The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy is delighted to announce the addition of two new board members, land economics professor Tzuchin Lin and water policy expert Peter Culp.

“I am pleased that two luminaries in their respective fields have come forward to assist us as we continue to develop our strategic vision for the future,” said Kathryn J. Lincoln, board chair and chief investment officer for the Lincoln Institute. “Tzuchin Lin, a former David C. Lincoln Fellow, brings a depth of experience in land taxation and will provide a window into our work in Asia. One of the foremost experts on the nexus of land and water, Peter Culp brings valuable insight into this area of focus for the Lincoln Institute.”

Tzuchin Lin is professor of land economics and associate dean of the College of Social Sciences at National Chengchi University, Taiwan. He served as department chair from 2014 to 2017 and as the founding director of the Lab for Integrated Socio-Spatial Science and Information since 2020. His doctoral research was completed in 1999 at the University of Reading, England. In addition to his university teaching, Lin has been a lecturer since 2003 at the International Center for Land Policy Studies and Training (ICLPST) in Taiwan, a nonprofit organization jointly supported by the government of Taiwan and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. He and Dr. Chimei Lin from ICLPST were joint recipients of the David C. Lincoln Fellowship in Land Value Taxation in 2005. In the same year, he was acknowledged by the Ministry of the Interior, Taiwan with a special award for his contribution to Land Economics. He was a visiting professor at Helsinki University of Technology, Finland (2008, 2009) and at University of Bremen, Germany (2010), delivering a series of lectures on land economics and policies. He was also a contributor to a chapter on the split-rate property tax in Taiwan in the book Property Tax in Asia: Policy and Practice, published in 2022 by the Lincoln Institute. Lin’s primary teaching and research interest lies in the nature of land markets and associated policies.

Peter Culp is the managing partner and co-founder of Culp & Kelly, LLP, a specialty water and natural resources law and policy firm. Based in Phoenix, Arizona, he is a nationally recognized expert in Western water law and water policy. He has served on a variety of boards and commissions related to water and natural resource issues, including serving by repeated gubernatorial appointment to the Arizona Colorado River Advisory Commission and participating in a series of binational working groups under the U.S. Department of State, International Boundary and Water Commission. Culp has been twice awarded the Partners in Conservation Award by the U.S. Department of Interior and was a recipient of The Nature Conservancy of Arizona’s 2013 Outstanding Conservation Achievement Award and the Arizona Capitol Times Leader of the Year Award in Public Policy. Prior to founding Culp & Kelly, LLP, Peter was a partner in the Phoenix office of Squire Patton Boggs, LLP, where he managed the firm’s Western water and natural resources practice. Peter also worked as a law clerk in the Indian Resources Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and as in-house counsel for the Sonoran Institute, a nonprofit organization that works on land and water policy issues throughout the intermountain West. Prior to embarking on his legal career, Culp managed a nonprofit public health technology enterprise for C. Everett Koop, the former U.S. Surgeon General, managed forest fires in the Northern Rockies as part of an Incident Management Team, and drove long-haul refrigerated freight in the United States and Canada.

In addition to Kathryn J. Lincoln and the newly appointed members, the other members of the Lincoln Institute board of directors include Thomas M. Becker, president emeritus of the Chautauqua Institution; Jane Campbell, president and CEO at the U.S. Capitol Historical Society and former mayor of Cleveland; Lourdes Germán, assistant professor at the Boston College Carroll School of Management and Boston College Law School; Nancy Gibbs, Lombard director and professor of practice at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government; William R. Goodell, principal at Powderhorn Advisory Services, LLP; Bruce Lincoln, president of Innervizion Surf Company; John G. Lincoln III, former senior engineer at CH2M-Hill; George W. McCarthy, president and CEO of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy; Constance Mitchell Ford, visiting professor at the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland; Thomas Nechyba, professor of economics and public policy studies at Duke University; Kevyn Orr, partner with Jones Day; Timothy Renjilian, senior managing director for FTI Consulting; Scott Smith, former CEO of the Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority and former mayor of Mesa, Arizona; and Adriana Soto, environmental policy and financing consultant based in Bogotá, Colombia.

Image: Tzuchin Lin, left, and Peter Culp, right. Credit: Courtesy photos.

As a hydrologist with the Navajo Nation Water Resources Department, Ryan Barton says his office is facing a big challenge: capacity. “Meaning, not enough people for the positions we have to cover all 27,000 square miles of the Navajo Nation,” he says. Encompassing an area roughly three times the size of New Jersey within Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah, the Navajo Nation is home to an estimated 170,000 people. With as much as 30 percent of that population lacking clean, reliable drinking water in the midst of a two-decades-long drought, there’s more work to do—from water infrastructure projects to drought mitigation measures to improving small irrigation systems—than there are staff members to do it.

As overextended as Barton’s department is, the Navajo Nation has a sizable water resources staff compared to some of the smaller tribes in the Colorado River Basin, a vast region that covers parts of seven U.S. states and northern Mexico. The region’s 30 sovereign tribes have some of the oldest and highest-priority water rights in the basin, but many haven’t been able to fully realize those rights due to a lack of staffing capacity, ongoing legal battles—including a case recently heard at the Supreme Court—and a history of being shut out of policy decisions. It’s a situation that will grow more critical as the river basin experiences long-term aridification due to climate change.

That’s one reason the Lincoln Institute’s Babbitt Center for Land and Water Policy partnered with the Catena Foundation and the Mighty Arrow Family Foundation to create a Native American Water and Land Internship in 2022. Run by the Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals (ITEP) at Northern Arizona University, the program aims to encourage more indigenous students to gain experience in land and water management.

Last year’s pilot program created 12 summer internships at nine host sites, from the Navajo Nation to the U.S. Geological Survey to the Nature Conservancy, and the Lincoln Institute hosted four additional internships, two with the Babbitt Center. ITEP is hoping to expand the program for 2023, if funding allows, placing 24 interns over the summer and creating 10 more part-time, semester-long positions during the school year.

“Through this program, we hope we can help address the staffing issue, or the availability of expertise, [by training] students who have both an academic and an experiential background to fill positions at these tribes,” said Mansel Nelson, environmental education outreach program manager at ITEP, who manages the internship program. Training the next generation of Native American professionals who can also work in water and land management roles in non-tribal settings, from government agencies to nonprofit organizations, will also help broaden the experience and perspectives being brought to bear on addressing water management challenges, says Babbitt Center director Jim Holway.

Last year’s interns gained a variety of skills and experiences across different settings, from lakes to laboratories. Among other tasks, Barton’s intern Fred Toins III assisted with the ongoing project of quantifying the Navajo Nation’s water resources. That involved using specialized surveying equipment to collect data—think latitude, longitude, and elevation around and within bodies of water—and then using that data to create precise geospatial information system (GIS) models. “With these models, what we can do is determine the storage capacity of these lakes and reservoirs,” Barton said, and track that quantity based on changing water levels.

Toins also helped conduct a crop inventory of irrigated Navajo lands along the San Juan River in New Mexico. That project also involved field data collection—recording crop types and their area on maps—and extensive use of ArcGIS to map the data. Speaking with farmers in the area offered another less technical but still crucial experience, Barton said: “One of the things they gained from that experience was public outreach and interacting with the public, which is an important part of being a public servant.” 

Nelson says working on a range of professional skills is part of the goal of the program: “Sometimes it’s soft skills, like working together with a team, and sometimes it’s more specific scientific skills, like collecting data and making measurements.”

René Castillo, who completed a virtual internship with one of Barton’s colleagues in the Navajo Nation Department of Water Resources, gained valuable practical experience that complemented her academic coursework. “Before ITEP, I didn’t have any real-world application experience of the science that I major in,” Castillo wrote of her experience. “I got hands-on experience using remote sensing, hydrology, and GIS analysis together to help people and do cool science.” Castillo learned other skills, too, she added — gaining confidence in her presentation and leadership skills, and picking up coding and cartography skills using Google Earth Engine and GIS mapping. 

While some students learned new software or gained fieldwork experience during their internships, others, like Jaymus Lee, were introduced to the power of policy. Lee is finishing up a master’s degree in controlled environment agriculture (CEA) at the University of Arizona. He already knew a lot about the science of food systems; for his master’s thesis, he’s piloting an off-grid indigenous greenhouse at Diné College in the Navajo Nation. But as an intern for the Babbitt Center last summer, he gained a much clearer understanding of the centrality of water in agriculture—and how tribal law and water rights fit into the larger context of Colorado River Basin drought. 

“A lot of it was eye-opening for me,” Lee said. “When these big discussions happen about water in the Southwest, a lot of times tribes aren’t involved—and it’s interesting, because they hold anywhere from 20 to 25 percent of the water rights to the Colorado River.” 

Lee says his deeper understanding of water rights and policy will be a big help as he launches an innovative venture called Indigeponics with another Navajo student. “We’re using hydroponic systems to grow indigenous plants,” Lee explains, “and then creating an educational curriculum to give back to tribal communities so that they can understand what CEA [controlled environment agriculture] and hydroponics could bring to their community as far as food security and economic development.”

