage and recovery (ASR), reclaimed water, interbasin transfers (IBTs)

Purchase from other systems; sell or merge systems

Improve water system efficiency (treatment processes; leak reduction) Institutional

Components

Normative

Water system operations should strive to be as efficient as possible in managing supplies

Cultural-Cognitive

Beliefs: Plenty of water exists to meet needs, but new tools can help to better manage, access, and distribute supplies

Knowledge: Continued emphasis on technical and engineering expertise, knowledge of the local water system and the available legal, administrative, and managerial tools

Regulative

Interbasin transfer permits, purchase contracts and other agreements among local systems

New practices may require development of new, or revision of existing, state-level rules and oversight (e.g., for aquifer storage and recovery, reclaimed water

Table 2.2 Customer and demand management strategies

Level and overall objective of adaptations

Actions taken by local water systems and/or communities to increase options for balancing supply and demand

Adaptation Rethink the “business of water”

Key Action(s) Programs that target water customers, improve customer efficiency and

conservation; upgrades to water metering systems, water rate structure changes (increases, surcharges, fees), public education and awareness campaigns Institutional

Components

Normative

Customers should contribute to the cost of water service and delivery Cultural-Cognitive

Beliefs: Demand-side programs can augment systems’ overall water management Knowledge: Combination of technical and managerial tools, knowledge of the water system and customer base

Regulative

Water pricing policies and protocols

Adaptation Reduce overall demand

Key Action(s) Adoption of long-term policies, plans, and education programs to reduce demand and water use; integration of water planning with other sectors (land use, economic development)

Institutional Components

Normative

Fundamental changes to how society develops and consumes water are needed to cope with limited supplies; all sectors of a community need to contribute to water conservation

Cultural-Cognitive

Beliefs: Water resources are not infinite, capacity to build new supplies is limited Knowledge: Combination of technical and managerial tools and knowledge of the water system and customer base, in coordination with land use planning and development interests

Regulative

Local government incentives and mandates (e.g., water use and efficiency ordinances) to reduce consumption, change customer water use behaviors and attitudes

Table 2.3 Drought response planning strategies

Level and overall objective of adaptations

Actions taken by state and local agencies to develop a more structured approach to drought response

Adaptation Improve drought response capacity

Key Action(s) Local level: response plans and ordinances, public awareness and communications State level: response plans; drought monitoring, data collection; organizational structures and processes to assess, communicate, and disseminate drought information (NC Drought Advisory Council, SC Drought Response Committee) ; providing technical assistance and guidance to local level

Institutional Components

Normative

A structured approach to drought monitoring and response can help communities and water-dependent sectors balance supply and demand during drought

Cultural-Cognitive

Beliefs: The Southeast can have water shortages; the region is not immune to drought risks and impacts

Knowledge: hydrological and climatological expertise used to develop drought triggers and monitoring tools; knowledge and expertise related to water resources and management used to inform state and local response actions;

Regulative

Local drought- and water shortage response plans and ordinances; protocols for decision-making, water use restrictions, and enforcement

State laws, plans, and requirements: NC Session Law 2008-143; Drought Assessment and Response Plan, NC Emergency Operations Plan (2005); SC Drought Response Act and Regulations (1985, 2000)

Table 2.4 Basin-level cooperation strategies

Level and overall objective of adaptations

Actions taken by multiple actors, across management levels, to work together to address drought risks and impacts

Adaptation Address impacts of hydropower operations on water availability

Key Action(s) Modifications of existing and adoption of new protocols for hydropower

operations during drought; development of regional and basin-level organizations and stakeholder groups; communication networks

Institutional Components

Normative

Drought risks and impacts should be distributed fairly across water users Cultural-Cognitive

Beliefs: Dam operations should balance maintenance of water supplies while ensuring adequate downstream flows during drought

Knowledge: Engineering, technical, hydrological expertise; basin-scale data and information; knowledge of all water users’ needs and interests

Regulative

Drought plans and protocols for dam operations

Adaptation Coordinate drought response and mitigation (Catawba-Wateree basin)

Key Action(s) Adoption of new response plans and protocols across the basin (e.g., CW Low Inflow Protocol, 2007); basin-level drought management group (CW DMAG) makes basin-wide drought designations and disseminates information; coordinated implementation of drought response plans of CW DMAG members