Hydroponic farming uses up to 90 percent less water than traditional agriculture, and often the water can be recycled continuously. “In places that have limited resources, you could potentially run a farm year-round with little water and very little electricity,” Lee said. The idea went over well with many of the farmers he interviewed as part of a Babbitt Center project during his internship. “A lot of them were very interested in it,” Lee said. “We’re hoping that we can maintain those connections and create a network amongst different tribal communities.”

As the nascent internship program evolves, Nelson would like to see more participation from smaller tribes, more funding so it doesn’t lose momentum, and more Native American students studying science in general. A military veteran and former chemistry teacher, Nelson has for more than 20 years conducted outreach in K–12 schools encouraging indigenous students to enter the sciences. 

Last year’s interns gave him reason to be hopeful. The program required participants to write weekly reports, and one of the participants often commented that she “was looking at how to apply the things she was learning by doing that research in her own community,” Nelson said. “Which I thought was great. I mean, that’s the intent of these internships … what they’re learning can be applied in their own communities to benefit those communities.”

Holway hopes the ITEP program will contribute to important shifts underway in the basin, noting that the Babbitt Center is also active in the Water & Tribes Initiative and is seeking partners to help develop a Native American water internship, mentoring, and curriculum development effort at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colorado, which has more Native American undergraduate students than any college in the country. “The basin is facing unprecedented challenges,” Holway said. “That’s highlighting the need to prepare our next generation of leaders and address a long-overdue obligation to engage and empower Native peoples and communities in conversations and decisions about the future of the Colorado River Basin.”

Learn more about opportunities to support ITEP’s Water and Land Summer Internship program, and find out how to participate as an intern or host site.

Jon Gorey is a staff writer for the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Image: Sunset on the Navajo Nation near Monument Valley, Arizona. Credit: Cavan Images via iStock/Getty Images Plus.

Related Content

Water & Tribes Initiative Encourages Collaborative Approach to Colorado River Management

“Climate change is water change.” It’s an adage that has caught on in certain circles, as our shifting global systems affect every part of the water cycle. In the United States, that has looked like record drought and aridification in the West, massive flooding in the Midwest, and superstorms in the East. Those climatic changes have also created secondary impacts, like land subsidence, longer wildfire seasons, and contaminated water supplies. And all these effects are complicated by factors ranging from population growth to aging infrastructure.

As these impacts hit every corner of the country, planners and water managers are finding new ways to address them, working together to build resilience in the face of an increasingly volatile climate. Planning for a future that could include an unpredictable combination of drought, flooding, pollution, and other water-related issues takes a significant shift, says Bill Cesanek of the American Planning Association’s Water and Planning Network. “Historically, U.S. communities have dealt with land use planning and water management in separate silos,” Cesanek says. “But now we know we have to manage them using an integrated approach.”

Traditionally, he explains, water departments and planners have often worked within different geopolitical boundaries, management structures, and timelines, even as their work has overlapped on the ground. But with communities growing rapidly, especially in the South, and climate change exacerbating water-related risks, planning is becoming more complex, and the need for collaboration more urgent.

“We need an integrated and multidisciplinary approach,” agrees Brenda Bateman, director of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. Bateman is chair of the American Water Resources Association’s Land and Water Specialty Conference, an event focused on connecting land and water for healthy communities. “These problems are so thorny that if we try to solve them one by one, or in a vacuum, we end up with solutions or results that don’t stick. They’re tied together regardless of how our budgets and bureaucracies work.”

The goal of improving planning and resource management processes so they are more integrated, resilient, flexible, and creative is complicated by regional differences—“what works in California won’t necessarily work in New Jersey,” Cesanek says. And since the nature of climate volatility means what works in California today won’t necessarily work in the future, planners and water managers have to prepare for many possible scenarios.

“In the planning world, it used to be ‘let’s envision the highly desirable future we want, and build to that,’” says Jim Holway, director of the Lincoln Institute’s Babbitt Center for Land and Water Policy. “Now we have to put in place policies that will be robust across different futures—not just desirable ones—and bring in programs that are more adaptive. This is a shift in approach.”

Anticipating potential futures and changing practices to account for uncertainty is tricky, but not impossible. And despite the local nature of planning and resource management, shared practices and strategies can work across the country. Here’s how three communities facing different challenges are adapting their approaches and practices to prepare for a changing future.

New Orleans: Living with Water

Few cities have spent as much time and energy fighting water as New Orleans. The city was built on a natural levee along the Mississippi River, a prized location that offered obvious economic and environmental benefits. But centuries of efforts to engineer the river and drain the surrounding swamps led to land subsidence so severe that some neighborhoods are up to 11 feet below sea level, making them prone to frequent flooding. New Orleans is also one of the rainiest places in the country, with five feet of annual precipitation, and is vulnerable to the increasingly strong hurricanes that frequent the Gulf Coast.

When Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, inundating 80 percent of the city, it explicitly revealed a truth that had been gradually coming to light: New Orleans couldn’t use its historical approaches to fight the stronger storms and rising waters of climate change. It had to think differently.

“Katrina was a tipping point,” says Ed Blakely, a global urban policy expert who led the city’s recovery effort. Blakely says the city’s previous approach to water—attempting to overpower it rather than planning around natural streamflow and flood patterns—reflected a common urban pattern in the United States: “We have not used history to plan settlement.”

As the urgent work of recovery got underway, a new approach to long-term planning began to emerge as well. With support from a state community resilience fund powered by federal disaster recovery dollars, the region’s economic development organization, Greater New Orleans, Inc. (GNO) commissioned a project that would help the city reimagine its relationship to water.

Inspired by the Dutch approach to water management, which hinges on collaborating across disciplines and viewing water as an asset, the Greater New Orleans Water Plan drew on local, national, and international expertise, envisioning nature-inspired systems and strategies that could help manage stormwater more effectively and contribute to the health of residents, ecosystems, and the economy. The green infrastructure proposals in the plan ranged from small-scale retrofits like bioswales and permeable pavement to the more comprehensive strategic use of parks, canals, and waterways to slow and store water.

The ambitious plan intentionally focused on physical space, not policy or politics, explains Andy Sternad, an architect and resilience expert who was a lead author of the plan for New Orleans–based firm Waggonner & Ball. It won acclaim from organizations including C40 Cities and APA, which gave it a National Planning Excellence Award in 2015, in part due to its collaborative nature. “Planners have been instrumental in communicating with designers and engineers about the spatial, socioeconomic, political, and cultural impacts of the plan,” APA noted in its award description. “They have also been successful in integrating the Urban Water Plan with the Louisiana Coastal Master Plan and other local planning processes.”

“The water plan facilitated a new way for us to approach water, locally and regionally,” says Robin Barnes, a New Orleans-based economic recovery and resilience consultant who is the former executive vice president and COO of GNO, Inc. “It provides us with information and schematics and instructions about everything from materials to specific demonstration projects, and it illustrates how living with water can work.”

Barnes has been a director on the Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans (SWBNO) since 2014, and says she has seen the plan’s guiding philosophy seep into operations citywide and regionally. The idea of living with water can be seen in everything from stormwater storage requirements for new construction and pilot projects funded by the SWBNO to broader initiatives such as the Gentilly Resilience District, a multi-pronged effort to reduce flood risk and support revitalization across an entire neighborhood. The city has received significant federal funding for green infrastructure, including a major award from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s National Disaster Resilience Competition.

The city’s master plan envisions that by 2030, New Orleans will become “a city that celebrates its relationship to water.” The plan prioritizes water conservation, sustainable stormwater management, and the protection of wetlands and other areas needed for water storage. It endorses land use approaches that were key elements of the post-Katrina rebuilding effort, says Blakely, such as density, infill development, and building on high ground.

Recommendations like those are constructive outcomes of the devastation caused by Katrina. So are community-level conversations about water management and resilience that continue to evolve, led in part by the Water Collaborative of Greater New Orleans, which formed after the release of the water plan.

Like many cities, New Orleans has faced challenges as it works to implement these ideas, from the pandemic to political transitions. There is still much work to be done, but other flood-prone places across the country have begun to embrace the New Orleans mindset; Sternad and his Waggonner & Ball colleagues have brought the Living with Water approach to cities including Houston, Miami, Charleston, Hampton, Virginia, and Bridgeport, Connecticut.

“We are poised to lead future climate solutions, in part because the things we experience here provide valuable lessons for other cities,” Sternad says. “It’s OK to live in a place that floods sometimes, as long as the culture, and eventually the infrastructure, can adapt.”

Evans, Colorado: Preparing for Scarcity

The northern Colorado city of Evans has a population of 21,000, a projected growth rate of 3 percent per year, and a reliable supply of water from the region’s river basins. But demand for water is projected to come close to the limits of that supply by the end of the decade, especially as the state faces drying and warming due to climate change. As the city grows, its municipal departments are trying to work together to make sure that demand doesn’t exceed supply.

“We’re going into a period where we have increasing demand for water, but the pie is shrinking,” says Anne Best Johnson, former community development director in Evans. “It’s one thing to divide up a growing pie, but it’s harder and harder to divide a shrinking pie.”

In 2019, the city completed a Municipal Water Efficiency Plan, a guide for its water conservation measures. That plan identified 34 water conservation activities that the city will prioritize for implementation, ranging from outdoor watering and landscape design ordinances to requirements for things like wind and rain sensors for new developments, and water-efficient fixture retrofits for existing buildings. If all of these steps are implemented, projections suggest the city could see total water savings of up to 17 percent by 2028 compared to projected demand.

Around the time the water plan came out, city officials started their decadal update of the city’s comprehensive plan. “The timing was important because these documents guide the city for anywhere from 10 to 30 years,” says Justine Schoenbacher, the city’s water conservation coordinator. Both planning processes incorporated cross-departmental input and extensive public outreach, Schoenbacher adds: “The fact that both plans were updated in a time of heightened awareness around water resource issues was beneficial.” She says the timing and collaborative approaches allowed the city to seamlessly integrate the plans and address water resources comprehensively.

Johnson—who left her role in Evans in early 2023 for a similar role in nearby Berthoud—says city officials were able to build principles from the Municipal Water Efficiency Plan into the comprehensive plan, which includes a chapter on water conservation and stewardship, as well as instructions for incorporating water conservation principles into planning.

This puts Evans on a solid path toward a sustainable water supply. But the city didn’t do it alone. Johnson says support from other organizations helped the small city maximize its efforts. In 2018, as officials were working on the municipal water plan, they participated in a Growing Water Smart workshop hosted by the Sonoran Institute and the Babbitt Center, which allowed them to learn from other communities and create their own action plan. “Land and water are interlinked, and the local planning and decision-making frameworks for how we use them should be too,” says Kristen Keener Busby, associate director for practice and partnerships at the Babbitt Center. “Growing Water Smart workshops help communities identify thoughtful ways to make these connections and implement actions to strengthen their sustainability and resilience.”

The city also participated as a pilot community for a Water and Land Use Metrics program coordinated by the Sonoran Institute, which helped them measure their local water conservation data. To help implement their Growing Water Smart action plan, they received technical support from WaterNow Alliance and Western Resource Advocates to administer a water efficiency audit program and a community-wide fixture replacement and installation program. Schoenbacher says that has been key in helping them make tangible progress, and in educating the community about the application and benefits of the water efficiency plan.

As they put the plans into practice, Johnson says city leaders are trying to be proactive and clear about their goals, by talking to the community and gathering data to show what’s working well. “A lot of time, money, effort, and citizen input went into our guide for moving forward,” she says. “We don’t want to have a comp plan that just sits on the shelf.” Johnson says the city started with the easiest projects, like fixture retrofits, to show the community that reducing water use didn’t have to be painful. Then they started to bring in some of the bigger pieces. Using those tools, they’re confident that they can balance population growth and new development while decreasing citywide water use.

“Change can be very threatening to people. If you offer them opportunities to have success, then you’re going to be seen as a community that encourages business while being respectful of your environment and limited resources,” Johnson says. Evans, she adds, “wants to have an opportunity to grow and change when it’s not a reactionary situation.”

Schoenbacher says that’s true across the region, where communities need to be planning for scarcity. Communication and early thoughtful action are both key for being prepared, she notes: “We adhere to the motto that’s happening across the West: we need to be doing more with less. We’re thinking about that potential gap between supply and demand in the long term. What changes can communities make now to preserve our rights and ability to grow in the future?”

Golden Valley, Minnesota: Thinking Beyond Boundaries

A decade ago, planners and water engineers in the Minneapolis suburb of Golden Valley worked in different departments on different floors of city hall. “There was general agreement on the direction that the city was moving, but there was minimal coordination,” says Planning Director Jason Zimmerman. To facilitate communication and collaboration in this city of 22,000, which relies primarily on redevelopment to accommodate growth, the city combined planning, engineering, and inspections into one department, creating an open-concept office on a single floor of the building.

Today, Zimmerman says, “there is close communication between planning and engineering staff, in relation to redevelopment projects in particular. . . . Planning decisions always acknowledge the requirements and challenges associated with water.”

Those challenges have increased as climate change makes storms in the region stronger. “New flood elevations due to more intense rain events have created new challenges for properties in low-lying areas,” Zimmerman says, noting that planners carefully evaluate grading when reviewing site plans, in light of the increased runoff caused by extreme weather.

As Golden Valley continues to adjust its practices to meet evolving needs, a state-enabled regional planning agency, the Metropolitan Council, is helping the city address pollution, plan for flooding, and protect the quality of its creeks and lakes by thinking beyond boundaries. Golden Valley buys its water from the city of Minneapolis, as part of a joint agreement with two other nearby suburbs, Crystal and New Hope. The Metropolitan Council oversees wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure and water supply planning across the area, a relatively unique arrangement that helps communities learn from each other. “We’re working with our partners in the region to make sure we have sustainable supplies for the growth that is planned,” says Judy Sventek, Met Council’s manager of water resources. “People think of Minnesota as a water-rich state with 10,000 lakes, but we do have water supply limitations” including differences in the types and quantities of water communities can access.

In 2005, the council created a Water Supply Planning Unit to bring communities together from across the region. A decade later, this work shaped updates to regional water policy reflected in the 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan, which directly influenced Golden Valley’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan and its goals of responding to new and changing development, future water demands, and changing weather patterns.

“In the ’80s, when most people lived in the urban core around Minneapolis and St. Paul, most residents and businesses relied on surface water,” Sventek says. “Now 75 percent of residents in the metro area are using groundwater from wells in the suburbs. We’re thinking about the implications of this change as cities continue to grow outward, and we’re looking at how climate change affects water supply.”

Lanya Ross, a Met Council environmental analyst, says the council’s regional vision can help communities like Golden Valley make long-term water-supply plans in the face of changing climate and population dynamics. It also serves as a hub of data on issues like regional groundwater modeling and flooding impacts, which individual communities might not have access to or might not normally consider. In Golden Valley, where Bassett Creek is a critical waterway, leaders can use this shared information to see where stormwater management projects can be most helpful, and how redevelopment projects can help with flood control. “We can look at the entire region: how we plan for sustainable water resources together and how do those interactions happen,” Ross says.

In the face of climate change, communication among neighboring communities can be particularly important on the supply side. It can lead to sharing tools and resources to protect source water, monitor aquifer levels, and address contamination from pollutants like phosphorus and nitrate that come from agricultural runoff.

Sventek says other states and organizations have looked at the Met Council’s approach, especially on the supply side, because planning for watershed health is becoming more relevant and necessary. Having an entity that plans for a region and addresses issues across local boundaries is also helpful for transferring knowledge and thinking about the big picture, she says—and that shows up in the way places like Golden Valley are planning for the future.

Hard Decisions Ahead

The need for big-picture, long-term thinking by policy makers across the country is clear. “There isn’t a place that is not subject to some form of disaster in the United States, be it drought, cyclones, or tornados. We’ve seen flooding year after year,” says Blakely, who led the Hurricane Katrina recovery in New Orleans. “We need to be catching up to the game, not adding to the destruction.”

The threats are different from place to place and ecosystem to ecosystem, but there are broadscale ways to address climate-related disasters. Communities can store and reuse water, instead of relying on manmade infrastructure to fend it off. They can plan for uncertainty, anticipate a range of futures, and implement adaptable long-term plans. They can also collaborate and work across boundaries to manage resources regionally, build resilience, and increase flexibility.

To stay ahead of the game, planners and water managers need to implement changes now, working across departments to integrate land and water planning. “We made a lot of choices that have kicked the can down the road by saying, ‘We’ll do more monitoring or regulation at a later date.’ That time has arrived,” says Bateman, chair of this year’s AWRA conference. “We’re going to have to make some hard decisions. We’re going to need leaders who are willing to make those decisions based on science.”

Holway says organizations like APA, AWRA, the American Water Works Association, and the Babbitt Center can help communities build the capacity they need to implement solutions by providing tools and support, and by helping them connect across geographic and bureaucratic boundaries. “We’re not trying to predict the future, we’re trying to prepare for a range of potential future conditions. Building that awareness and working in new ways can start to change the narrative and lay the groundwork for implementing necessary programs,” he says. “As you look forward, disasters are going to be a constant. They’re going to come one after another, and if that’s the future, we need to prepare for that.”

Resources and Further Reading

The Growing Water Smart program introduces communities to strategies and tools that can help them integrate water and land use planning to better adapt to change and uncertainty. A joint program of the Sonoran Institute and the Babbitt Center for Land and Water Policy, Growing Water Smart has reached more than 80 communities in Colorado, Arizona, and Utah, and is expanding to California and along the Mexican border this year. To learn more, watch our “Growing Water Smart” video.