Institutional Components

Normative

Drought risks and impacts should be addressed collectively, rather than on an individual or local basis

Cultural-Cognitive

Beliefs: Water users are interdependent, risks should be shared

Knowledge: Engineering, technical, hydrological expertise; view of water resources as shared reinforced through group decision making processes and engagement with regional resource management issues

Regulative

CW Low Inflow Protocol (LIP), local drought and water shortage response plans that permit adherence to the CW LIP and CW DMAG decisions

Table 2.5 Drought responses and adaptations, as reported by local-level interviewees Drought management strategies

(n=49, representatives of water systems and/or local governments) # of reports

Supply Management

Secure supply - the “baseline” approach 36

Diversify tools to develop and secure new supplies 37

Customer and Demand Management

Rethink the “business of water” 24

Reduce overall water demand 2

Improve Drought Response Capacity

Updated or developed drought response plan 16

Implemented conservation during the 2007-08 drought 42

Basin-level cooperation

Addressed impacts of hydropower operations on water availability

• Participated in FERC relicensing after the 1998-2002 drought, work with dam licensees and other stakeholders to address impacts of hydro operations on water supply

23

Participated in basin-level activities during the 2007-2008 drought

• Conference calls, information-sharing (in YPD and U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers basins) 5

• Coordination of communications and water restrictions in the

CHAPTER 3

D

ROUGHT

P

LANNING IN THE

C

AROLINAS

:I

NSTITUTIONAL

I

NTERACTIONS AND

C

ONSTRAINTS

3.1 Abstract

The development of drought plans and programs at multiple levels of water management and decision making are an important component of a proactive, risk management approach to this natural hazard. While plans have been adopted by most states and many communities across the country, the extent to which plans have been implemented or coordinate with one another is unclear. This chapter draws from a case study of drought response and management in North Carolina and South Carolina to investigate how institutional interactions affect the implementation and coordination of drought planning efforts across state and local levels. Data collection for this study occurred in 2007-2008, a period of exceptional drought and a time when state and local agencies across the two states adopted, revised, and/or implemented drought response plans and protocols. Sources of information included eight-seven interviews with water managers and other stakeholders involved with drought response, observation of fifty- nine drought management meetings, and review of state and local drought response plans and other drought program documents. Findings indicated that a range of barriers to the local-level implementation of drought response plans exists. These barriers include conflicts between the goals of water supply provision and water restrictions, disconnects between the types of information used by state and local agencies to determine drought,

and different perceptions about the appropriate and legitimate levels at which drought decisions should be made. In addition, broader-scale institutions that govern water allocation and influence water use practices also served to limit the extent to which communities and water systems could enact proactive measures to manage drought risks and impacts. This study demonstrates how drought policy and planning efforts need to account for the set of complex institutional mechanisms and processes that both enable, and constrain, the implementation and coordination of drought response at multiple levels of water management.

3.2 Introduction

Drought is a natural hazard to which many sectors of society have adapted. However, since the late 1990s, many regions of the United States have experienced events that “have been rather dramatic in terms of duration, intensity, and spatial extent” (Wilhite, 2011, p. 8), revealing the significant impacts that drought can have on society and the environment. The total estimated costs of drought from 1998 to 2012 equaled $83.5 billion; the total estimated costs in 2012 alone equaled $30 billion (Smith et al., 2015). These impacts also evoke the difficulties this hazard presents to society’s ability to prepare and respond effectively. First, drought can be difficult to monitor and measure as its effects are gradual and cumulative, often span broad geographic areas, and exhibit different regional manifestations (Redmond, 2002; Wilhite, 2005). Second, different regions, sectors, and organizations will possess varying resources, capacities, and abilities to adapt effectively.