To learn more about how communities are incorporating water into their planning processes, check out Integrating Land Use and Water Management: Planning and Practice, a Lincoln Institute Policy Focus Report by Erin Rugland.

Connecting land and water for healthy communities is the theme of this year’s American Water Resources Association (AWRA) summer conference, to be held July 17–19 in Denver. The planning committee for this event includes representatives from the Lincoln Institute’s Babbitt Center and many other organizations, agencies, and institutions working to advance the integration of land and water planning. 

Heather Hansman is a freelance journalist, Outside magazine’s environmental columnist, and the author of the book Downriver: Into the Future of Water in the West.

Image: An illustration from the Greater New Orleans Water Plan shows how redesigning streets with rain gardens, pervious pavement, and other elements can help slow and store stormwater, reducing flooding. Credit: Waggonner & Ball.

Tener la visión no es la solución; todo depende de la ejecución. 
—Stephen Sondheim, 1930–2021

M

ientras el mundo lucha contra las consecuencias cada vez mayores de la crisis climática y la aterradora posibilidad de una extinción masiva, dirigentes políticos de todo el mundo responden con una ambición sorprendente. En la 26.ª Conferencia de las Partes sobre el cambio climático que tuvo lugar en Glasgow a fines del 2021, 153 países renovaron su compromiso con la reducción de las emisiones a fin de evitar que las temperaturas mundiales promedio aumenten más de dos grados Celsius para el 2030, y de incrementar las posibilidades de alcanzar el objetivo de emisiones cero a nivel mundial para el 2050. En la misma reunión, más de 140 países prometieron acabar con la deforestación para el 2030.

Mientras tanto, en la 15.ª Conferencia de las Partes (COP15) sobre biodiversidad en Kunming, 70 países acordaron conservar el 30 por ciento de sus suelos y océanos para el 2030 (30×30) como parte de un esfuerzo para preservar los ecosistemas mundiales y evitar la pérdida de biodiversidad. Se espera que muchos otros países se unan al compromiso cuando finalice la COP15 (está se estructuró como un evento de dos partes debido a la pandemia, lo que demostró la complejidad de llegar a cualquier tipo de acuerdo internacional en la situación actual).

Si se logra, la meta 30×30 será una gran contribución para los esfuerzos de mitigación de la crisis climática, principalmente mediante la captura de carbono. Lamentablemente, no falta mucho para el 2030. Se necesitarán más que buenas intenciones para alcanzar esta meta ambiciosa, y las políticas de suelo tendrán un papel fundamental a la hora de pasar de la ambición a la implementación.

El Instituto Lincoln y su Centro de Soluciones Geoespaciales (CGS) desarrollaron un marco geoespacial para acelerar el progreso hacia la meta 30×30. Nuestro enfoque hace hincapié en la importancia de encarar el alcance del problema y sus soluciones desde otros puntos de vista. En especial, creemos que las partes interesadas que están trabajando en pos de la meta 30×30 deben identificar objetivos alcanzables, incorporar una responsabilidad común sobre el suelo en conservación, integrar resultados medioambientales y sociales, incluir tierras públicas y privadas en estrategias de conservación, y tomar impulso a partir de éxitos concretos.

Primero, se debe establecer una referencia que evalúe con precisión el estado actual de la conservación del suelo, tanto en el ámbito nacional como en el internacional. Esto es más complejo de lo que parece. Por ejemplo, en los Estados Unidos, donde los registros del suelo son bastante confiables, la Base de datos de Áreas Protegidas del Servicio Geológico de los Estados Unidos (USGS, por su sigla en inglés) indica que el 13 por ciento de las tierras del país se consideran “conservadas” explícitamente para la protección de la biodiversidad. Según esa métrica, para alcanzar la meta 30×30 es necesario proteger más del doble de las tierras que ya se encuentran en conservación. Si nos centramos exclusivamente en el territorio continental de los Estados Unidos, el suelo en conservación representa solo el ocho por ciento. Esto implica que se debería casi cuadruplicar la cantidad de suelo protegido en los próximos ocho años, una tarea casi imposible.

No obstante, cambiar la forma en que se administra el suelo puede contribuir a alcanzar las metas de conservación sin necesidad de incorporar un 22 por ciento adicional del territorio nacional (178 millones de hectáreas) al suelo protegido. Por ejemplo, las tierras públicas y de tribus representan un poco más del 25 por ciento (202 millones de hectáreas) del suelo de los Estados Unidos. Esas tierras no se consideran como suelo conservado porque se permite la extracción de recursos o no se exige explícitamente la protección de la biodiversidad. Además, los parques urbanos y suburbanos, los senderos y los espacios verdes, y otros terrenos municipales que se utilizan con fines recreativos no suelen tenerse en cuenta como parte de las tierras en conservación. Las tierras protegidas en el paisaje urbano o suburbano son de gran importancia para mejorar la salud de las personas, abordar la injusticia medioambiental y crear corredores y un hábitat para otras especies. Al cambiar la forma en que se administra el suelo, desde prohibir la minería y la exploración petrolera hasta proteger explícitamente la biodiversidad, se puede contribuir para aumentar la cantidad de suelo conservado para alcanzar la meta 30×30 sin necesidad de empezar desde cero.

Las tierras privadas protegidas por la servidumbre de conservación también serán importantes para lograr los objetivos nacionales de protección del suelo. El sistema actual de control del suelo en conservación privada, la Base de datos de la Servidumbre de Conservación Nacional, está desactualizado. Se necesitan incentivos mayores para que los fideicomisos de suelo y propietarios aporten datos sobre sus propiedades que permitan construir un panorama nacional más exhaustivo y preciso sobre la conservación del suelo privado. Esto también conllevará mejores resultados en la administración y la restauración.

Si se combinan la incorporación de nuevas tierras protegidas y la mejora de la administración de las tierras públicas para alcanzar las metas de conservación, el 33 por ciento del territorio continental de los Estados Unidos podría conservarse con rapidez. Sin embargo, si no tenemos cómo identificar qué tierras hace falta proteger con mayor urgencia para respaldar las prioridades de conservación que proponemos, y no contamos con el compromiso de protegerlas y controlarlas, el progreso será muy lento.

En el Instituto Lincoln, creemos que se requiere una estrategia de prioridad equilibrada que tenga en cuenta varios objetivos de conservación (incluidas la protección de la biodiversidad, los paisajes resilientes y conectados, y la captura de carbono), y que no abandone otras metas importantes, como la protección de tierras agrícolas muy productivas o la mejora del acceso a la naturaleza para las comunidades desatendidas. Proponemos una perspectiva integrada y un enfoque exhaustivo que tenga en cuenta a la totalidad del país, analice varias prioridades de conservación, garantice el acceso equitativo al suelo y atraiga financiamiento para la conservación.

Los esfuerzos actuales para elaborar mapas de prioridades no tienen en cuenta el componente social de la conservación, la mejora y la restauración del suelo. Las decisiones sobre la conservación deben fundarse no solo en la biodiversidad y los datos medioambientales, sino también en datos sobre las personas y sus necesidades, relaciones e interacciones con el suelo. Si se tienen en cuenta esos datos, podemos proteger el suelo y obtener muchos beneficios para las personas y la naturaleza. A fin de ilustrar estas oportunidades, el CGS creó un análisis que podría servir de guía para los esfuerzos colectivos de protección de paisajes cruciales. Fieles al espíritu colaborativo característico del trabajo del CGS, estos mapas aprovechan y resumen la sabiduría colectiva de organizaciones y científicos líderes centrados en este esfuerzo, como NatureServe, The Nature Conservancy y el Centro de Monitoreo de la Conservación del Ambiente (consulte la página 9 para obtener más información sobre el trabajo del CGS).

Si recopilamos datos completos y precisos sobre tierras públicas y privadas que están protegidas o deberían estarlo, y los ponemos a disposición de las comunidades para que accedan a estos sin restricciones, podemos lograr una conservación inclusiva y equitativa. Además, podemos integrar otros conjuntos de datos a medida que estén disponibles. Esto nos permitirá supervisar y administrar los suelos conservados, y determinar si están generando los resultados esperados. Es fundamental que se realice una supervisión rigurosa. De lo contrario, no podremos saber si redujimos la escorrentía y los contaminantes en arroyos y ríos, si creamos sumideros verdes para mitigar las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero, o si mejoramos la salud de la comunidad. Tampoco podremos hacer un seguimiento del progreso y celebrar los avances hacia las metas de conservación nacionales e internacionales.

Finalmente, a fin de apoyar los esfuerzos nacionales e internacionales para alcanzar la meta 30×30, debemos establecer una infraestructura de administración que garantice la transparencia y la responsabilidad. La comunicación periódica sobre los esfuerzos de protección del suelo, ya sea que estén a cargo de fideicomisos pequeños o de organismos gubernamentales, creará un marco y un idioma comunes para que todas las partes interesadas comprendan qué función tienen en el panorama general y puedan ver que incluso las pequeñas oportunidades pueden contribuir con esta iniciativa mundial. Cada país deberá contar con una estructura administrativa y de moderación, así como con procesos eficaces para reunirse, tomar decisiones y monitorear el progreso de forma periódica. Las iniciativas internacionales que tuvieron éxito, desde la erradicación de la poliomielitis y la reducción a la mitad de la mortalidad infantil, hasta la reconstrucción tras la Segunda Guerra Mundial, requirieron que la comunidad internacional invirtiera y creara una infraestructura administrativa eficaz. Si se hizo antes, podemoshacerlo de nuevo.

Los Estados Unidos y muchos otros países están listos para hacer grandes inversiones en infraestructura natural y construida. Este gasto público sin precedentes podría mejorar la protección del suelo conservado o que debería conservarse, para mitigar la crisis climática y preservar la biodiversidad, o amenazarlo. Pero no se puede predecir el impacto que tendrán estas actividades sobre un suelo que no reconocemos. Debemos mejorar la administración de datos y del suelo, y poner esta información al alcance de todos los socios para posibilitar esta conversación importante lo antes posible. Si realmente queremos proteger el 30 por ciento del suelo y los recursos hídricos para el 2030, debemos pasar de la visión a la ejecución. El Centro de Soluciones Geoespaciales del Instituto Lincoln está listo para ayudar. 

George W. McCarthy es presidente y CEO del Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 

As climate change creates ever more harm and havoc, one way governments are trying to keep people and property out of peril’s path is to steer new development away from the riskiest places. It’s a just goal whose execution is exceedingly complicated: Telling people where they can and can’t live or what they can do with their land is almost always a fraught endeavor. 

“How do you go about doing that very hard thing,” asks Margaret Walls, senior fellow at the nonprofit Resources for the Future, “when you have private property rights and so forth?” 

It turns out, a 41-year-old federal law may hold some answers to that question.  

In 1982, Congress did something that, by today’s standards, at least, seems almost unthinkable: It passed sweeping environmental legislation with overwhelming bipartisan support. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) had 58 cosponsors in the Senate, and sailed through the House in a 399–4 vote.  

The law initially placed some 450,000 acres of sensitive coastal areas and wildlife habitat along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico shorelines into the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS). Congress has periodically approved the addition of more land over the years, and today the system, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, includes about 3.5 million acres, spanning from the Great Lakes to Puerto Rico. 

The CBRA’s purpose was twofold: to preserve some of our most delicate and dynamic coastal ecosystems, but also to discourage development—and to limit federal spending on things like flood insurance and disaster relief—in risky, storm-prone areas.  

It used a fairly simple policy mechanism to achieve those goals. The law didn’t actually prohibit development inside CBRS units, it simply withdrew some of the underlying federal supports that encourage growth, like infrastructure funding and access to federal flood insurance.  

“One thing that people talk about a lot is that we might be implicitly subsidizing people to live in [risky] places,” Walls says. For example, until recently, the National Flood Insurance Program had long offered coverage at rates that didn’t necessarily reflect the true cost of flood risk, making it less financially ruinous to roll the dice and build in a floodplain.  

It’s hard to isolate and quantify the effects of such subtle subsidies, Walls says. But by carving out designated areas “where you cannot get federal flood insurance, the federal government will not pay for infrastructure, like roads and so forth, and you will not get disaster aid if you’re hit by a disaster,” she says, “the Coastal Barrier Resources Act provides this natural experiment.” 

Four decades into that experiment, research is showing just how effective the CBRA has been at keeping homes out of harm’s way. Simply shifting the cost and risk of coastal development onto private property owners or local governments seems to have been a particularly powerful nudge—enough to prevent untold families from living in disaster areas waiting to happen, and to preserve hundreds of miles of fragile coastal ecosystems.  

In a study commissioned by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, researchers at Resources for the Future are using historical maps and geospatial machine learning to compare hundreds of CBRS units along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts with a matching set of “control units”—that is, areas that weren’t placed in the CBRS, but which easily could have been, because they shared similar geomorphic features and development density in the early 1980s. Among other criteria, “We looked at roads, we looked at elevation, and we looked at land cover in the ‘80s,” says environmental economist Yanjun ‘Penny’ Liao, a fellow at Resources for the Future.  

What the team has found so far, as described in the working paper, is that a CBRS designation reduced development by an astonishing 85 percent, as compared to within a control unit. That effect was consistent even in CBRS units facing high development pressure from nearby metro areas, Liao says.   

Amy Cotter, director of climate strategies at the Lincoln Institute, is hopeful this research can complement the organization’s work with the Climigration Network, to help communities that are wrestling with “incredibly difficult decision making” around rebuilding or relocating in the face of repeated flood disasters.  

“We see the way in which sea level rise and other chronic effects of climate change show no sign of abating and, in fact, show every sign of being faster and more severe than anticipated,” Cotter says. “How do we take what we know about market responses to government policies and incentives, and help develop programs that still allow people to practice self-determination and make choices, but with market signals that are actually more accurate and reflect the risk of creating a home in a particular place?”  

The Spillover Effect

Interestingly, the CBRA hasn’t just protected coastal lands, or the homes and lives of the people who might have otherwise built on them. The researchers are also studying spillover effects in communities within a two-kilometer radius of either a CBRS unit or a control unit.  

While development just about stopped inside CBRS boundaries after 1982, immediately adjacent areas saw a 20 to 30 percent boost in development density compared to communities near control units. CBRS-adjacent neighborhoods also had higher average property values.  

The RFF researchers believe they’re the first to document these spillover effects, which could offer important lessons for policymakers. For one thing, the study shows that the conservation of buildable land doesn’t have to erode a city’s property tax revenues. Liao says the increased rate and value of the development within two kilometers of CBRS units more than offset the property tax revenue the smaller, preserved areas could have generated had they been built up.  

And while there could be many reasons for the higher property values found in CBRS-adjacent areas, such as the prized proximity to a pristine piece of nature, Liao wonders if one of them could be the flood protection offered by undeveloped land. The researchers found that the intensity of flood damage, as measured by claims per $1,000 of coverage, was 25 percent lower in areas just outside a CBRS unit, as compared to communities next to control areas. 

“By conserving natural land inside the units, they can serve as a kind of buffer when there’s a storm,” Liao says, “so it can protect the land that’s right behind them.”   

Cotter says the research offers a glimpse at a more sensible approach to policy in flood-prone areas. “What alternatives could we explore that would diminish not only the expense, but the real loss and trauma associated with the kind of damage that the flood insurance program intends to fix?” she asks. “What would it look like to designate more of these areas?” 

In fact, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in April sent to Congress a set of revised maps that would add about 277,000 acres to the Coastal Barrier Resources System in nine states most impacted by 2012’s Hurricane Sandy. (One of the proposed sites, it turns out, is an area RFF researchers chose as a control unit, lending extra credibility to their mapping process.)  

The revised maps will only take effect once passed by Congress, but a Senate bill introduced in December would adopt the revisions, and already has bipartisan support. 

Walls would like to investigate that same question—and whether a similar program could work in inland areas facing riverine flood risk—with additional research. “Should we be thinking about more additions to the system? There’s still a fair amount of undeveloped land in risky coastal areas,” she says. “I don’t think we feel like we could completely weigh in on that yet . . . but I think it’s an interesting next question to look at.”  

Adapting the program for use in already developed flood-prone areas would be challenging; when the sites were chosen in 1982, CBRA units were virtually empty, with no more than one structure per five acres. But since the CBRA doesn’t actually ban development outright, a CBRS designation would leave any existing property owners in control of what is typically an agonizing decision. If coupled with pro-growth policies in better-protected places nearby, Cotter wonders if the combination could encourage and support people grappling with climate migration—nudging them toward a safer alternative that’s still within proximity of their jobs, childcare, and familial support networks. 

“If you can be surgical about your identification of those CBRS units, so that they not only prevent development in an at-risk area, but they preserve important buffers to an adjacent area, that sounds like a win-win,” Cotter says. “It suggests quite an elegant approach to preserving what you need in order to reduce the risk” in nearby neighborhoods.    

Jon Gorey is a staff writer for the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Image: A stretch of coast in South Kingstown, Rhode Island, that contains land protected by the Coastal Barrier Resources Act. Credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

This is an edited excerpt from an article published by the International Land Conservation Network.

Leaders and conservationists from more than 190 countries came together in Montreal from December 7 to 19 to address urgent threats to biodiversity at the COP15 global conference. A team from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy participated in the historic event, promoting the role that private and civic land conservation can play in the international effort to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by the end of the decade.

Formally known as the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, COP15 resulted in a historic agreement, the Kunming̵–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which serves as a roadmap toward a nature-positive future in which species and ecosystems thrive. COP15 has been compared in significance to its better-known counterpart, COP21, the 2015 UN climate conference where nearly 200 parties pledged to take action to mitigate climate change by signing the Paris Agreement.