In order to improve society’s capacity to respond to drought events, drought planning proponents have long argued for proactive, risk management policies (Hayes et

al., 2004; Wilhite et al., 2000). Key components of a risk management approach include the development and implementation of early warning and monitoring systems,

preparedness and response plans, and mitigation programs intended to prevent impacts from occurring (Fu, Tang et al., 2013; Wilhite, 2011). It is also advocated that drought policies, programs, and plans be coordinated at multiple levels (NIDIS, 2012; Schwab, 2013; Wilhite, 2011). Drought response and planning is complicated by the fact that multiple federal, state, and local agencies with water management responsibilities make drought-related decisions in an environment characterized by conflicting laws, objectives, and obligations (Folger et al., 2012). The fragmented context of water planning

constrains interagency actions and consequently limits the options available for addressing drought’s effects on water resources. The lack of coordination between the state and local agencies is of particular concern, as much of the direct responsibility for regulating water supplies and use (and conducting drought planning and management) is located at these levels. However, research in this area is limited and there are only a few studies that have investigated the intersections between state and local efforts to conduct drought planning and management activities.

In general, previous work has found tensions between state and local efforts, suggesting that more attention needs to be devoted to the development of processes and mechanisms that would facilitate coordination (Engle, 2013; Pirie et al., 2004). In addition, state-level processes should be sensitive in recognizing that tools and methods developed and used at a higher level may not be applicable in different contexts and sectors (Durley and De Loë, 2005; Fontaine et al., 2014; Jacobs et al., 2005). Improved understanding of the interplay between drought planning and management at multiple

levels is necessary to help build both state and local capacities to prepare for drought (Engle, 2013; Urwin and Jordan, 2008; Young, 2002).

To address this gap, this chapter uses a case study of drought planning and response in North Carolina and South Carolina to investigate how the institutional context has affected the implementation and coordination of drought response measures. Understood as the rules, practices, beliefs, and values that govern individual and

collective behavior, institutions play a key role in drought planning by shaping decisions regarding resource allocation and preferred risk management goals and strategies. The institutional context also influences who participates in management and policy processes, the extent to which actors have flexibility to adopt new practices, and the extent to which policies and activities at different levels are compatible and/or

complementary (Adger et al., 2009; Bakker, 1999; Eakin et al., 2014; Gupta et al., 2010; O’Riordan and Jordan, 1999; Urwin and Jordan, 2008). Furthermore, whether a specific option is considered feasible and legitimate, and ultimately put into action, may depend on whether the “appropriate institutional framework” is in place (Moser and Ekstrom, 2010; Nelson et al. 2007, p. 402).

The study focuses on the 1998-2008 period when the Carolinas experienced two extreme droughts (1998-2002, 2007-2008). During this time many state and local efforts to improve drought preparedness and response were initiated, including the development of drought response plans. In 2007-2008, drought response plans and other measures developed during and after the 1998-2002 drought were enacted, revealing many ways in which capacity to respond to drought had improved. In many communities, however, the actual employment of plans on the local level was challenging and frequently contested.

Implementation was difficult despite the considerable public and media attention paid to the severity of 2007-2008 drought conditions and widespread calls for water

conservation.

To uncover the barriers faced by local decision makers in implementing response plans, this chapter examines the institutional dimensions of the drought planning and adaptation process. It investigates why the implementation and coordination of drought plans (and related measures) was so challenging, given the substantial efforts to improve the overall capacity to manage drought. The aim is to examine the following questions:

1. How does the institutional context affect the implementation of local drought response plans?

2. How does the institutional context affect the coordination of state and local drought planning and management measures?

Through this case study, the author provides an in-depth examination of how the institutional context, and institutional interactions, affects drought planning and management decisions, and thereby constrains (or enables) overall capacity to manage drought and the integration of state and local activities. The next section provides an overview of drought planning literature. This is followed by a review of institutional research, its application to drought management, and the research methods. The findings section is divided into three parts. Section 3.6.1 provides an overview of the Carolinas’ drought experiences and adaptations taken to improve drought response and

management. Section 3.6.2 focuses on the tensions between state and local drought response that challenge the implementation of plans at the local level. Section 3.6.3 discusses the broader disconnects across levels that constrain drought response and

planning. The chapter then discusses the implications for drought and water management, highlighting the barriers to, and potential opportunities to improve, cross-level

coordination of drought response.

In document Paralelo comparativo del uso de las TIC en contextos rurales (Institución Educativa Guillermo Hoyos Salazar) y contextos urbanos (Institución Educativa Bombay) (página 49-53)