A pillar of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework is the formalization of the 30×30 goal, an effort to protect at least 30 percent of the world’s lands, oceans, coastal areas, and inland waters by 2030. This goal prioritizes areas based on the value of their biodiversity and aims to create ecologically representative, well-connected, and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. It also recognizes Indigenous and traditional territories and emphasizes respect for the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. The Kunming–Montreal framework also addresses issues including financial support for developing countries, harmful subsidies, food waste, and corporate transparency.

Four staff members from the Lincoln Institute joined more than 18,000 participants from 196 countries at COP15: Jim Levitt, director of the International Land Conservation Network (ILCN); Chandni Navalkha, ILCN associate director of sustainably managed land and water resources; Zhi Liu, director of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy (PLC); and Shenmin Liu, ILCN regional representative for Asia.

On the first day of the conference, ILCN and PLC co-hosted a daylong event with the Global Environmental Institute, Africa Wildlife Foundation, and other non-governmental organizations. The event, which centered on strengthening non-state actors’ efforts to support multi-goal and multi-benefit biodiversity conservation and sustainable development initiatives, attracted more than 100 participants from civil society, academia, the business sector, youth groups, and local communities. Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, executive secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, spoke about the critical role of civil society organizations in implementing the new framework. Levitt gave a keynote presentation on leveraging international and cross-sectoral expertise to help create an effective, trusted, and connected global network for private and civic land conservation. He described successful examples of collaborative civic conservation including the FONAG water fund in Quito, Ecuador, and Tallurutiup Imanga National Marine Conservation Area in Nunavut, Canada.

At a separate event, Shenmin Liu spoke about the importance of engaging youth in the conservation movement and the power young people hold as the future stewards of the planet. The ILCN and the Nature Conservancy of Canada also hosted a gathering for ILCN network members attending COP15, with participants hailing from Canada, China, Australia, Spain, South Africa, Kenya, Liberia, and other countries.

In addition to yielding a landmark agreement among the world’s nations to protect and restore biodiversity, COP15 served as a springboard for ongoing work. For example, delegates sowed the seeds for the establishment of a multilateral fund to enable equitable benefit sharing between providers and users of emerging agricultural technology. Details of the fund are set to be finalized at COP16 in Turkey in 2024, where signatories of the Kunming-Montreal Declaration will assess progress on their efforts to address the current biodiversity crisis and ensure a sustainable future for the planet.

Shenmin Liu is a research analyst with the Lincoln Institute and ILCN representative for Asia.

Image: Lincoln Institute staff and global partners at COP15 in December 2022. Credit: Shenmin Liu.

A

32 kilómetros río arriba de Portland, Maine, se encuentra el lago Sebago, la segunda masa de agua más profunda del estado. El lago abastece de agua potable al 16 por ciento de la población de Maine, incluidos los habitantes de Portland, la ciudad más grande del estado. Contiene casi un billón de galones de agua transparente y fría. La empresa de suministro de agua de Portland obtuvo una de las 50 exenciones federales de filtración del país, lo que significa que el agua, aunque reciba tratamiento para eliminar los microorganismos, no necesita pasar por un proceso de filtrado antes de llegar a los grifos de la ciudad.

“La razón principal por la que es tan pura es que la mayor parte de la cuenca sigue estando forestada”, dice Karen Young, directora de Sebago Clean Waters, una coalición que trabaja para proteger la zona. El 84 por ciento de la cuenca de 94.696 hectáreas está cubierto de bosques: una mezcla de pinos, robles, arces y otras especies que filtran el agua y ayudan a que este sistema funcione tan bien. Pero esos bosques están amenazados. Entre 1987 y 2009, la cuenca perdió alrededor del 3,5 por ciento de su cubierta forestal. Solo se conservó el 10 por ciento de la superficie. En 2009, 2014 y 2022, el Servicio Forestal de los EE.UU. clasificó la cuenca del Sebago como una de las más vulnerables del país debido a las amenazas del desarrollo.

En las últimas dos décadas, los grupos conservacionistas empezaron a preocuparse por el futuro de este recurso crítico, al igual que lo hizo Portland Water District (PWD). PWD, una empresa independiente que presta servicio a más de 200.000 personas en el área metropolitana de Portland, compró 688 hectáreas alrededor de la toma de agua en 2005 y adoptó una política de preservación del suelo en 2007. En 2013, estableció un programa para apoyar proyectos de conservación emprendidos por fideicomisos locales y regionales.

La mayoría de estas organizaciones trabajaron de forma independiente hasta 2015, cuando The Nature Conservancy las reunió a fin de desarrollar un plan de conservación para el afluente más importante del lago, el río Crooked. Esa reunión se convirtió en la coalición Sebago Clean Waters, que comprende nueve grupos de conservación locales y nacionales, PWD y miembros de la comunidad empresarial que brindan su apoyo. Mientras exploraban formas creativas de proteger el lago y las tierras que lo rodean, surgió la idea de crear un fondo de agua.

Los fondos de agua son asociaciones público-privadas en las que los beneficiarios río abajo, como los servicios públicos y las empresas, invierten en proyectos de conservación río arriba para proteger una fuente de agua y, por extensión, para garantizar que el suministro que llega a los usuarios sea lo más limpio y abundante posible. En 2016, Spencer Meyer, de la fundación Highstead Foundation (uno de los grupos que fundó Sebago Clean Waters), viajó a Quito, Ecuador, con The Nature Conservancy. El grupo visitó a representantes del Fondo para la Protección del Agua (FONAG), un ejemplo líder de este modelo novedoso de protección del agua de origen. Meyer encontró algunas similitudes con la situación de Maine.

“Pensamos: ‘¿Y si pudiéramos reunir a los socios en un sistema completo para acelerar el ritmo de la conservación?’”, comenta Meyer. “¿Podríamos aplicar ese modelo a una cuenca saludable para adoptar una postura proactiva y construir este modelo financiero en un lugar en el que no sea demasiado tarde?”

Un fondo de agua es una herramienta financiera, pero también es un mecanismo de gobernanza y un marco de gestión que reúne a múltiples partes interesadas. El fondo de Quito, lanzado en el año 2000, es el más antiguo del mundo. Hay proyectos similares que proliferaron en todo el mundo, en especial en América Latina y África. Según The Nature Conservancy, hay más de 43 fondos de agua en funcionamiento en 13 países, en 4 continentes y, al menos, 35 más en proceso de desarrollo.

La importancia de contar con cuencas sanas 

El agua limpia es el recurso más importante a nivel mundial. Cuando las cuencas río arriba están sanas, recogen, almacenan y filtran el agua. Esto proporciona un recurso que puede apoyar la adaptación al cambio climático, la seguridad alimentaria y la resiliencia de las comunidades, además de satisfacer las necesidades básicas de hidratación y saneamiento. Cuando las cuencas no están sanas, los sedimentos obstruyen los sistemas de filtración del agua, los contaminantes fluyen río abajo y los ecosistemas se degradan. 

Esa diferencia es crítica. Según un informe de The Nature Conservancy, es probable que más de la mitad de las ciudades del mundo y el 75 por ciento de la agricultura de regadío ya enfrenten una escasez recurrente de agua (Richter 2016). El cambio climático potencia las sequías extremas, desde el oeste de los Estados Unidos hasta Australia, y la contaminación por fuentes como el nitrógeno y el fósforo, se multiplicó por nueve en el último medio siglo. En muchas ciudades, la fuente de agua está muy lejos y bajo una jurisdicción diferente, lo que dificulta la regulación y el tratamiento. 

The Nature Conservancy también calcula que, actualmente, 1.700 millones de personas que viven en las ciudades más grandes del mundo dependen del agua que fluye de cuencas vulnerables a cientos de miles kilómetros de distancia (Abell et al., 2017). Esto pone a prueba tanto los sistemas ecológicos como la infraestructura, y la demanda no hace más que crecer. Para el año 2050, dos tercios de la población mundial vivirán en esas ciudades. Ese nivel de demanda simplemente no sería sostenible, en especial en un clima que cambia rápidamente. Los fondos de agua pueden ser soluciones creativas y de varios niveles para dos cuestiones urgentes e interrelacionadas: la calidad y la cantidad del agua. 

“Los fondos de agua se sitúan en la intersección del suelo, el agua y el cambio climático”, afirma Chandni Navalkha, codirectora de Gestión Sostenible de los Recursos Terrestres e Hídricos del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo. “Son un ejemplo del tipo de gobernanza y colaboración intersectoriales y entre varias partes interesadas que se requiere para garantizar la seguridad del agua en un clima cambiante”. 

Hace poco, Navalkha supervisó el desarrollo de un caso de estudio sobre la iniciativa Sebago Clean Waters, que el Instituto Lincoln distribuirá a través de su Red Internacional de Conservación del Suelo (Sargent 2022). Cambiar la forma en que históricamente se gestionó el agua no es fácil, sobre todo porque está relacionada con cuestiones como la planificación urbana, el crecimiento económico y la salud pública. Por ello, grupos como el Instituto Lincoln y The Nature Conservancy trabajan con el objetivo de difundir el modelo de fondos de agua mostrando la ciencia que hay detrás de la protección del agua de origen, dando a las comunidades herramientas a fin de encontrar soluciones específicas para los ecosistemas y compartiendo las experiencias de lugares como Portland y Quito. 

Lecciones aprendidas de Quito 

A fines de la década de 1990, a los funcionarios del Distrito Metropolitano de Quito comenzó a preocuparles la posibilidad de quedarse sin agua suficiente para abastecer a los 2,6 millones de habitantes de la ciudad. Los ecosistemas río arriba que abastecían los acuíferos de la ciudad se estaban erosionando y ese impacto comenzaba a notarse río abajo.

El 80 por ciento del suministro de agua de la ciudad provenía de zonas protegidas dentro de su cuenca: la Reserva Ecológica Antisana, el Parque Nacional Cayambe–Coca y el Parque Nacional Cotopaxi.

“Pero solo eran parques de papel”, dice Silvia Benitez, que trabaja para The Nature Conservancy como gerente de seguridad hídrica de la región de América Latina. En lugar de estar protegidos, los páramos (pastizales de gran biodiversidad y altitud que albergan una variedad de especies endémicas poco comunes y filtran el suministro de agua río arriba) se enfrentaban a múltiples amenazas por el pastoreo de ganado, la agricultura no sostenible y la construcción. En los lugares donde la conservación era una opción posible, la falta de financiamiento dificultaba su implementación.

Benitez dice que los gestores del agua sabían que había que abordar la situación, por lo que la Empresa Pública Metropolitana de Agua Potable y Saneamiento de Quito y The Nature Conservancy crearon un fondo para apoyar el ecosistema río arriba con US$ 21.000 de capital inicial. En los años siguientes, crearon una junta con participación pública, privada y de ONG de la cuenca, incluidos la Empresa Eléctrica Quito, la Cervecería Nacional, el Consorcio CAMAREN, que ofrece capacitación en política social y medioambiental, y The Tesalia Springs Company, una multinacional de bebidas. Todos esos actores tenían un interés en el agua y cada uno aportaba al fideicomiso todos los años.

En la actualidad, el FONAG está regulado por la Ley de Mercado de Valores de Ecuador y cuenta con una dotación financiera creciente de US$ 22 millones. Ese financiamiento se utiliza para apoyar proyectos medioambientales río arriba, como la capacitación agrícola y la restauración de vegetación en los páramos, lo que ayuda a limitar la sedimentación.

“Es un mecanismo financiero que aprovecha las inversiones de los sectores público y privado para proteger y restaurar los bosques y los ecosistemas”, dice Adriana Soto, directora regional de The Nature Conservancy para Colombia, Ecuador y Perú. También es una forma de gestionar el agua con visión de futuro, según Soto, que antes fue viceministra del Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible de Colombia y forma parte de la junta directiva del Instituto Lincoln. La infraestructura hídrica tradicional, a menudo llamada infraestructura gris, consiste en tuberías, sistemas de filtración de agua y tratamientos químicos diseñados para purificar el agua antes de su uso. Durante mucho tiempo se confió en la infraestructura gris para garantizar que el agua fuera potable y accesible. Pero es cara y requiere mucha energía, puede tener un impacto negativo en la vida silvestre y los ecosistemas, y se descompone con el tiempo. El cambio climático también supone una amenaza para la infraestructura gris; por ejemplo, el aumento de los incendios forestales generó un aumento de la sedimentación que ahoga las plantas de filtración existentes y los ciclos virulentos de tormentas desbordan las plantas de tratamiento de aguas y otra infraestructura clave.

Por el contrario, la infraestructura verde es un enfoque de gestión del agua que se inspira en la naturaleza. La protección de las fuentes río arriba es una forma de inversión en infraestructura verde que puede ayudar a aliviar la presión sobre los sistemas hídricos. Hay casi tantas formas de gestionar agua de origen como fuentes de agua, pero el informe “Urban Water Blueprint” de The Nature Conservancy, que estudió más de 2.000 cuencas, identifica cinco arquetipos: protección de los bosques, reforestación, buenas prácticas de gestión agrícola, restauración del área ribereña y reducción del combustible forestal (McDonald y Shemie 2014).

Por ejemplo, en los páramos de Quito, el FONAG financió proyectos para mantener el ganado alejado de los pastizales más frágiles y contrató a guardias para frenar la quema de malezas, ya que la reconstrucción del ecosistema era una prioridad absoluta. El fondo, que trabaja en casi 5.180 kilómetros cuadrados, protegió más de 28.327 hectáreas de suelo. Este esfuerzo benefició a más de 3.500 familias, ya que les brindó financiamiento para apoyar operaciones agrícolas sostenibles y rentables.

“Una de las cosas buenas de la estrategia son los resultados sociales y económicos”, dice Soto. “No solo aborda la cuestión de la regulación del agua, sino también la resiliencia ante el cambio climático y la conservación de la biodiversidad. Además, fortalece a las comunidades y crea igualdad de género. La mayoría de las tierras agrícolas están a cargo de mujeres”.

El modelo de Quito inspiró a muchos otros fondos de agua, varios creados por The Nature Conservancy. Como estos ejemplos, cada uno tiene estrategias específicas según el lugar y las estructuras de financiamiento: 

• En 2021, el Fondo de Agua de Ciudad del Cabo invirtió US$ 4,25 millones en quitar vegetación invasora, como los eucaliptos y los pinos, que absorbían un estimado de 15.000 millones de galones de agua por año de una cuenca que enfrenta la sequía, el equivalente a dos meses de suministro de agua. The Nature Conservancy calculó que las soluciones con mayor nivel tecnológico, como las plantas de desalinización o los sistemas de reutilización de aguas residuales, costarían 10 veces más. 
• Desde que se creó el Fondo de Agua Alto Tana-Nairobi en 2015, los organizadores trabajaron con decenas de miles de las 300.000 granjas agrícolas pequeñas de la cuenca para evitar que el sedimento se escurra por las pendientes escarpadas de la región hasta el río Tana, que provee agua al 95 por ciento de los 4 millones de habitantes de Nairobi. El esfuerzo redujo la concentración de sedimentos en un 50 por ciento, aumentó la producción de agua anual durante la temporada seca en un 15 por ciento e incrementó el rendimiento agrícola en US$ 3 millones por año. En 2021, el fondo se convirtió en una entidad independiente registrada en Kenia. 

• Los químicos que se usan en la producción convencional de bambú contaminaban la reserva Longwu de China, que provee agua potable a dos pueblos de 3.000 habitantes. Con una inversión inicial de US$ 50.000, el Fondo de Agua Longwu ayudó a los agricultores locales a adoptar métodos agrícolas orgánicos e integrales que ahora se usan en el 70 por ciento de los bosques de bambú del área. Además, fomenta el ecoturismo y brinda programas de educación medioambiental. En 2021, el servicio de agua y el gobierno local acordaron pagarle al fondo en nombre de todos los usuarios del servicio de agua. 

Medir el progreso 

A fin de crear un fondo de agua, se deben establecer sistemas de gobernanza, asegurar el financiamiento, identificar los objetivos de conservación y definir puntos de referencia para medir los progresos. “El desarrollo del argumenbto comercial es difícil: se debe calcular cuánto dinero se necesita y se debe saber dónde se va a invertir”, dice Soto.

Una parte del caso de negocio consiste en demostrar el beneficio ecológico y financiero de un fondo. Soto dice que ese es el mayor desafío, porque los beneficios de la conservación son a largo plazo y no se observan de inmediato. 

“La cuestión del agua es complicada”, dice. “El desafío no es solo el tiempo (tenemos que demostrar resultados durante muchos años), sino también el resultado general. ¿En qué medida la calidad o la cantidad del agua se deben al fondo de agua?”. Dice que al FONAG le costó encontrar una forma de cuantificar eso, pero los investigadores de la Universidad San Francisco de Quito ayudaron a establecer un sistema de supervisión que rastreaba la calidad y la cantidad del agua. Ese sistema se usó para registrar el progreso y mostrarles a los inversionistas los beneficios directos de este proyecto.

“No es fácil de vender, sobre todo cuando se trata de comprometer fondos por 50 o 70 años”, dice Benitez. “Pero ahora, 20 años después, tenemos muchas herramientas para mostrar los beneficios de las soluciones con base en la naturaleza”.

Dice que durante esos años, a medida que The Nature Conservancy introdujo fondos de agua en Colombia, Brasil y otros países, han aprendido a mostrarles a los socios potenciales resultados concretos y medibles, y han reunido herramientas y datos cientificos a para respaldar el trabajo.

Ampliación a escala 

Con los años, se consideró que el proyecto de Quito tuvo éxito, pero una cosa es la creación de un único fondo de agua y otra es la ampliación del concepto. A medida que el modelo de los fondos de agua se extendió a otros países y continentes, surgieron desafíos.

Cambiar la forma de pensar y operar de las instituciones del agua requiere tiempo y negociación. En cuanto al aspecto financiero, los costos de transacción y de establecimiento pueden ser elevados, y no hay un marco claro para comparar los costos de las soluciones con base en la naturaleza y las infraestructuras grises. Desde el punto de vista logístico, el establecimiento de un fondo nunca se realiza de la misma manera. Por ejemplo, el problema de las especies invasoras en Ciudad del Cabo es diferente al de las necesidades de protección del páramo en Quito.

Para hacer frente a estos desafíos, The Nature Conservancy, junto con el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo, la Fundación FEMSA, el Fondo Mundial para el Medio Ambiente y la International Climate Initiative, formaron la Alianza Latinoamericana de Fondos de Agua en 2011. El objetivo de la alianza, que se describe en From the Ground Up, un informe de enfoque en políticas del Instituto Lincoln (Levitt y Navalkha 2022), es ampliar el desarrollo de los fondos de agua en la región y proporcionar un modelo internacional sobre cómo ayudar a los centros urbanos a proteger el agua de origen.

Un año después de su puesta en marcha, la alianza publicó un manual destinado a proporcionar recursos que pudieran orientar el trabajo en todas partes, aunque cada lugar se enfrentara a desafíos específicos (TNC 2012). “Hay fondos de agua que trabajan con grupos de pueblos nativos río arriba y hay otros que trabajan con propietarios grandes o agricultores pequeños”, dice Benitez. “El objetivo común es llegar a un acuerdo con los grupos y establecer las responsabilidades del fondo”.

Es diferente en cada caso, pero hay ciertos elementos que pueden ayudar a que un fondo de agua tenga éxito, como la participación política. Por ejemplo, Soto dice que en Bogotá, Medellín y Cartagena, los organizadores del fondo se aseguraron de involucrar al Ministerio de Ambiente y al de Vivienda, que se encarga de las aguas grises. “Trabajar con ellos proporciona una plataforma que facilita el cambio de las políticas, de modo que no empezamos de cero”, dice. The Nature Conservancy también ofrece estrategias para involucrar a las empresas y mostrarles cómo apoyar a los fondos de agua reduce su riesgo a largo plazo.

En 2018, The Nature Conservancy fue un paso más allá: creó la Water Funds Toolbox, una caja de herramientas diseñada para guiar a los socios potenciales por las cinco etapas de un proyecto: la viabilidad, el diseño, la creación, la operación y la consolidación (TNC 2018). La caja de herramientas, que se basa en 20 años de conocimientos adquiridos, muestra cómo y dónde puede ayudar un fondo de agua a mantener la calidad y la disponibilidad hídricas. Además, brinda un marco para los aspectos financiero y de conservación de la planificación.

Maine adopta el modelo

En Maine, los miembros de Sebago Clean Waters implementaron esa caja de herramientas. “Desde el principio, nos esforzamos por diseñar Sebago Clean Waters como un modelo replicable del que pudieran aprender otras coaliciones, regiones y fondos de agua”, dijo Meyer, de la fundación Highstead Foundation.

La coalición evaluó la viabilidad del fondo mediante un estudio encargado a la Universidad de Maine. El estudio determinó que reducir las áreas forestales, incluso en un tres por ciento, podría aumentar notablemente los contaminantes. Según el estudio, si los bosques disminuyeran un 10 por ciento, la cuenca quedaría por debajo de las normas federales de filtración y agrega: “Proteger la exención de evitar la filtración les ahorra a PWD y a sus clientes un estimado de US$ 15 millones al año en los costos anuales adicionales previstos para una planta de filtración” (Daigneault y Strong 2018). 

El argumento económico era sólido. Los investigadores descubrieron que cada dólar invertido en la conservación de los bosques probablemente produzca entre US$ 4,8 y US$ 8,9 en beneficios, incluida la preservación de la calidad del agua. Sin embargo, si fuera necesaria una planta de filtración, PWD tendría que aumentar las tarifas del agua en aproximadamente un 84 por ciento para compensar los costos de construcción. La conservación de la cuenca también tenía beneficios ecológicos, como proporcionar un hábitat para la trucha y el salmón, reducir la erosión y controlar las inundaciones.

Sebago Clean Waters elaboró un plan para garantizar la conservación de un total del 25 por ciento de la cuenca (14.163 hectáreas) durante 15 años. Comenzaron con proyectos como el Tiger Hill Community Forest, de 566 hectáreas, en la ciudad de Sebago. Esa extensión se protegió mediante una asociación entre Loon Echo Land Trust, miembro de la coalición que trabaja para proteger la región norte del lago Sebago desde 1987, y Trust for Public Land. En 2021, Sebago Clean Waters anunció su participación en un acuerdo que protegería más de 4.856 hectáreas en el condado de Oxford, incluida la cabecera del río Crooked, el afluente principal del lago. La cantidad de suelo protegido en la cuenca aumentó del 10 al 15 por ciento.

La conservación del suelo no es barata ni sencilla, en especial en Nueva Inglaterra, donde gran parte del suelo junto al lago estuvo durante mucho tiempo en manos privadas. Lograr los objetivos del fondo de agua requerirá unos US$ 15 millones. Pero el fondo está cobrando impulso: gracias a una subvención inicial para construir capacidad de US$ 350.000 de U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities, el financiamiento privado y empresarial, y el compromiso de Portland Water District de aportar hasta el 25 por ciento del financiamiento de cada proyecto de conservación de cuencas que cumpla sus criterios, la coalición consiguió hace poco un premio de US$ 8 millones del Programa de Asociación de Conservación Regional del USDA.

Las empresas locales también han hecho su aporte. En 2019, Allagash Brewing, de Portland, ofreció donar US$ 0,1 de cada barril de cerveza que fabricara (un total de casi US$ 10.000 al año). Allagash fue la primera de unas 10 empresas, incluidas otras cuatro cervecerías, que se unieron a la coalición. MaineHealth, una red de hospitales del estado, también acaba de unirse.

“La cuestión del agua potable es tan apremiante que no resulta difícil convencer a la gente de protegerla, sobre todo a las cervecerías, porque la cerveza es 90 por ciento agua”, dice Young. “Las personas comprenden el beneficio como empresas y como miembros de la comunidad”. Le sorprenden las razones por las que se unieron tantos socios. Muchos no lo hacen por su cuenta de resultados; les preocupa la sostenibilidad y quieren apoyar a las comunidades donde viven sus empleados. 

Sebago Clean Waters ha logrado mucho, pero sus socios son muy conscientes de la necesidad urgente de proteger este recurso relativamente prístino. Al fin y al cabo, conservar el suelo y el agua es más fácil que restaurarlos. Una vez que una fuente de agua limpia desaparece, es difícil recuperarla. 

A medida que el modelo de fondos de agua se extiende, revela el verdadero potencial de las asociaciones río arriba y río abajo para lograr un cambio significativo. Esta labor no es sencilla ni inmediata, pero puede tener efectos positivos duraderos en las cuencas y comunidades de todo el mundo. Meyer dijo que el modelo es muy prometedor: “Es increíble ver hasta dónde puede llegar una asociación fundada en la confianza”.

Heather Hansman es una periodista de Colorado y la autora del libro Downriver. Es guía registrada en Maine y una apasionada de los ríos del estado. 

Imagen principal: El lago Sebago, Maine. Crédito: Phil Sunkel via iStock/Getty Images Plus. 

Referencias

Abell, Robin, Nigel Asquith, Giulio Boccaletti, Leah Bremer, Emily Chapin, Andrea Erickson-Quiroz, Jonathan Higgins, Justin Johnson, Shiteng Kang, Nathan Karres, Bernhard Lehner, Rob McDonald, Justus Raepple, Daniel Shemie, Emily Simmons, Aparna Sridhar, Kari Vigerstøl, Adrian Vogl y Sylvia Wood. 2017. “Beyond the Source: The Environmental, Economic, and Community Benefits of Source Water Protection”. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy.

Daigneault, Adam y Aaron L. Strong. 2018. “An Economic Case for the Sebago Watershed Water & Forest Conservation Fund”. Preparado para The Nature Conservancy por el Centro para Soluciones Sostenibles Senador George J. Mitchell de la Universidad de Maine. Orono, ME: la Universidad de Maine.

Levitt, James N. y Chandni Navalkha. 2022. From the Ground Up: How Land Trusts and Conservancies Are Providing Solutions to Climate Change. Informe de enfoque en políticas. Cambridge, MA: Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo.

McDonald, Robert y Daniel Shemie. 2014. “Urban Water Blueprint: Mapping Conservation Solutions to the Global Water Challenge”. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy.

Richter, Brian. 2016. Water Share: Using Water Markets and Impact Investment to Drive Sustainability. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy.

Sargent, Jessica. 2022. “Sebago Source Protection: Collaboration, Conservation, and Co-Investment in a Drinking Water Supply”. Caso de estudio. Junio. Cambridge, MA: Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo.

TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 2012. “Water Funds: Conserving Green Infrastructure”. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy.

TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 2018. “Water Funds Toolbox”. https://waterfundstoolbox.org.